STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SRIPAD VIRUPAKSHA BASTIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Initially in all five accused persons were prosecuted for being party to a continuing criminal conspiracy to export from India to United Kingdom dangerous drugs like Ganja and Hashish and for making declarations and statements knowing them or having reason to believe them to be false in all material particulars. Therefore necessary charges were framed for the offences punishable under Sec. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 132 and 135(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, 135(i) read with Sections 135(a) and 132 of the Customs Act and Sec. 13 of the Dangerous Drugs Act read with Sec. 109 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 501 read with Sec. 109 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears from the record that original accused No, 3 Abdul Latif was absconding We are informed by Mr. Parikh, learned Counsel appearing for the Customs Department that now he is informed by the department that he (accused No.3) is reported to be dead, At the trial original accused No.5. Geetanjali Bastikar was acquitted of all the charges levelled against her. Only original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 were convicted on various counts. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment as well as to pay a fine. It further appears that initially the appeal for enhancement of sentence so far as accused No. I, Himmatlal Javeri and accused No. 2, Syed Muzamali was also filed by the State, but it was ultimately withdrawn. Thus the conviction and sentences passed by the trial Court so far as accused Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned stand confirmed and, therefore, in this appeal we are only concerned with accused No. 4, S. V. Bastikar.

(2.) According to the prosecution all the accused persons were known to each other. In May 1970 B.G. Narayan Iyangar, appraiser, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence gathered some information to the effect that some narcotics were smuggled to United Kingdom from Bombay in a consignment declared to contain vermicelli and the persons concerned in India were accused Nos. 1 to 5 and one Sidney Gohen in United Kingdom. The department tried to locate the shipping bills pertaining to those shipments and came to know in March, 1970 that the goods were dispatched per S. S. Ozarda and S. S. Ratna Usha. The Department further came to know that S, S. Ratna Usha would reach United Kingdom by the end of June, 1970. Therefore Iyangar took charge of the duplicate shipping b 11s in regard to these two consignments from the Customs Department. The very day it was revealed that the first consignment was sent by the firm known as Crescent Export Corporation and second by the firm known as Kohinoor Traders, both situated at 510 Churehgate Chambers, New Marine Lines, Bombay. The then Directorate of Revenue Intelligence addressed letters in the second week of June, 1970 to Her Majesty's Customs in the United Kingdom informing it about these consignments. Iyangar also came to know that in or about second week of June, 1970 another shipment of narcotics also described as Vermicelli was about to be dispatched to United Kingdom. Therefore, he started to make inquiries to locate the suspect consignment. On 30th of June, 1970 while scrutinising the documents in the Bombay Port Trust docks in regard to the cargo brought by S. S. Jalveera, he came across a consignment of 20 cases declared to contain vermicelli bound for Hull in United Kingdom. He then went to the dock. He also came to know that the consignment was already loaded on S.S. Jalveera on 30th June itself. The consignment was then directed to be off-loaded. It was then opened and examined in the presence of the panchas and it was found that some of the cases contained Ganja and Hashish. It is not necessary to make a detailed reference to this part of the evidence because it is not disputed before us that the said consignment did contain Ganja and Hashish.

(3.) On 7th of July, 1970 the searches of the residences of the accused persons were taken. On 7th and 8th July 1970 the statements of the accused persons were recorded by the department concerned under Sec. 108 of the Customs Act. The authorities had also gathered certain material in United Kingdom and ultimately on the basis of the evidence collected all the accused persons were prosecuted for the aforesaid offences.