1997 (8) TMI 87 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Conviction under various sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and related provisions.
2. Legality of the search conducted by the Customs officer.
3. Reliance on the evidence of witnesses involved in the seizure.

Analysis:
1. The appellant was convicted under multiple sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and related provisions after being found in possession of suspected Heroin. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the search conducted by the Customs officer was in contravention of Section 50 of the Act. The appellant also questioned the reliance placed on the evidence of witnesses involved in the seizure. The High Court examined these contentions thoroughly.

2. The appellant contended that the search conducted by the Customs officer was illegal as it did not comply with the provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. However, the respondent argued that the authority given to the officer under Section 41(2) empowered him to conduct the search without the need for compliance with Section 50. The High Court upheld the respondent's argument, citing the authority granted to the Superintendent of Customs under a notification issued by the Central Government, thereby validating the search conducted.

3. Regarding the appellant's challenge on the credibility of witnesses involved in the seizure, the High Court carefully analyzed the evidence presented. The Court found no reason to doubt the testimonies of the witnesses, emphasizing that their roles and actions were in accordance with legal requirements. The Court noted that the witnesses' evidence was crucial in establishing the appellant's possession of the suspected Heroin. The Sessions Judge had already considered and accepted this evidence, leading the High Court to conclude that there was no basis to overturn the lower court's decision.

In conclusion, after a detailed assessment of the evidence and arguments presented, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the appellant's conviction under the relevant sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Court found no merit in the appellant's contentions regarding the legality of the search and the credibility of the witnesses, ultimately upholding the lower court's judgment.