9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1999 (9) TMI 93 - SC - CustomsConviction 0f the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 21, read with Section 8(c) and Section 23 read with Section 28 and 8(c) of the NDPS Act Held that - In this case heroin was found from a bag belonging to the appellant and not from his person and therefore it was not necessary to make an offer for search in presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. As rightly pointed out by the High Court the appellant had himself admitted in his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act that it was heroin. Moreover, in this case we have evidence of the officers of the Narcotic Control Bureau also who had tested the substance found from the appellant. The panchnama, also contains words received copy written by the appellant. The said statement of the appellant was recorded in 1990. He retracted it in 1994. Till then he had not complained against any officer as regards the alleged beating or use of force nor he had stated that he did not know English. Therefore, this contention also cannot be accepted. Thus the High Court was right in relying upon the evidence of aforesaid witnesses and the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and in confirming the conviction of the appellant. Appeal dismissed.
Issues:
Conviction under NDPS Act and Customs Act based on heroin possession; Compliance with Section 50 of NDPS Act; Reliability of Chemical Analyser's report; Voluntariness of statement under Section 108 of Customs Act; Language barrier in statement recording; High Court's decision review. Conviction under NDPS Act and Customs Act based on heroin possession: The appellant, a Zaire National, was convicted under the NDPS Act and the Customs Act for possessing 2 kgs of heroin. The conviction was based on evidence from officers and panch witnesses confirming the possession of heroin. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, confirming the conviction but reducing the sentence in default of fine. Compliance with Section 50 of NDPS Act: The appellant argued that the recovery and seizure of heroin should be deemed illegal due to non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. However, the High Court rejected this contention, stating that informing the accused about the right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate only applies when searching the person, not their baggage. Citing precedent cases, the Court clarified that the search of the appellant's bag did not require such notification. Reliability of Chemical Analyser's report: The appellant challenged the cryptic nature of the Chemical Analyser's report, claiming it lacked evidentiary value. The High Court upheld the reliance on the report, noting the appellant's admission of the substance being heroin and the testing by Narcotic Control Bureau officers as supporting evidence. Voluntariness of statement under Section 108 of Customs Act: The appellant contended that the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act was not voluntary, alleging language barriers as he only knew French, not English. However, the Court found evidence contradicting this claim, including entries made by the appellant in English at a hotel and his delayed retraction of the statement. Language barrier in statement recording: The appellant's argument of a language barrier during the statement recording process was dismissed due to evidence showing his familiarity with English, undermining his claim of not understanding the statement. The Court highlighted the appellant's delayed complaint and retraction as further weakening this contention. High Court's decision review: The High Court's decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, affirming the reliance on witness testimonies, the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, and the evidence supporting the conviction. The Court found no merit in the appellant's appeal, leading to its dismissal.
|
