Page 147 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] QUASIM ALI v. SAJAL BARAN DAS 681

not for the purpose of convicting an accused under any other statute in-
cluding the provisions of the Act.”
22. In The State of Gujarat v. Anwar Osman Sumbhaniya & Ors. relied up-
on by the Ld. Advocate for the petitioner in paragraph 24, which is as follows :-
“24. Even in the present case, it is noticed that the prosecution has essen-
tially relied upon the confessional statement of the accused recorded under
the provisions of TADA. That will be of no avail and certainly not admissi-
ble against the accused in the trial for offences under other enactments, es-
pecially when the Designated Court could not have taken cognizance of the
offence under TADA for lack of a valid sanction. Additionally, in the pre-
sent case, the evidence produced by the prosecution regarding search and
seizure is replete with fatal deficiencies. We do not wish to deviate from the
view taken by the Designated Court that there was no legally admissible
evidence to establish the charges against the respondents regarding offenc-
es under other enactments (other than TADA).”
23. In Moti Lal’s case (supra) relied upon by the Ld. Advocate for the
State, the Hon’ble Apex Court was dealing with the issue whether CBI was au-
thorized to investigate an offence which is punishable under the 1972 Act. In
such juncture the Hon’ble Apex Court decided that CBI had the jurisdiction to
investigate offences under the 1972 Act. The present case do not raise such a
question as the investigation was carried out by the Wild Life Authorities as pro-
vided under the 1972 Act and never this was an issue before this Court whether
the DRI Authorities were empowered to conduct search or seizure or to investi-
gate into the offence.
24. In NMT Joy Immaculate (supra) relied upon by the Ld. Advocate for
the State, the Hon’ble Apex Court was dealing with a situation where a revision-
al application was preferred in respect of a prayer for police remand being al-
lowed by the Magistrate. So far as the facts of the case are concerned initially the
petitioner surrendered and was sent to jail custody. On an application made by
the investigating officer of the case the prayer for police remand was allowed.
During police custody on the basis of the statement of the accused, search and
seizure were affected. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a situation
wherein in an application preferred by the revisionist, the High Court held that
the granting of police remand and consequent confession and the alleged recov-
ery had no evidentiary value. While dealing with the order passed by the High
Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the order of police remand is an
interlocutory order and the revisional application against the same is not main-
tainable. Further, it has been categorically held that what was to be decided on a
full-fledged trial, the High Court merely on the pleadings of the parties gave its
finding holding the police remand and consequent confession and the alleged
recovery had no [evidentiary] value to be illegal. In this case, the Hon’ble Apex
Court was dealing with completely different set of facts and circumstances. The
present case is one, where trial has been concluded, a finding of fact is there and
the issue is whether the materials placed before the Court would be fit and prop-
er for arriving at a finding of guilt in respect of the present petitioner.
25. I have taken into account the submissions advanced by both the
parties, the deposition of the 5 witnesses relied upon by the prosecution, the
documents so relied upon by the prosecution which were admitted in evidence
as also the findings of the Ld. Courts below. While assessing the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, I do not find any material except the oral deposition of the
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  147