Per Section 66 of the NDPS Act, it is presumed the documents and other material seized and/or produced by the person are deemed to be conclusively proved and shall be used against such person unless contrary is proved as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi through a learned bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna in the case of Sachin Makade Bablu Bhagwan Dangre Vs Narcotics Control Bureau [BAIL APPLN. 3487/2020 + BAIL APPLN. 3721/2020].
Brief facts of the case are that during the investigation, reports along with data and exhibited documents were received from SIFS India Forensic Laboratory and from the mobile phones seized from Sachin Makade, data was extracted from mirror image showing huge chatting regard to NRX tablets and chatting with Lutz at Singapore, Bitcoin transactions. Other incriminating documents were also found. Further from the Laptop seized from Sachin Makade, a mirror image of data extracted, showed shipping orders of Tramadols, customer list, rate list of medicine, huge shipping orders, transaction of bitcoins, dark net etc. The CDR show they were in constant touch with customers and were involved in illegal trading of narcotics medicines. Thus, it was urged by the prosecution the accused persons are involved in illegal trafficking of Tramadols and other medicines at international level and thus had violated Sections 24 and 27A of the NDPS and per Section 37 NDPS, could not be released on bail.
The senior learned counsel for the petitioners submits there was no evidence of the petitioner being involved in the drug trafficking. It is argued the prosecution case as also the impugned order is based upon confessions recorded under Section 67 NDPS, but in view of Tofan Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu Criminal such disclosure statements now are not admissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon. It was argued by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that recovery of Tramadol tablets were effected from Dipu Singh and there is nothing incriminating on record to connect the petitioners with such recoveries and the only evidence is information extracted from laptops, mobile etc, are inadmissible under the Indian Evidence Act without the requisite certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
After gone through the submissions of counsels, the Hon’ble High Court stated that “The simplictor statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act may not be admissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, however the disclosure leading to discovery of facts within their knowledge that they were indulging in trade of narcotics, including Tramadol tablets in conspiracy with other accused persons coupled with other incriminating material seized on record is relevant in terms of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Even otherwise, per Section 66 of the NDPS Act, it is presumed the documents and other material seized and/or produced by the person are deemed to be conclusively proved and shall be used against such person unless contrary is proved.” Thus, the petition was dismissed.
Judgement Reviewed by – Aryan Bajaj