2001 (7) TMI 149 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Proper proof of CFSL reports.
2. Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
3. Evidence linking the appellant to the contraband.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Proper Proof of CFSL Reports:
The appellant contended that the CFSL reports marked 'Z' and 'A-4' were not properly proved, thus failing to establish that the consignments contained contraband under the NDPS Act. The prosecution relied on testimonies from PWs 5 and 7, officers from H.M. Customs London, who identified the signatures of the Scientific Officers who analyzed the samples. The court noted that these reports were admissible under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as they were from government scientific officers. The court rejected the appellant's contention, stating that the reports were properly proved and admissible, and nothing in the cross-examination undermined their authenticity.

2. Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act:
The appellant argued that the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with, as no notice was given to him for a search in the presence of a Magistrate. The court clarified that Section 50 applies only when contraband is suspected to be on the person of the accused. In this case, the contraband had already been recovered, and the search was for incriminating documents, not the contraband itself. The court cited a judgment from the Supreme Court (Namdi Francis v. Union of India) which held that Section 50 is not applicable when the contraband is not on the person of the accused. Thus, the court found no merit in the appellant's argument regarding non-compliance with Section 50.

3. Evidence Linking the Appellant to the Contraband:
The evidence showed that the appellant had booked the parcels containing heroin through M/s. Skypak Couriers and DCL Couriers. The original airway bills were recovered from the appellant, and his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act corroborated the prosecution's case. The appellant admitted to booking the parcels and knowing they contained heroin. Witnesses, including customs officers from Heathrow Airport, testified about the interception and analysis of the parcels, confirming they contained heroin. The court found the evidence against the appellant compelling and beyond reasonable doubt, affirming the trial court's judgment.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 21 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The sentence was the minimum prescribed under the Act, and no interference was warranted. The appeal was dismissed, and the trial court's file was ordered to be sent back.