2014 (6) TMI 646 - SC - Customs

Conviction under NDPS - Non compliance with mandatory grounds of Section 50 - Held that - Lot of difference between different statements given by the accused - The witnesses produced by the defence are discarded because of various infirmities found in their testimonies which are discussed in detail by the trial court as well as the High Court. - apart from sentencing the appellants for 10 years R.I., a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) each is also imposed on the appellants. The trial court has further stated that in default of payment of fine, the appellants shall undergo further sentence of 2 years R.I. We feel that this part of order needs modification. Payment of fine of Rupees one lakh is maintained. However, at the same time we direct that in case of default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo further sentence for one year. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act
2. Violation of Section 51 of the NDPS Act
3. Examination of witnesses and defense arguments

Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act:
The case involved appeals arising from a judgment convicting the appellants under Section 18 of the NDPS Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that Section 50 of the NDPS Act did not apply as the recoveries were made from a bag the appellants were carrying, not from their persons. The Supreme Court agreed with this position, citing the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh 1999 (6) SC 172. The defense argued a violation of Section 51 of the NDPS Act, but the Court found no factual basis for this submission as it was not raised earlier. The Court upheld the seizure of opium from the bags of the accused, emphasizing the proper custody of the evidence and lack of tampering.

Violation of Section 51 of the NDPS Act:
While the defense raised the issue of a violation of Section 51 of the NDPS Act, the Court found no foundation for this argument as it was not previously raised in the trial court or the High Court. The defense counsel conceded this lack of factual basis, leading to the dismissal of this plea. The Court confirmed the seizure of opium from the bags of the accused, supported by the evidence of proper custody and lack of tampering.

Examination of witnesses and defense arguments:
The prosecution presented witnesses, including police officials, to support the case. The defense countered with five witnesses, but their testimonies were deemed unreliable due to inconsistencies and infirmities. The High Court detailed the shortcomings in the defense witnesses' testimonies, highlighting contradictions and lack of credibility. The Court rejected the defense's argument based on the testimonies of these witnesses, emphasizing the lack of merit in the appeal. The appellants were sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 each. The Court modified the default sentence in case of non-payment of the fine to one year, maintaining the fine amount. Ultimately, the appeals were disposed of with these modifications.