Criminal Appeal No.957 of 2005,Criminal Appeal No.393 of 2005,Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2006,Criminal Appeal No.326 of 2007

7th October, 2011

Petitioner Counsel: Mrs. B.P. JAKHADE, Mr. GOLE, Mr. ARFAN SAIT
Respondent Counsel: Mrs. A.A. MANE

Cases Cited:
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Pawan Kumar, 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 3475 (S.C.)=AIR 2005 SC 2265 [Para 22]
Francis Stanly @ Stalin Vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Thiruvanathapuram, 2007 ALL SCR 675=(2006) 13 SCC 210 [Para 37]
Chonampara Chellappan Vs. State of Kerala, (1979) 4 SCC 314 [Para 37]
Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail Vs. Spl. Director, Enforcement Directorate, 2007 ALL SCR 2650=(2007) 8 SCC 254 [Para 37]

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- All these four Appeals can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment as the Appellants in these Appeals, who all were accused in N.D.P.S. Special Case No.21 of 2002, were convicted and sentenced by the learned Special Judge for Greater Bombay by one and the same Judgment and Order. The Appellants were accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 29 and 20(b)(ii) read with Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS Act"). After holding a trial, the Special Judge found all of them guilty and sentenced each of them to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and, in default, to suffer R.I. for six months. The Appellants, being aggrieved by the order of conviction and the sentences, have filed the above separate Appeals.

2. The Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.957 of 2005 is the original Accused No.3, the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.393 of 2005 is the original Accused No.1, the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.71 of 2006 is the original Accused No.4 and the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.326 of 2007 is the original Accused No.2. For the sake of convenience, the Appellants shall be referred to by their positions in the trial Court.

3. The said sessions case arose on the basis of a complaint filed by Shri G.B. Wakle, Inspector of Customs, Narcotics Cell, Customs Preventive Collectorate, Mumbai. The case of the complainant, as appearing from the complaint (Exhibit-1), may, in brief, be stated as under.

That, on 18th October, 2001, the officers of the Narcotics Cell of the Customs Preventive Collectorate, Mumbai, received an information to the effect that ;

One Mr. Satish, a drug trafficker, is dealing in purchase and sale of Charas, called Hashish, a Narcotic Drug. Today i.e. on 18th October, 2001 at about 16:30 hrs., he is likely to deliver about 3 kgs. of Hashish to his customer at Band Stand in the garden opposite Bombay Garage, Chowpatty, Mumbai. If you keep a watch at the above place at the above time, you will get the Hashish with Mr. Suresh.

4. That, pursuant to the said information, the officers of the Narcotics Cell of the Customs Preventive Collectorate, Mumbai, went and kept surveillance inside the Chowpatty Garden, Band Stand, Opposite Bombay Garage. Two persons were called and requested to witness the events that would take place in their presence i.e. to act as Panchas. The said Panchas were apprised of the information.

5. That, after some time, a person (Accused No.1) wearing yellow coloured shirt and black coloured pant came to the spot. His movements were felt suspicious by the officers and, therefore, he was apprehended. On being asked, the Accused No.1 disclosed his name as Satish Gajanan Khadpe. The officers then disclosed their identity to the Accused No.1 and asked him in the presence of the Panchas about the contents of the plastic shopping bag, which the Accused No.1 was carrying. The Accused No.1 stated that the bag was containing Charas weighing about 2.500 kgs. and, that, the same was meant for delivery to his customer. The Accused No.1 further disclosed that he had received the said Charas from one Suresh Dudhnath Yadav (the Accused No.2). The officers then, in the presence of Panchas, disclosed the provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and made the Accused No.1 aware of his right to be searched by and/or before a Gazetted Officers or a Magistrate, to which the Accused No.1 replied in negative. Thereafter, the officers took the personal search of the Accused No.1 in the presence of Panchas and some blackish substance was found in the plastic shopping bag, which had been kept inside the outer plastic shopping bag. The substance had a peculiar odour. A small quantity thereof was tested with the help of Field Testing Kit and the test gave positive indication in respect of the presence of T.H.C. i.e. Hashish, a Narcotic Drug. The said substance was weighed and found to be weighing 2.400 Kgs. Three representative samples of the said blackish substance were taken and put in three plastic pouches and sealed. The remaining bulk of the substance was transferred into a separate plastic carry bag and kept inside a corrugated box. The seizure was effected by packing and labelling the samples as also the main bulk of the substance under a Panchanama and the signatures of the Panchas were obtained on the Panchanama as well as on the packets containing the samples.

The statement of the Accused No.1 was recorded under the provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS Act, wherein he, inter alia, disclosed that what was found with him was Charas and, that, the said Charas was given to him by Suresh (Accused No.2); and, that, the said Suresh (Accused No.2) was going to meet him near Shivaji Fish Market at about 7:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on the same day. Pursuant to the said statement, the officers took the Accused No.1 to Shivaji Fish Market and on the Accused No.1 pointing out the Accused No.2, the Accused No.2 was also apprehended. The Accused No.2 admitted having delivered Charas to the Accused No.1 and, that, he had been waiting for Accused No.1 for the purpose of receiving the payment for the said Charas. The Accused No.1 as well as the Accused No.2 were brought to the office of the Narcotics Cell and the further statement of the Accused No.1 was recorded. The statement of Accused No.2 was recorded, wherein he, inter alia, stated that the said Charas had been received by him from one Prem Sahani alias Tadipar (the Accused No.3) on the same day at about 2:00 p.m. and, that, the said Prem Sahani (Accused No.3) lived in Azad Nagar, Link Road, Goregaon. The officers of the Narcotics Cell and the Accused No.2 then went to Goregaon and after reaching Link Road, the Accused No.2 pointed out to the Accused No.3, who was sitting in a Fish Stall near Milan Hotel, Azad Nagar, Goregaon (West). The Accused No.3 was apprehended. He disclosed his name as Prem Sahani. He admitted having given the consignment of Charas to the Accused No.2 and further disclosed that the said Charas was given to him by one Degreeprasad T. Paswan alias Muchchad (Accused No.4). The Accused No.3 stated that the said Muchchad (Accused No.4) stayed in Bhagat Singh Nagar and volunteered to point out the said Muchchad (Accused No.4). The officers of the Narcotics Cell then took the Accused No.3 to Bhagat Singh Nagar and on reaching there, the Accused No.3 pointed out to the Accused No.4. The Accused No.4 was apprehended and, on being asked, disclosed his name as Degreeprasad. The Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 were brought back to the office of the Narcotics Cell for further inquiry. The recording of the statement of the Accused No.2 under the provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which had been left incomplete, was continued. The statement of Accused No.3 was also recorded. Thereafter, the statement of the Accused No.4 was also recorded.

Thereafter, all the four accused were arrested on 19th October, 2001. The sample packet was delivered in the office of Dy. C.C. on 19th October, 2001. After analyzing the sample, it was reported by the Chemical Laboratory that it was Charas and was covered under the NDPS Act, 1985. The corrugated box containing the main bulk of the contraband seized was deposited in the Customs Godown on 1st November, 2001.

6. Thus, the case in short is that the Accused No.1 was found with Charas weighing about 2.400 Kgs. and, that, he had received the same from the Accused No.2. That, the Accused No.2 had received the same from the Accused No.3 and, that, the Accused No.3 had received the same from the Accused No.4. From whom the Accused No.4 had received the same could not be discovered by the Investigating Agency.

7. It may be noted at this stage itself that there is no allegation that any contraband was seized or recovered from any of the Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4. What was recovered was only from the Accused No.1. The case against the Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 is, therefore, based only on their own statements recorded under the provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which are said to be confessional in nature, and on the statements made by the co-accused under the same provisions implicating themselves and the co-accused.

8. As the Appellants were in jail and undefended, they were given legal aid. Smt. B.P. Jakhade, the learned Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.393 of 2005, Shri Ganesh Gole, the learned Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.326 of 2007 and Shri Arfan Sait, the learned Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos.957 of 2005 and 71 of 2006, were appointed from the Legal Aid Panel to prosecute the Appeals.

9. I have heard Smt. B.P. Jakhade, the Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.393 of 2005, Shri Ganesh Gole, the learned Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.326 of 2007 and Shri Arfan Sait, the learned Advocate for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos.957 of 2005 and 71 of 2006. I have also heard Smt. V.R. Bhosale, the learned APP for the Respondent-State, and Smt. A.A. Mane, the learned Counsel for the Narcotics Cell, Customs Preventive Collectorate, Mumbai.

10. I have been taken through the entire evidence and the entire record of the trial Court by Shri Ganesh Gole and Shri Arfan Sait. Shri Sait has also relied upon several authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court in support of the contentions advanced by him.

11. The material against the Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 is only in the form of their own confessions and the confessions made by the co-accused. The Accused No.1, on the other hand, is said to have been actually found in possession of the Charas and is said to have, further, confessed about his guilt before the officers from the Narcotics Cell. Thus, the nature of material that is available against the Accused No.1 is different from that against the Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4. Considering this position, it would be appropriate to first consider the evidence against the Accused No.1 and to examine whether it satisfactorily establishes that the Accused No.1 has committed the offences in question.

12. The prosecution examined nine witnesses during the trial.

The first witness is Gajanan B. Wakle, the complainant himself.

The second witness is Raghunandan N. Koppikar, also an Inspector of Customs Preventive working in Narcotics Cell, Bombay, at the material time. He was also a member of the team that had laid a trap and apprehended the Accused No.1. He is the one who had recorded the statement of the Accused No.1-Satish under the provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS Act (Exhibit-38).

The third witness for the prosecution is Hasamuddin L. Shaikh, also an Inspector attached to the Narcotics Cell at the material time. He was also a member of the team that had laid a trap and apprehended the Accused No.1. He had recorded the statement of the Accused No.2Suresh under the provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS Act (Exhibit-41).

The fourth witness is Rajendrasingh B. Chauhan, who was attached to the Narcotics Cell as Superintendent of Customs. He was also a member of the team that had laid a trap and apprehended the Accused No.1. On instructions from the Superintendent Kohak, he had, along with the team of officers of the Narcotics Cell, gone along with Suresh (Accused No.2) and apprehended the Accused Nos.3 and 4. He is the one who had recorded the statement of the Accused No.3 - Prem Sahani - under the provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS Act (Exhibit-44).

The fifth witness Dharmendrasingh Dayanand, a preventive officer attached to the Narcotics Cell at the material time, was also a member of the team that had laid a trap and apprehended the Accused No.1. He is the one in whose presence the search of the Accused No.1-Satish was taken. He had also gone to Shivaji Fish Market and was a member of the team that had apprehended the Accused No.2-Suresh. On the instructions of Superintendent Kohak, he had also gone to Goregaon along with the Accused No.2 and was a member of the team that had apprehended the Accused No.3-Prem Sahani and Accused No.4-Degreeprasad. He is the one who had recorded the statement of the Accused No.4 under the provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS Act (Exhibit-48).

The sixth witness Umeshwar Nath Sinha is the Chemical Examiner, who had examined and analyzed the samples received by him on 19th October, 2001.

The seventh witness E.R. Narayanan is also an Inspector attached to the Narcotics Cell of Customs at the material time. He was also a member of the team that had laid the trap and apprehended the Accused No.1-Satish. He was also a member of the team that had gone to Shivaji Fish Market and had apprehended the Accused No.2-Suresh.He was also a member of the team that had gone to Goregaon and apprehended the Accused No.3-Prem Sahani and Accused No.4-Degreeprasad.

The eighth witness Vijaykumar S. Shahasane was the Superintendent working in the Narcotics Cell at the material time. He was the head of the team that had arranged for the raid. He himself had received the information from one of his informers, pursuant to which the trap was organized. He is the one who had taken the leading and active part in the search of the Accused No.1-Satish and the seizure of the Charas allegedly found with him.

The nineth witness Ravindra S. Varekar is one of the Panch Witnesses, who had allegedly witnessed the apprehension and search of the Accused No.1- Satish and the recovery of Charas from the bag held by him. He, however, did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. According to him, his signatures were taken by the officers from the Narcotics Cell, on blank papers.

13. The first point which requires determination is 'whether the story of apprehension of the Accused No.1, as stated, and recovery of the Charas weighing about 2.400 Kgs. from him can be safely accepted and believed as true?'.

14. Before proceeding further, it must be observed that one of the Panchas to the alleged search and recovery having turned hostile and the other Panch not having been examined as a witness, the evidence in that regard is only of the officers from the Narcotics Cell. Undoubtedly, there is no rule or law that the evidence of the officers of the raiding team cannot be accepted without the same having been corroborated by atleast one independent witness. The fact, however, remains that when there is no independent witness to support the search and seizure and when the same is intended to be proved only on the basis of the evidence of officers of the raiding team, such evidence needs to be carefully scrutinized.

15. The case of the prosecution is that the secret information in that regard was received by the Superintendent Mr. Shahasane (PW-8) and, that, on his instructions 'to be prepared for some special duty', the complainant G.B. Wakle (PW-1), R.N. Koppikar (PW-2), H.L. Shaikh (PW-3), R.B. Chauhan (PW-4), Dharmendra Singh (PW-5), E.R. Narayanan (PW-7) and others proceeded towards the spot - i. e. towards Girgaon Chowpatty. The Panchas were brought by Koppikar (PW-2). It also appears that some of the officers including Mr. Shahasane (PW-8) were waiting in the garden and the others were waiting outside the garden. The Accused No.1-Satish was actually inercepted by Shahasane (PW-8). Shahasane (PW-8), complainant Wakle (PW-1) and Koppikar (PW-2) were actually present inside the garden. Shaikh (PW-3), Chauhan (PW-4), Dharmendra Singh (PW-5), Narayanan (PW-7) were standing outside the garden.

16. The evidence of Shahasane (PW-8), complainant Wakle (PW-1) and Koppikar (PW-2), therefore, needs to be scrutinized properly with respect to the alleged search and recovery of the Charas from the Accused No.1-Satish.

17. In his evidence, Wakle (PW-1) - the complainant - stated that he along with Shahasane (PW-8) and others had been waiting in the garden opposite Bombay Garage, Chowpatty and, that, at about 4:45 p.m. Shahasane (PW-8) intercepted one person who was wearing a yellow shirt and black pant; and, that, on being questioned by Mr. Shahasane (PW-8), that person gave his name as Satish Gajanan Khadpe (i.e. the Accused No. 1). According to Mr. Wakle (PW-1), the Accused No.1 was having a carry bag in his hand. That, when Mr. Shahasane (PW-8) questioned the Accused No.1, the Accused No.1 said that the carry bag contained Charas weighing about 2.500 Kgs. It is thereafter that the officers of the Narcotics Cell disclosed their identity to the Accused No.1. It is thereafter that Shahasane (PW-8) told the Accused No.1 that he wanted to search him and told him that he had an option to get himself searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. According to Wakle (PW-1), the Accused No.1 stated that he might be searched in the presence of Gazetted Officer. That, the Accused No.1 was offered the personal search of the officers of the raiding team, but he declined the same. According to this witness, "thereafter thorough and systematic search was conducted."

18. The version of Koppikar (PW-2) is also similar. According to him, when the Accused No.1 was noticed, Shahasane (PW-8) identified him and immediately signaled the other officers. That, the Accused No.1 was encircled by Shahasane (PW-8), Wakle (PW-1) and this witness, along with two Panchas. It is, thereafter, that the officers disclosed their identity to the Accused No.1 and Shahasane (PW-8) told the Accused No.1 about the information that he had received against him. The version of this witness is that Shahasane (PW-8) then asked the Accused No.1 as to what he was carrying in the carry bag and, that, thereupon the Accused No.1 told Shahasane that it contained Charas weighing about 2.500 Kgs., for delivery to his customers. It is thereafter that Shahasane (PW-8) apprised the Accused No.1 of the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. This witness does not state what was the reply given by the Accused No.1, but proceeds to state that thereafter the carry bag, which was with the Accused No.1, was opened.

19. The evidence of Shahasane (PW-8) is to the effect that the Accused No.1 was apprehended and the first thing that was done thereafter was that he was asked his name. The Accused No.1 gave his name as Satish Gajanan Khadpe and stated that the plastic bag in his hand was containing 2.500 Kgs. of Charas and, that, he had come there to deliver it to his customers. According to Shahasane (PW-8), the Accused No.1 gave further information also to the effect that he had got the said Charas from one Suresh (the Accused No.2) at Goregaon. It is thereafter that the Accused No.1 was informed about the information which the officers from the Narcotics Cell were having against him and, that, the officers told him that they wanted to search his bag for Narcotics, 'to which the Accused No.1 agreed'. It is thereafter that, that the Accused No.1 was made aware of his right to be searched by and/or before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, as contemplated under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The claim of this witness is that the Accused No.1 declined the said offer and, that, he did not want any Magistrate or Gazetted Officer for the search.

20. I have carefully considered the evidence of these witnesses who are mainly concerned with the seizure and recovery of the Charas from the Accused No.1.

21. Since it is primarily on the basis of the evidence of the officers from the Narcotics Cell that a conclusion regarding the fact of recovery and seizure of Charas from the possession of Accused No.1 is required to be drawn, their evidence needs to be subjected to very careful scrutiny. It must be kept in mind that they all being officers from the Narcotics Cell and members of the raiding party, are bound to concur on certain aspects of the case, in conformity with the record of the case which has been made by them. One is not therefore to be instantly satisfied about the truth of their version because these evidence seems to be in conformity with one another on all major happenings. Their evidence is, therefore, required to be judged in the background of the entire circumstances of the case.

22. Before proceeding further, an important aspect of the matter may be dealt with. It was contended by the learned Advocates for the Appellants that there had been no compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. It has been pointed out that Wakle (PW-1) in his evidence stated that the Accused No.1 said that he wanted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer, but still no such search was conducted and the Accused No.1 was searched without producing him before any Gazetted Officer. Undoubtedly, non-compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act would be fatal to the case of the prosecution. However, Mrs. Mane, the learned Counsel for the Narcotics Cell, Customs Department, has drawn my attention to a decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Pawan Kumar, reported in AIR 2005 SC 2265 : [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 3475 (S.C.)], and contended that the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act would not apply to the search of baggage, article or container carried by the person searched. In the present case, the trial Court has proceeded on the footing that the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were applicable and, that, they had been complied with. The trial Court did not proceed on the basis that the compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not necessary, as what was being searched was only the plastic bag that was being carried by the Accused No.1. However, a reading of the reported judgment cited by Mrs. Mane makes it clear that Their Lordships of the Supreme Court specifically considered the question as to whether the meaning of the words "search any person" occurring in sub-section (i) of Section 50 of the NDPS Act would include within its ambit the search of any bag, briefcase, article or container that is being carried by such person. Their Lordships held, after noticing the previous judgments delivered by the Apex Court, that Section 50 of the NDPS Act can have no application in cases where the contraband article would be recovered from the bag that was being carried by an accused. Since no decision of the Apex Court taking a contrary view in this respect has been pointed out, one has to proceed on the footing that in the present case since the contraband was found after taking search of the bag, which the Accused No.1 was carrying, the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act had no application. Consequently, the failure to comply with the said provisions would not be fatal for the prosecution in the instant case.

23. It may, however, be observed that the conclusion of the trial Court that the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act had been satisfactorily complied with does not appear to be correct to me.

24. I shall now examine whether the evidence of recovery and seizure of Charas from the Accused No.1 inspires confidence. After carefully considering the entire evidence on this aspect, I find that there are a number of infirmities in the prosecution evidence.

25. Though in this case, the failure to comply with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act has to be held as not fatal to the case of the prosecution, the aspect that though the Investigating Agency proceeded on a footing that such compliance was necessary and that still it was not complied with would be quite relevant in the context of judging the sincerity of the officers from the Narcotics Cell and consequently the acceptability and reliability of their evidence. In fact, the information that was available to them was that a person by name Satish was to come to a particular place with a certain quantity of Charas for delivering it to his customers. The information did not state in what manner he was to carry the said Charas. It also appears that the case is that the fact of his having Charas with him was revealed to the officers from the Narcotics Cell immediately after he was intercepted and he was asked his name. If the version of these officers is to be accepted, one has to come to the conclusion that as soon as the Accused No.1 was apprehended and was asked his name, he not only gave his name, but also stated that he was carrying Charas in the plastic carry bag that was with him. The evidence clearly indicates that it is only thereafter that the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were explained to him and he was asked whether he wanted to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. According to Wakle (PW-1), the accused stated that he wanted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer, but admittedly he was not taken to any Gazetted Officer for being searched. Undoubtedly, Shahasane (PW-8) says that the Accused No.1 declined the offer of being searched in the presence of any Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, but the least that can be observed is that the evidence of Shahasane (PW-8) and the evidence of Wakle (PW-1) is contradictory in this regard.

26. However, this is not what I view as significant. The real absurdity in the version of the prosecution lies in the fact that none of the officers say that they took personal search of the Accused No.1 either before or after the Charas was found in the carry bag, that was allegedly being carried by him . Having complied with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, according to them, there was no reason for the officers not to have taken personal search of the Accused No.1. In fact, when the Charas was allegedly found in the carry bag, there was a greater and more reason for them to take proper personal search of the Accused No.1.

27. That the personal search of the Accused No.1 was taken has not only not being stated, but it is otherwise also obvious from the fact that nothing except the said Charas, which was found with him, is said to have been recovered from the Accused No.1. It is quite unlikely that a person would not carry even the normal articles such as some cash, a wallet, handkerchief, comb etc. with him. If the officers are keeping silent with respect to the aspect of personal search and are not coming up with any claim that his personal search was taken and, that, nothing was found with the Accused No.1, their version, being quite artificial and unbelievable, can immediately be doubted.

28. Interestingly, even the other accused, who were supposedly arrested on the basis of the information disclosed by the other accused, were also not searched. This is rather queer, because nothing was found with the other accused. It may be recalled that they have been implicated only on the basis of the confessional statements made by the co-accused and their own confessional statements. Though I shall deal with that aspect subsequently, what needs to be observed in the present context is that, that the officers of Narcotics Cell should not find it necessary to take personal search of a person, who is apprehended by them, after having confessed that he was involved in the sale of a Narcotic Drug creates a serious doubt about the truth of their version with respect to the search and seizure.

29. It may now be examined whether the statement of the Accused No.1 recorded under the provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS Act lends any corroboration to the version of the prosecution. The said statement has been recorded by Koppikar (PW-2). It has already been observed that Koppikar (PW-2) had associated himself with the search of the Accused No.1. According to him, after the Seizure Panchnama (Exhibit-23) was over, he and the other officers returned to the office of the Narcotics Cell along with the Accused No.1 and, that, thereafter Shahasane (PW-8) directed him to record the statement of Accused No.1. He then issued a summons to the Accused No.1, obtained signature of the Accused No.1 on the duplicate, which has been produced before the Court (Exhibit-37). He then recorded the statement of the Accused No.1. He described the manner in which it was recorded.

30. According to Koppikar (PW-2), he asked questions to the Accused No. 1 in Marathi and that the Accused No.1 replied in Marathi. He stated that the Accused No.1 wrote his statement in Marathi. Koppikar (PW-2) then stated that, at a particular point, when the Accused No.1 had told about the Accused No.2 and his availability at Shivaji Fish Market, the recording of the statement was stopped. It may be recalled that the case of the prosecution is that thereafter again a team was formed and the officers along with the Accused No.1 went to Shivaji Fish Market. They then came back with the Accused No.2 and then the further recording of the statement of the Accused No.1 took place. The said statement has been produced before the Court (Exhibit-38).

31. This statement has been recorded by the Accused No.1 in his own handwriting. In this, the Accused No.1 has admitted, inter alia, that he was apprehended by the officers from the Narcotics Cell while he was holding a plastic bag containing Charas. He has also stated that he had received the said Charas from Suresh (Accused No.2) and, that, Suresh (Accused No.2) had demanded Rs.20,000/- for the said Charas, which the Accused No.1 was to give him on the same day in the evening. The Accused No.1 was supposed to sell the said Charas, get money and then pay the said amount of Rs.20,000/- to the Accused No.2. The said statement also mentions that it has been written by the Accused No.1 himself and, that, nobody had forced him in any manner to write the same.

32. It would be appropriate at this stage to discuss the evidence against the Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 also, as the same consists, as aforesaid, of only their own statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and the statements of the co-accused recorded under the same provisions. Since some features of the confessional statements of all the accused are common, such a course would avoid repetition of the discussion.

33. The statement of Suresh (Accused No.2) has been recorded by Shaikh (PW-3). The version of Shaikh (PW-3) is that the Accused No.2 was produced before him and Superintendent Shahasane (PW-8) asked this officer that he had to record the statement of the Accused No.2. This witness, therefore, issued a summons, as contemplated under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, to the said Accused No.2 and recorded his statement (Exhibit-41). That, the Accused No.2 stated before this witness that the Charas, which he had given to the Accused No.1, had been received by him from one Prem Sahani (Accused No.3). The Accused No.2 also gave the whereabouts of the Accused No.3. In his statement (Exhibit-41), the Accused No.2, inter alia, admitted that he had given Charas to the Accused No.1 for Rs.20,000/- and, that, the amount of Rs.20,000/- was to be received by him from the Accused No.1 on the same day in the evening at Shivaji Fish Market. He also stated that he had received the said Charas from Prem Sahani (Accused No.3). At the end of the statement, the Accused No.2 has made an endorsement that he had voluntarily made the statement and, that, he had not been forced by anyone to make the same. This statement of the Accused No.2 has been produced before the Court and tendered in Evidence (Exhibit-41).

34. The statement of Prem Sahani (Accused No.3) was recorded by Chauhan (PW-4). Interestingly, this has been scribed by the Accused No.4-Degreeprasad. According to Chavan (PW-4), the Accused No.3 expressed his inability to write in Hindi and, that, therefore, the Accused No.4 wrote the answers to the queries made by Chauhan (PW-4) to the Accused No.3. This statement of the Accused No.3 has been produced before the Court and tendered in Evidence (Exhibit-44). This is also confessional in nature, in which the Accused No.3 admits having received the Charas from Accused No.4 and of having given it to the Accused No.2. He states that the Accused No.2 was to sell the said Charas and then pay Rs.12,000/- to him out of which Rs.8,000/- were to be given by the Accused No.3 to the Accused No.4.

35. The statement of Accused No.4 was recorded by Dharmendra Singh (PW-5). Dharmendra Singh (PW-5) had taken a part in the apprehension of all the accused. According to Dharmendra Singh (PW-5), after all the accused were brought back to the Customs Office, he was told by Shahasane (PW-8) to record the statement of Degreeprasad (Accused No.4). He then issued a summons to Degreeprasad (Accused No.4), as contemplated under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and recorded his statement (Exhibit-48). The said statement of Degreeprasad (Accused No.4) was produced before the Court and tendered in evidence (Exhibit-48). This statement is also confessional in nature in which Degreeprasad (Accused No.4) has, inter alia, admitted that he had given Charas to the Accused No.3 two days prior to 19th October, 2001 and, that, the Accused No.3 was to give him Rs.8,000/-.

36. A number of contentions have been raised by the learned Counsel for the accused persons with respect to the admissibility and evidentiary value of these confessional statements. Mr. Arfan Sait, the learned Advocate for the Accused Nos.3 and 4, submitted that such confessions cannot be called to be voluntary and, that, at any rate, in the present case it is not possible to accept that any of the said confessions allegedly made by the accused persons were voluntary. He further submitted that the confessions of the accused persons cannot be corroborated by the confessions of the co-accused, in as much as, it would not be 'an independent corroboration'. He has relied upon a number of authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court of India in support of the contentions advanced by him.

37. A reference to some of them would be useful.

In the case of Francis Stanly @ Stalin Vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Thiruvanathapuram, reported in (2006) 13 SCC 210 : [2007 ALL SCR 675], the Supreme Court of India quoted from its previous judgment in the case of Chonampara Chellappan Vs. State of Kerala, reported in (1979) 4 SCC 314, as follows:

"It is equally well settled that one tainted evidence cannot corroborate another tainted evidence because if this is allowed to be done then the very necessity of corroboration is frustrated."

In the case of Raju Premji Vs. Customs NER Shillong Unit, while considering the admissibility and evidentiary value of the confessions recorded by the customs officers under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India stated that even assuming that such confessions are not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, still they must receive strict scrutiny. Their Lordships referred to the decision in the case of Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail Vs. Spl. Director, Enforcement Directorate, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 254 : [2007 ALL SCR 2650], and reproduced the following :

"20.We may, however, notice that recently in Francis Stanly V. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram this Court has emphasized that confession only if found to be voluntary and free from pressure, can be accepted. A confession purported to have been made before an authority would require a closer scrutiny. It is furthermore now well settled that the court must seek corroboration of the purported confession from independent sources."

38. As against this, Smt. Mane, the learned Counsel for the Narcotics Cell, Customs Department, contended that the statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are admissible in evidence and, that, they are reliable.

39. In this case, it must be observed that all the confessional statements have been subsequently retracted by the accused persons. The complaint came to be filed on 14th March, 2002 and a copy thereof, together with the documents including the copies of the statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, tendered on 15th April, 2002. The accused persons, by filing separate applications, have retracted the statements, purportedly made by them, on 8th August, 2002 i.e. before the charge was framed.

40. There can be no doubt that the officers of the Narcotics Cell cannot be considered as Police Officers and, therefore, the confessional statements made before them will not be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the confessional statements made before such officers cannot be excluded from consideration on the ground that their reception in evidence is barred by the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. When there is no bar, a confession made by an accused voluntarily is evidence against him of the facts stated in the confession. However, Section 24 of the Evidence Act provides that a confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable, for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him. It is a positive rule of Criminal Law that no statement made by an accused is admissible against him unless it is shown, by the prosecution, to have been a voluntary statement. There is no onus upon the accused to prove that he did not voluntarily make a confession, which he is alleged to have made. It is for the prosecution to satisfy the Court that it was genuine, and freely and voluntarily made. The question whether a confession is voluntary or not is always a question of fact. It is also significant that in Section 24 of the Evidence Act, the word used is not 'proved' but 'appears'. Therefore, even if there is a possibility felt by the Court that the confession was a result of inducement or threat in a given case, the confession would be excluded from consideration.

41. If the confessions in the present case are examined in the context of their voluntariness, it is at once revealed that though the accused persons are not stated to be under any restraint or detention, factually it cannot be accepted. To show that the accused were not placed under any restraint, a claim that a summons under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was issued to each of them has been made. The idea seems to be to show that the accused have voluntarily appeared before the concerned officer pursuant to the summons. Now, the issuance of summons appears to be a farce to me. It is clear that the accused persons were not free when their confessional statements were recorded. The Accused No.1, according to the prosecution, was taken to the office of the Narcotics Cell after the Charas had already been seized from his possession. He was served with a summons only thereafter and immediately the recording of his statement commenced. When the Accused No.1 was already before the officers concerned, there was no necessity of issuing any summons to him and obviously, as aforesaid, the issuance of summons is only to highlight the claim that the accused was free and was not under any arrest, detention or restraint.

42. That, the issuance of summons was a farce is further apparent from the following. All these summonses mentioned that the presence of accused before the Investigating Officer was required for 'producing documents or things'. The summonses read as under :-

"AND WHEREAS I Shri....... consider your attendance before me necessary for, producing documents or things of the following description in your possession or power."

43. Going by this, we have to accept that the summons was issued for production of documents or things and not for recording of the statement of the accused persons. Interestingly, though the portion reproduced above shows the documents or things required to be produced were to be of the "following description", no description of any such documents or things has actually followed in any of these summonses. Section 67 of the NDPS Act empowers an officer authorized in that behalf to do the following :

(a). call for information from any person for the purpose of satisfying himself whether there has been any contravention of the provisions of this Act or any rule or order made thereunder;

(b). require any person to produce or deliver any document or thing useful or relevant to the enquiry;

(c). examine any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.

44. Apparently, the summonses in this case were issued under the provisions of Clause (b) of Section 67 of the NDPS Act, without specifying what documents or things were required to be produced. However, when the accused 'appeared', they were not required to produce anything, but, instead, their statements were recorded. All this is ridiculous and exposes the prosecution, instead of making it appear that the confessions were voluntary and pursuant to the summonses issued.

45. Even otherwise, the statements at Exhibits 37, 40, 43 and 47 are in question and answer form. If a statement has been written by an accused in his own handwriting, the likelihood of it being voluntary is certainly greater and it is for this reason perhaps that the Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 in this case were asked to record the statements in their own handwriting. However, the advantage which the prosecution wound gain by indicating voluntariness of such statement on the basis that it is in the own handwriting of the accused vanishes, when such statement would be in question and answer form. The very fact that the accused was required to write down not only what he wanted to say, but also the questions put to him by the Investigating Officer, shows that the action of the accused was dominated by the Investigating Officer. It is not possible to accept that without telling an accused to write down the questions put to him, the accused would, on his own, keep on writing such questions. Thus, the fact that the statements of accused persons have been in question and answer form is one aspect which affects the so called voluntariness of the statements to a certain degree.

46. Moreover, the propriety of getting the statement of the Accused No.3 scribed by the Accused No.4 is difficult to understand. The purpose behind requiring the Accused No.4 to record the so called statement made by the Accused No.3 was, perhaps to show that the Investigating Agency did not play any role in creating the record. Apparently, the officers concerned seem to have entertained the belief that this would add to the credibility of the statement. In my opinion, this would, on the contrary, show that the Accused No.4, who was asked to write down the statement of the Accused No.3, was totally under the control of the concerned officer.

47. Thus, the issuance of summonses to the accused persons appear to be a farce and the object behind issuing such summonses was apparently only to emphasize that the accused persons were not under any restraint or detention at the material time so as to enhance the possibility of the statements being voluntary. As aforesaid, the facts indicate that the accused persons would not have been allowed by the Department to go away instead of making the statement and, therefore, they certainly were under some restraint. Further, though the summons was for production of documents or things of certain description, which was supposed to be given in the summons, but which was not actually given, and still only the statement came to be recorded, indicates that a bogus impression about what actually happened is attempted to be created by the Investigating Agency. Additionally, the fact of making the Accused No.4 scribe the statement supposedly made by the Accused No.3 indicates at least the Accused No.4 to be under some pressure. Considering the entire circumstances in which the statements came to be recorded, it seems difficult to hold that they were voluntarily made.

48. While assessing or judging the reliability of a particular piece of evidence, in any case, the entire case of the prosecution and all the relevant pieces of evidence must be considered together. The evidence adduced in a case should be considered as a whole particularly when different pieces of evidence are intricately connected with one another in some way or the other. In assessing the evidence, the sincerity and honesty, with which the investigation appears to have been carried out in a given case, would be a vital factor. There are some strange features of the present case. The first one, as discussed earlier, is that no personal search of any of the accused was taken. This is quite unusual particularly with respect to the Accused No. 1. When Charas weighing about 2.400 Kgs. was allegedly found with him, any reasonable person would expect that his bodily search would be taken by the officers recovering Charas from him. Interestingly, this is particularly so, because the information that was available to the officers was to the effect that the accused would be having Charas weighing about 3 Kgs. with him. When the officers had found Charas weighing only 2.400 Kgs., the natural conduct on their part would have been to search the person of the Accused No.1. That, they are keeping silent about such search is, indeed, indicative of the fact that no such search was taken which is even otherwise clear from the fact that there is no disclosure that any money or other ordinary articles such as handkerchief, comb etc. were found with the Accused No.1, or even the other accused. Even the other accused were expected to be subjected to personal search and the fact that this was not done, leads to a belief that the whole of the prosecution case may be artificial and fabricated.

49. Further, all the accused were handing over the Charas to another accused on credit. None of them had received any amount from any of the others. Interestingly, the source of the Charas was ultimately traced to the Accused No.4, but the Accused No.4 does not seem to have promised to anyone to pay anything for the same. According to the record of his statement (Exhibit-48), he had given the Charas to Accused No.3 and, that, the Accused No.3 was to give him Rs.8,000/- in return, but where from the Charas had been received by him has not been disclosed in the said statement. The Investigating Agency does not appear to have carried out any investigation in that direction and seems to have accepted the statement of the Accused No.4 that he 'did not know' who had sent the Charas to him and where he had kept it. Accepting such type of statements and giving up investigation in that direction, also casts a doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution version. The least that can be said in this regard is that the Investigating Agency wanted to build up a case only on the basis of the statements made by the accused persons implicating themselves and other accused and not to bother itself by carrying out any independent investigations for ascertaining the truth.

50. Another curious aspect of the matter is that the Charas is said to be of value of Rs.96,000/-. The question as to who would give it to the Accused No.4 for less than Rs.8,000/-, in as much as, the Accused No.4 had given it to the Accused No.3 in return for Rs.8,000/-, which were also to be paid subsequently, does not seem to have bothered the Investigating Agency, so as to carry out further investigations. Why the accused persons instead of making profits were bent on selling the Charas at a much lower rate is not clear and this also creates a doubt about the prosecution version.

51. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the learned Special Judge did not address himself to the question as to whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution was reliable. He placed emphasis on the legal position that a conviction can be based only on the testimony of the officers of the Narcotics Cell and without independent corroboration from the Panch witnesses. The legal position, as stated by the trial Judge, is correct, but what the learned Judge should have considered is whether the evidence of the officers of the Narcotics Cell was such so as to inspire confidence about the truth of what they were stating, without corroboration. The learned Judge failed to note and assess the significance of the circumstance that though the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were allegedly complied with by concerned officers, no personal search of the Accused No. 1 was taken. This ought to have been thought as particularly surprising because the Charas found with the Accused No.1 was of a lesser quantity than was expected by the Investigating Agency based on the information received by Shahasane (PW-8). Further, while holding that the statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were not hit by the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the learned Judge did not discuss whether in this case they could be termed as voluntary in the light of the fact that summonses - that too wrongly worded - were served upon the accused persons when obviously the accused persons were not free to leave the office of the Narcotics Cell.

52. It is also seen that the contraband Charas was sent to the Customs Warehouse only on 1st November, 2001. The reason for sending it so late is not forthcoming.

53. To sum up, the testimony of the witnesses with respect to the recovery of the Charas from the Accused No.1, which has not been corroborated by the independent evidence, is not free from doubt. The conduct of the officers and their reactions to the alleged happenings are inconsistent with the normal behaviour of the officers of the Investigating Agency. It would, therefore, be hazardous to accept the testimony to hold the seizure and recovery of Charas from the Accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt. The doubt which arises in that regard cannot be removed by placing reliance on the confessional statements made by the accused, which does not appear to be voluntary. Even otherwise, such evidence emanating from the accused himself cannot be considered as independent corroboration to the alleged fact of seizure and recovery. So far as the other accused are concerned, in the absence of any recovery from or at their instance, they cannot be held guilty of the alleged offences merely on the basis of their own confessional statements and the confessional statements allegedly made by the coaccused. The aforesaid discussion indicates that there are various suspicious features and, therefore, a real and substantial doubt arises about the truth of the prosecution version. In my opinion, this was a case where the trial Court should have given the benefit of such doubt to the Appellants/Accused and acquitted them.

54. The order of conviction, as recorded by the trial Court, is not in accordance with law. The same is, therefore, required to be interfered with.

55. In the result, the Criminal Appeals are allowed. The order of conviction of the Appellants, as recorded by the Special Judge, and the sentences imposed upon the Appellants are set aside.

56. The Appellants stand acquitted. They (each of them) be set at liberty forthwith, unless required to be detained in connection with some other case.

57. Fine, if paid, be refunded to them.

58. Writ of the order be expedited.

Appeals allowed.