9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1025 - HC - CustomsSmuggling - narcotic drugs concealed in his sandals - HELD THAT - 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, the trial Court has found that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and also there is no violation of mandatory provisions of NDPS Act. Therefore, this Court does not find any perversity in the judgment of the trial Court. This Court also finds that the prosecution has proved its case through cogent and reliable evidence and there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act (Sections 42, 50, and 57). 2. Reliability of evidence and witness testimony. 3. Legality of the search and seizure process. 4. Validity of the conviction based on the evidence presented. Detailed Analysis: 1. Compliance with Mandatory Provisions of the NDPS Act: The appellant argued that the mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, and 57 of the NDPS Act were not complied with. Specifically, the appellant contended that the information received by the Customs officials was not reduced to writing as required under Section 42, and the appellant was not informed of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer as per Section 50. The court, however, found that the search was conducted under Section 43, which applies to public places, and therefore, the procedures under Section 42 were not applicable. The search was conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, satisfying the requirements of Section 50. The report under Section 57 was duly prepared and submitted, indicating compliance with the mandatory provisions. 2. Reliability of Evidence and Witness Testimony: The prosecution presented three witnesses (PW.1, PW.2, and PW.3) and 17 documents (Exs.P1 to P17) along with four material objects. PW.1, the Intelligence Officer, provided a detailed account of the interception and search of the appellant, corroborated by PW.2, an independent witness. PW.3, a Scientific Expert, confirmed that the substance found was Metha Phetamine Hydrochloride (Ephedrine). The court found the testimonies of the witnesses credible and consistent, supporting the prosecution's case beyond a reasonable doubt. 3. Legality of the Search and Seizure Process: The appellant was intercepted at the Anna International Airport based on specific information. The search was conducted in the presence of independent witnesses and a Gazetted Officer, following the procedures under the NDPS Act. The appellant's sandals were found to contain 510gm of Ephedrine, confirmed by field testing and laboratory analysis. The court noted that all procedures were followed, and the search and seizure were legal and valid. 4. Validity of the Conviction Based on the Evidence Presented: The trial court convicted the appellant based on the evidence presented, sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ?1,00,000/-. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the evidence was unreliable and the mandatory provisions were not followed. The High Court reviewed the evidence and found that the prosecution had established its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court upheld the trial court's judgment, confirming the conviction and sentence. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. The court found that the prosecution had complied with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, presented reliable evidence, and conducted a legal search and seizure. The appellant's arguments were not sufficient to overturn the conviction, and the appeal was deemed to have no merit. The court also noted that the decisions cited by the appellant's counsel were not applicable to the facts of the present case. Consequently, the appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
|
