2001 (1) TMI 103 - HC - Customs

Court Upholds Conviction & Sentence Under N.D.P.S. Act

IBRAHIM ANSARI Versus STATE OF BIHAR

IBRAHIM ANSARI Versus STATE OF BIHAR - 2002 (147) E.L.T. 47 (Pat.) Issues Involved:1. Compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (N.D.P.S. Act).2. Credibility of independent witnesses.3. Validity of the search and seizure process.4. Admissibility of the accused's confessional statement.5. Sufficiency of evidence to support the conviction.Detailed Analysis:1. Compliance with Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act:The appellant's counsel contended that there was non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act, which requires the accused to be informed of their right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The prosecution argued that the search was conducted by a Gazetted Officer, D.K. Verma (P.W. 1), in the presence of other officials and independent witnesses, thus complying with Section 50. The court found that P.W. 1 had informed the accused of his right and that the accused had volunteered to be searched by him, satisfying the requirements of Section 50.2. Credibility of Independent Witnesses:The appellant's lawyer argued that P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 were not independent witnesses as they were Casual Workers in the Custom Department. The court acknowledged this but stated that the entire prosecution case should not be disbelieved solely on this ground. The court emphasized that there were reliable and cogent evidences from other witnesses to support the recovery of Charas from the accused's possession.3. Validity of the Search and Seizure Process:The prosecution provided detailed evidence of the search and seizure process. P.W. 1, along with other officers, intercepted the accused at Gandhi Maidan, disclosed their identities, and conducted the search, resulting in the recovery of 4 kg. and 150 grams of Charas. The seized articles were properly sealed, and samples were sent for chemical examination, confirming the substance as Charas. The court found the search and seizure process to be valid and in compliance with legal requirements.4. Admissibility of the Accused's Confessional Statement:The accused's confessional statement (Ext. 9) was admitted as evidence. The court noted that the accused had signed the seizure memo and other documents voluntarily. The confessional statement was corroborated by multiple witnesses, including P.W. 1, P.W. 2, and P.W. 3, who testified to the accused's admission of guilt. The court found the confessional statement to be admissible and credible.5. Sufficiency of Evidence to Support the Conviction:The court carefully scrutinized the evidence from P.W. 1 to P.W. 7, who corroborated the recovery of Charas from the accused's possession. The court emphasized that the evidence provided by the Custom Officers was trustworthy and did not require further corroboration by independent witnesses. The court concluded that the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in possession of Charas, justifying the conviction and sentence.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence of 14 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- on each count under Sections 20(b)(II) and 23 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The court found that there was compliance with Section 50 of the Act, the search and seizure were valid, the confessional statement was admissible, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.