TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (9) TMI 93
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t at the airport by him and other officers. After the flight had arrived and the appellant had reported at the customs checking counter, Mr. Dange who had accompanied Mr. Menon and Mr. Rohtagi, Asstt. Director, questioned the appellant and after satisfying themselves that he was the same person in respect of whom they had earlier received the information, asked him to identify his baggage. The appellant identified his black colour rexine bag with brown strips. It was found locked. Baggage tag fixed on it tallied with the claim tag affixed on his Air-ticket. The appellant then opened the bag after taking out a key from his pocket. On examination packets containing brownish powder were found from it. The test revealed that the said powder was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....NDPS Act was not complied with and therefore the evidence regarding recovery and seizure of heroin should be regarded as illegal. She further submitted that the appellant could not have been convicted on the basis of that evidence. It was submitted by her that the appellant was not told, before the search by the officers of the Narcotic Control Bureau that he had a right to be searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. This contention deserves to be rejected because only when a person of an accused is to be searched then he is required to be informed about his right to be examined in presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. As rightly pointed out by the High Court search of baggage of a person is not the same thing a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u also who had tested the substance found from the appellant. Therefore, this contention is also rejected. 6.It was then urged that no reliance should have been placed upon the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act as it was not made by the appellant voluntarily and he did not know what was written in it when he had signed it. The submission was that the appellant does not know English language. He knows only French language. In his examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C., he had stated that the statement was obtained by force and that he was beaten by the officers of Narcotic Control Bureau. He had not stated at that time that he did not know English. Apart from the evidence of the officers of the Narcotics Department the....