1998 (1) TMI 85 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the conviction under Sections 23, 24, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. Voluntariness of the accused's statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and Section 108 of the Customs Act.
3. Possession and knowledge of the narcotic substance by the accused.
4. The role of other conspirators in the case.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Conviction under Sections 23, 24, and 29 of the NDPS Act:
The appellant was convicted under Sections 23, 24, and 29 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. The case originated from a complaint filed by Mr. C.R. Desai, Superintendent of Customs, Ahmedabad. The investigation revealed that the accused, a travel agent, had given two books containing brown sugar (heroin) to Mr. Rajnikant Patel for delivery in London. The books were found to contain 860 grams of heroin. The trial court found sufficient evidence to convict the accused, which was upheld by the High Court.

2. Voluntariness of the Accused's Statements:
The defense argued that the accused's statements (Exh. 30 and Exh. 36) were not voluntary and were obtained under coercion. The court examined the circumstances under which the statements were made. The first statement (Exh. 30) was recorded on 9-2-1989, and the second statement (Exh. 36) was recorded on 11-2-1989. The court noted that the accused had the opportunity to complain about any coercion when he was produced before the Magistrate on 11-2-1989 but did not do so. The court found no credible evidence to support the claim of coercion and held that the statements were voluntary.

3. Possession and Knowledge of the Narcotic Substance:
The defense contended that the accused did not have conscious possession of the narcotic substance. However, the court found that the accused had knowingly given the books containing heroin to Mr. Rajnikant Patel. The accused's statements and other evidence, including the testimonies of witnesses and the seizure of the books, established that the accused was aware of the contents. The court held that the prosecution had proved the accused's possession and knowledge of the narcotic substance beyond reasonable doubt.

4. Role of Other Conspirators:
The investigation revealed that the accused was part of a larger conspiracy involving other individuals, including Mr. Mahesh Bhatt, Mr. Shailesh Bhatt, Mr. Kishore Bhatt, Mr. Ashok Bhatt, and Mr. Dhirubhai Gohil. These individuals were involved in smuggling brown sugar to London through various passengers. Although these conspirators were absconding, the court found sufficient evidence of their involvement based on the accused's statements and other corroborative evidence. The court noted that the accused had been promised remuneration for his role in the conspiracy.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the trial court's judgment, finding no merit in the defense's arguments. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence of the accused. The judgment serves as a cautionary tale for overseas passengers about the risks of carrying items on behalf of others without knowing their contents.