Girish Raghunath Mehta v. Inspector of Customs and Another
Background
Acting on intelligence, Customs officials raided the appellant's premises and apprehended a co-accused who had just purchased 30 kgs of crushed opium poppy straw in cash, without a bill, from the appellant. The appellant did not hold a valid licence under the Maharashtra NDPS Rules to sell the quantity involved. The trial court convicted the appellant both for the illegal sale and for illegal possession of a commercial quantity; the High Court, in appeal, upheld the sale conviction but quashed the possession conviction. The appellant then appealed the sale conviction to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The appellant argued procedural violations (non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act on recording of information, missing labels on the seized bag, and inadmissibility of his statement under Section 67). The Supreme Court held that Section 42, which applies to recoveries from a building, conveyance, or enclosed place, did not apply because the recovery here was from an open/public place, governed instead by the less strict Section 43. It also found the appellant's statement under Section 67 was voluntary and corroborated by independent recovery evidence, and that no objection to the absence of a label had been raised at the time the bag was produced in court. Finding the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court well supported by evidence, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the conviction and sentence.
Lesson Learnt
The stricter procedural safeguards under Section 42 of the NDPS Act (around recording information before a search) only apply to searches of enclosed spaces like buildings or vehicles: recoveries made in the open, from a person in a public place, are governed by the more relaxed Section 43, and an accused's own voluntary statement about a drug sale can be used as corroborating evidence against him.