TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (12) TMI 1025
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es, when incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses were put before the accused/appellant, he denied as false. On the side of defence, no oral and documentary evidence was produced. 4. After completing the trial and hearing the arguments advanced on either side and perusing the oral and documentary evidences, the learned Special Judge has come to the conclusion that the accused/appellant is guilty for the offence under sections 8(c) r/w.22 (c) of NDPS Act and convicted him for the above said offence and sentenced him to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default to remit the fine amount, the accused to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. 5. Challenging the said judgment of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, the convict has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that based on the evidence of PW.1 alone, the trial Court has convicted the appellant and that even there is no independent witness examined in this case, when the alleged offence taken place in the airport. Though the case of the prosecution is that on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n ..vs.. Parmanand and another). 8. According to the prosecution, it is an admitted fact that the appellant was intercepted in Anna International Airport Terminal at Chennai on 31.07.2013 and he was in possession of air ticket to Jakarta and also when he reached the security point, at that time, when he was doubted about, the Customs Officials questioned him and as he appears to be severe and nervous, on suspicion, they made a search and found that the slipper was beyond the weight, therefore, they suspected and when it was searched, there was a special designated base in it and they recovered contraband from that slipper in accordance with law and subsequently, it was tested and found as contraband 'ephedrine'. PW.1 took two samples, each weighing 25gm, and also packed and labelled in accordance with the procedures and also sealed the same. After recovery, the appellant was arrested through Mahazar and the arrest was duly informed to their relatives and the contraband was also recovered through the Mahazar. After completing the formalities, he preferred a report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act and based on this report, subsequently, the case was also filed. The report ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and as per Section 50 of the NDPS Act, he had right to be searched either before the Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and that the Superintendent was a Gazetted Officer. The appellant agreed to be searched before the said Superintendent (AIU) and PW.1 examined the appellant's hand bag - one blue and black colour zipper shoulder bag, which contains only his personal belongings. Thereafter, PW.1 examined the appellant and conducted examination of his person and during the search, he examined the black and light brown colour stanza sandals worn by the appellant and found them to be unusually heavy, and on suspicion that the same might contain any narcotic drugs or ephydrine etc., PW.1, in the presence of the witnesses and in the presence of the appellant, cut open the said black and light brown colour stanza sandals worn by the appellant and recovered two polythene covers, one from each sandal, containing some white colour crystalline substance suspected to be narcotics drug. The contents of both the polythene covers were transferred to one 'Flemingo Red and White Duty Free Shop carry bag' and marked as 'P'. A small p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Airlines Flight - MH0181/31.07.2013, would be smuggling narcotic drugs concealed in his sandals worn by him, they identified and intercepted the appellant at the security area of the departure hall at Anna International Terminal, Chennai Airport. For the specific question whether he was carrying any narcotic drugs on his person or in his hand bag, the appellant replied in negative. As he was found nervous, he was brought to the AIU room situated at the Arrival Hall of Anna International Airport. PW.1 arranged for two witnesses and introduced the witnesses to the team of officials and the appellant and then informed the appellant that his person and his package would be examined and searched and as per Section 50 of the NDPS Act, he had right to be searched either before the Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and that the Superintendent was a Gazetted Officer. The appellant agreed to be searched before the said Superintendent (AIU) and PW.1 examined the appellant's blue and black colour zipper shoulder bag, which contains only his personal belongings, hence, the same was returned to the appellant. While examining his person, PW.1 examined the black and light brown colour stanza ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ional Airport. 13. PW.2 has also clearly corroborated the evidence of PW.1 and he was all along with PW.1 ie., from the search till the arrest and handover before the authorities. He also admitted that he has signed in the Mahazar and he was the witness to all the proceedings. Therefore, the prosecution has proved its case about the secret information received while PW.1 was in duty in the International Airport and he also intercepted the appellant and since the appellant appeared to be very severe and nervous, he suspected and also questioned the appellant whether he was carrying any narcotic drugs on his person or in his hand bag, and during questioned, though the appellant denied, subsequently when belongings were searched at the Terminus, his sandals appeared to be unusually heavy, therefore, suspected and opened it and found the contraband by name ephedrine and also prepared Mahazar and recovered the same. The evidence of PW.1 was corroborated by PW.2. Therefore, all the procedures contemplated under the NDPS Act were complied with. 14. The Scientific Expert was examined as PW.3. She has clearly deposed that the samples were received from the Court for analysis and she f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tire proceedings and PW.2 has clearly corroborated the evidence of PW.1. The appellant has also not denied that he was not in possession of Boarding Passes and Air-Ticket (Exs.P2, P3 and P4), which itself shows that he was present in the Airport on that day and he scheduled to be travelled from Chennai to Jakarta and also he went upto the security area. Therefore, the presence of the appellant on the date of occurrence in the Airport is not disputed and the recovery alone is disputed by the appellant. In this case, from the evidences of PWs.1 and 2, recovery was also clearly proved and the alleged contraband in possession of the appellant was also proved and that the samples contained the substance, viz., Metha Phetamine Hydrochloride (Ephedrine) was also proved through PW.3 and his report. Therefore, in this case, PW.1 prepared the report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act and has produced before the prosecution officer. 18. On reading of the entire materials available on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved its case for the offence of the appellant under Sections 8(c) r/w.22(c) of NDPS Act and on reading of the judgment of the trial Court also, the trial Cour....