Conviction and Sentence Upheld for Narcotic Offences

Fatima Bibi w/o Safi Safe & Mumtaz D/o Muhammad Siddiqui Versus Inspector of Customs

Fatima Bibi w/o Safi Safe & Mumtaz D/o Muhammad Siddiqui Versus Inspector of Customs - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. Validity of the search under Section 50 of the Act.
3. Admissibility of previous statements under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
4. Non-examination of independent witnesses.
5. Allegation of the stock witness.
6. Alleged tampering with the sample and discrepancies in sample weight.
7. Admissibility of statements recorded by Customs Officers.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Compliance with Section 42 of the Act:
The court found that the Customs Authorities had no prior information about the appellants carrying contraband. The suspicion arose from the appellants' conduct during customs clearance. The information was sent to superiors within 72 hours, complying with Section 42(2) of the Act. Since the suspicion arose in a public place during customs clearance, Section 42 was deemed inapplicable, and Section 43 was applicable. Therefore, there was no violation of Section 42.

2. Validity of the search under Section 50 of the Act:
The appellants were informed of their right to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The notice was in Hindi, but its contents were explained to the appellants in Punjabi, a language they understood. Both appellants opted for a search by a Gazetted Officer. The court held that the requirements of Section 50 were met, and the argument that the notice was invalid due to language issues was untenable.

3. Admissibility of previous statements under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
The court ruled that the statement of PW-4 Faqir Singh in another case was inadmissible as it did not meet the conditions of Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act. The previous proceedings were not between the same parties, and the witness was not shown to be unavailable.

4. Non-examination of independent witnesses:
The court held that the non-examination of independent witnesses was not fatal to the prosecution case. The evidence of official witnesses was found credible and consistent. The court cited precedents indicating that the absence of independent witnesses does not invalidate the prosecution's case if the official witnesses' testimony is reliable.

5. Allegation of the stock witness:
The court found no merit in the argument that Devi was a stock witness. Devi was given up as a witness by the prosecution. The testimonies of the official witnesses were found credible, and there was no motive for them to falsely implicate the appellants.

6. Alleged tampering with the sample and discrepancies in sample weight:
The court found no evidence of tampering with the samples. The samples were sealed and counter-signed by a Magistrate. The minor discrepancies in sample weight were attributed to possible inaccuracies in weighing scales and were not sufficient to doubt the prosecution's case.

7. Admissibility of statements recorded by Customs Officers:
The court held that statements made to Customs Officers under Section 67 of the Act are admissible. The appellants did not retract their statements at the earliest opportunity. The court found the confessions voluntary and corroborated by other evidence. The court rejected the argument that the statements were inadmissible based on precedents that Customs Officers are not police officers under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellants. The prosecution's case was found to be based on credible evidence, and the procedural requirements under the Act were deemed to have been met. The appellants were rightly convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 21 and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.