2016 (9) TMI 526 - SC - Customs

Validity of judgement - Rigorous Imprisonment and fine - Offences under Sections 22 and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - CHA - Transit Certificate - secret information of receipt of dry fruits which had the marking of AB , contained some narcotics as well - summon of two witnesses - search - section 50 of the Customs Act, 1962 - concealment of 165 packets of brown powder weighing 21 kilograms 450 grams was revealed - heroin - arrest of appellant - statements made under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - the appellant has stated that up to 14.1.1999, there is mention of the appellant on the T.C. and thus, the consignment did relate to him. He received the consignment as he was to take delivery of the consignment, as he had received phone calls regarding this. These phone calls were received by his Clerks Amit Taneja, Janak Raj, and some were received by him. Statements made under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 coupled with the statements of the prosecution witnesses which have found corroboration inter-se, the guilt of the appellant is proved beyond a reasonable doubt - no infirmity in the judgement of the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge in convicting the appellant - appeal disposed off - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Conviction under Sections 22 and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissal by High Court; Appellant's contention of not being responsible for the imported consignment; Evidence of prosecution witnesses and appellant's contradictory statements; High Court's analysis and affirmation of guilt; Dismissal of appeal by Supreme Court.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the appellant's conviction under Sections 22 and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Trial Court had sentenced the appellant to 20 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of &8377; 2 lakh. The High Court upheld this decision, leading to the appellant's appeal to the Supreme Court, which was ultimately dismissed. The appellant, a Customs House Clearing Agent (CHA), was implicated in the import of a consignment containing Heroin. The prosecution's case detailed the recovery of 165 packets of brown powder, identified as Heroin, from the consignment, leading to the appellant's arrest and subsequent charges under the Act.

The main contention raised by the appellant was his lack of responsibility for the imported consignment, attributing it to a non-existent company, M/s. AG Trading Company, Delhi. However, this defense was refuted by both the Sessions Court and the High Court, highlighting the suspicious conduct of the appellant. The appellant's contradictory statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act further weakened his defense. The High Court analyzed the evidence presented by prosecution witnesses, emphasizing the inconsistency in the appellant's statements and his behavior following the discovery of the narcotics.

The High Court's judgment affirmed the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, finding no infirmity in the conviction by the lower court. The Supreme Court concurred with this analysis, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Notably, the appellant had completed the full term of his sentence and had been released by the time the Supreme Court delivered its judgment. The detailed scrutiny of the evidence, contradictions in the appellant's statements, and the overall conduct of the appellant formed the crux of the legal analysis leading to the final dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme Court.