2013 (6) TMI 150 - HC - Customs

Conviction u/s 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 - accused was indulging in smuggling activities - rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year - as argued by appeleant that although there was secret information with the police, the same was not reduced into writing nor sent to immediate official superior thus total non-compliance with Section 42 of the Act entitling the appellant to acquittal - Held that - As there was no search of any building, conveyance or enclosed place and consequently Section 42 of the Act has no applicability to the instant case. Therefore, the secret information was neither required to be reduced in writing nor it was required to be sent to immediate official superior.Thus contention of counsel for the appellant based on non-compliance with Section 42 cannot be accepted. The appellant cannot also be acquitted merely because no independent witness was joined as there has been recovery of very huge quantity of heroine from the appellant. Prosecution version has been deposed to by Nachhattar Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police who was SHO at the relevant time and also by two Inspectors of Customs. The said witnesses had no enmity whatsoever with the accused-appellant so as to implicate him in a false case. The three official witnesses who have deposed about recovery of the heroine from the appellant had no reason to depose falsely against the appellant. They were not hostile or inimical to the appellant in any manner. Evidence of this case is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt - conviction of the appellant is well founded and is accordingly upheld. As appellant has been sentenced to the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence although in view of huge quantity of the contraband substance no scope for reduction in quantum of sentence also because minimum sentence has been imposed on the appellant. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Conviction under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 based on recovery of contraband substance and related items. Compliance with Section 42 of the Act regarding secret information. Involvement of independent witnesses in the case. Impact of previous acquittal under the Arms Act on the current case.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the appeal filed by the convict against the judgment convicting him under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The case originated from a criminal complaint by the Respondent-Inspector Customs, alleging the accused of smuggling activities. The accused was apprehended with heroin, a pistol, cartridges, and tablets. The prosecution presented witnesses, including police and customs officials, to support the recovery of heroin from the accused.

The defense raised multiple contentions, including non-compliance with Section 42 of the Act, lack of independent witnesses, and the impact of a previous acquittal under the Arms Act. The court meticulously analyzed these contentions. Regarding Section 42 compliance, the court clarified that since no search of a building or conveyance occurred, the section was not applicable. The absence of independent witnesses did not weaken the case due to the substantial quantity of heroin recovered. The court highlighted that the witnesses had no motive to falsely implicate the accused.

The court also addressed the previous acquittal under the Arms Act, emphasizing that the acquittal was due to insufficient evidence, not the unreliability of evidence. The judgment stressed that the current case should be evaluated based on the evidence presented, which was deemed adequate to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial judge's detailed analysis and reasoning were found to be legally sound, leading to the upholding of the conviction.

In terms of sentencing, the court noted that the minimum sentence was imposed despite the significant quantity of contraband involved. Therefore, there was no basis for reducing the sentence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the convict was directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.