Citation:
2003 SCC 8 449
Case Title:
M. Prabhulal Vs Assistant Director
Date of Judgement:
19.09.2003
Bench:
Y.K. Sabharwal
B.N. Agrawal
Parties:
Petitioner - M. PRABHULAL
Respondent - ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE
Subject
The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the present appeal as it held that Section 42(2) was not applicable when search and seizure were conducted by a Gazetted Officer under Sections 41(2) and (3) of the NDPS Act.
Important provisions
Section 8(c), 29 read with Section 18, and Section 8(1), 29 read with Section 21 of the NDPS Act.
Overview
One Prabhulal of Anna Nagar of Trichy, his brother Shivanarain of Trichy, Mohammed Shabir of Madhya Pradesh, and Logannathan of Dindigul were engaged in dealing with narcotic drugs. Intelligence gathered information that indicated that Shivanarain and Logannathan were likely to proceed to Salem and stay in the National hotel. That they werelikely to receive a huge amount of Heroin from Mohammed Shabir on 15.05.1993. That they werelikely to travel in a car with Reg. No. TNB-9346. Based on this information, a truck and car were caught with 66.1 kg of heroin.
The Special Judge in Salem tried 11 accused for various offenses under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act of 1985. Six of them were found guilty. Two of the convicted defendants won their criminal appeals before the High Court, and the remaining four were appellants in the present case whose convictions and sentences were upheld by the High Court.
Issues
- Whether involuntary statements obtained by torture and harassment can be taken as a confessional statement.
- Whether the examination of police witnesses only and not of independent witnesses vitiate the whole trial proceedings.
- Whether search and seizure on the spot establish any prejudice caused to the accused.
- Whether compliance with Section 42(2) is mandatory when the gazetted officer himself conducts the search and seizure.
Arguments by the appellant
It was argued that the statements on which the appellants were convicted were not made voluntarily, and so their conviction could not be upheld.
The experienced counsel also claimed that because no independent witnesses to the contraband recovery were questioned and only police witnesses were questioned, the recovery became suspect.
The next argument was that the search and seizure were invalid since they took place in the customs office rather than on the spot.
The final and most important argument was that the High Court was incorrect in holding that when a gazetted officer performs a search himself, Section 42(2) of the Act was not needed to be followed.
Analysis of the case
- The Court observed that one of the arguments used to support the claim that the appellants' comments were made involuntarily was the delay in recording their statements.The Customs Office was around 20 kilometres from where the truck and car were seized, according to the court. The stated automobiles, along with accused No. 2, 3, and 6, were transported to the Customs Office due to the significant quantity of heroin.In addition, the first and second accused did not speak Tamil. It was necessary to find a Hindi-speaking officer. Under the circumstances, the court found that there was no discernible delay in recording the appellants' statements.
- The Court went on to say that the appellants made no complaint to the Magistrate before whom they were brought regarding the claim that they had been tortured or harassed. Only after the trial judge recorded their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did they take an ambiguous stance on the torture. The confessional statements could not be considered involuntary in such situation. The assertions were given voluntarily and hence can be repeated.
- It was noted that the evidence could not be dismissed solely because the witness was a member of the police force and was either interested in the investigating or prosecuting agency, but that verification of their testimony, in particular, should be sought as far as possible. On the facts of this case, recovery was unquestionable due to the appellants' voluntary confessions and the lack of cross-examination of independent witnesses.
- The Court noted that no allegation of tampering with the contraband had been made on the facts of the case, and there was no illegality in the seizure of the contraband, either because independent witnesses were not cross-examined or because the seizure was carried out at the Customs Department's office. As a result, the appellants were unable to show that they were harmed.
Conclusion
In this case, the Supreme Court found that Section 42(2) does not apply when a Gazetted Officer conducts a search and seizure under Section 41(2) and (3) of the NDPS Act. Furthermore, the court concluded that the High Court's impugned judgment could not be faulted, upholding the appellants' convictions and sentences, and dismissing the appeals.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
