|
2021-TIOL-263-SC-NDPS-LB
Bharat Chaudhary Vs UoI
NDPS - DRI had seized 1,37,665 tablets of different types collectively weighing 90Kgs. (approx.) described as psychotropic substances from four locations, all situated in Chennai - Petitioner Bharat Chaudhary [A-4] is aggrieved by the reversal of the bail order dated 02nd November, 2020 granted in his favour by the Special Judge, EC & NDPS Cases, Chennai whereas Raja Chandrasekharan [A-1] has challenged the dismissal of the bail application filed by him under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Held: Impugned order cancelling the bail granted in favour of Bharat Chaudhary [A-4], is not sustainable in view of the fact that the records sought to be relied upon by the prosecution show that one test report dated 6th December, 2019, two test reports dated 17th December, 2019 and one test report dated 21st December, 2019 in respect of the sample pills/tablets drawn and sent for testing by the prosecuting agency conclude with a note appended by the Assistant Commercial Examiner at the foot of the reports stating that “ quantitative analysis of the samples could not be carried out for want of facilities ” - In the absence of any clarity so far on the quantitative analysis of the samples, the prosecution cannot be heard to state at this preliminary stage that the petitioners have been found to be in possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances as contemplated under the NDPS Act - Further, a large number of the tablets that have been seized by the DRI admittedly contain herbs/medicines meant to enhance male potency and they do not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act - Most importantly, none of the tablets were seized by the prosecution during the course of the search conducted, either at the office or at the residence of A-4 at Jaipur, on 16th March, 2020 - Reliance on printouts of WhatsApp messages downloaded from the mobile phone and devices seized from the office premises of A-4 cannot be treated at this stage as sufficient material to establish a live link between him and A-1 to A-3, when even as per the prosecution, scientific reports in respect of the said devices is still awaited - In the absence of any psychotropic substance found in the conscious possession of A-4, Bench is of the opinion that mere reliance on the statement made by A-1 to A-3 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is too tenuous a ground to sustain the impugned order dated 15th July, 2021 - This is all the more so when such a reliance runs contrary to the ruling in Tofan Singh ( 2020-TIOL-171-SC-NDPS-LB ) - The impugned order qua A-4 is, accordingly, quashed and set aside and the order dated 2nd November, 2020 passed by the Special Judge, EC & NDPS Cases, is restored - As for Raja Chandrasekharan [A-1], since the charge sheet has already been filed and by now the said accused has remained in custody for over a period of two years, it is deemed appropriate to release him on bail, subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court - Petitions disposed of: Supreme Court Larger Bench [para 10, 11]
- Petitions disposed of: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2021-TIOL-2300-HC-AHM-ST
Supertech Engineering Vs UoI
ST - Petitioner challenges the action of revenue authority for passing impugned order as also non-availment of benefit under provisions of Sabka Vikas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - The petitioner has explained the personal family circumstances to urge that he was unable to take recourse to said Scheme in August, 2019 and thereafter he had applied some time later - He was not available locally because of his wife's illness and had travelled to Uttar Pradesh from April, 2019 to February, 2020 and thereafter due to Covid-19 pandemic, he was unable to avail the benefits of said scheme - Considering the expiry of said Scheme on 21.09.2021, there is no scope for the case of petitioner to be considered for said scheme - He has been also repeatedly reminded of availability of said scheme - Last such communication was on 22.05.2020, which is on record - He also had been reminded of O-I-O and the production of copy of appeal along with documentary evidence on 09.07.2019 - This expiry of time period has resulted only on account of laxity on the part of petitioner - Petitioner submits that they had heavily relied upon his Chartered Accountant and personal medical emergency has resulted into his not being in a position to manage the entire issue - He has also urged that SCN has remained unattended and O-I-O deserves to be interfered with as no representation of petitioner has been received - This Court sees no reason for any indulgence in O-I-O passed against the petitioner - There is no case of any breach of principles of natural justice, nor any violation on the part of authority concerned: HC
- Petition dismissed: GUJARAT HIGH COURT |
|
