CRM NO. M-33637 OF 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM NO. M-33637 OF 2010 (O&M) DECIDED ON : 20.04.2011 Surinder Singh @ Bittu ...Petitioner versus Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and others ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI Present : Mr. S. S. Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D. D. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. S. S. Bhinder, Senior Additional A.G with Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No.3. K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) As per allegations of the prosecution, on 23.03.2008, one Indica car bearing No. PB-08-DB-7311 was apprehended in which the occupant was Parshotam Lal Sondhi. He was also the owner of said car. 22 kg 250 gms heroin was recovered from the said car. As per prosecution, the petitioner made statements on 03.01.2009, 04.01.2009 and 05.01.2009 under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S Act admitting that the contraband which was recovered CRM NO. M-33637 OF 2010 (O&M) -2- from Parshotam Lal Sondhi, belong to him and Parshotam Lal Sondhi and confessed before the DRI Officer that packing of heroin was made by him and Parshotam Lal Sondhi and the money was to be equally divided between both of them after disposal of the contraband. It was further admitted before the DRI Officer that the material, which was recovered on 23.03.2008 from his residence, was to be used for packing of the subsequent contraband. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that heroin was not recovered from the petitioner. The statement of co-accused is not admissible in evidence in view of authority “Mangal Singh vs. State of Haryana” 1997 (1) CLR 388 and “Pardeep Kumar Jain vs. State of Rajasthan” 1999 (4) RCR (Criminal) 681. He has further contended that the statement under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S Act of the accused require corroboration in view of authority “Union of India vs. Bal Mukund and others' 2009 (2) RCR (Criminal) 574. The statement made by the accused under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S Act is admissible in evidence. So far as the authorities Mangal Singh's case (supra) and Pardeep Kumar Jain's case (supra) are concerned, in both these cases the charge was framed on the basis of statement of co-accused alone. In the present case there is statement of the petitioner under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S Act. The recovery of contraband is very heavy and according to his statement, he has direct CRM NO. M-33637 OF 2010 (O&M) -3- involvement in respect of the said contraband. So far as authority Union of India's case (supra) is concerned, the same relates to final decision and it is regarding appreciation of statement under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S Act on conclusion of the trial. So, keeping in view Section 37 of the N.D.P.S Act, no ground for grant of regular bail to the petitioner is made out. Dismissed. APRIL 20, 2011 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE