2013 (7) TMI 759 - HC - Customs

Validity of order whether the order of imprisonment and fine was valid - passed by the Appellant was convicted u/s 20(b)(ii) and 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 14 years and fine - Appellant contended that the lower court committed serious error of law in accepting the statement recorded by Custom Officer Under Sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act - In case under N.D.P.S. Act, sections of Customs Act are inadmissible - statement was recorded in illegal custody of unauthorised officer - Public witnesses were falsely introduced - Mandatory provisions of Section 42, 50 and 52 of the N.D.P.S. Act, were not followed - Recovered article was kept with Custom Officer till it was sent to chemical examination - Held that - The conviction recorded by trial court of appellant under Section 20(b)(ii) of N.D.P.S. Act is justified - The trial Judge passed the judgment after taking much pains in deciding each and every arguments of the accused appellant. The learned trial court had analyzed the evidence in right prospective and has reached to the correct conclusion - the judgment was well discussed and he rightly relied on the prosecution witnesses and confessional statement of accused persons Court followed the judgment of (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) Shanti Lal Versus State of M.P(2007 (10) TMI 554 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) - the witnesses of fact before whom Charas was recovered were Custom Officers and there was no reason to disbelieve their evidence - Their evidence was supported by the confessional statement of accused which was recorded before Custom Officers and as they are not police personnel - on the statement recorded before them reliance can be placed appeal partly allowed as the term of imprisonment was reduced.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against judgment under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
- Conviction under Section 20(b)(ii) and 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
- Admissibility of confessional statement recorded by Custom Officer.
- Compliance with mandatory provisions of N.D.P.S. Act.
- Seizure and recovery of Charas.
- Reliance on prosecution witnesses and confessional statements.
- Sentencing - rigorous imprisonment and fine.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the judgment convicting the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii) and 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The prosecution case involved the interception of a vehicle carrying Charas, leading to the recovery of a substantial quantity of the substance. The prosecution presented witnesses and evidence to support the charges. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the evidence presented, sentencing him to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment and a significant fine. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the confessional statements recorded by Custom Officers were inadmissible, and mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act were not followed.

The defense contended that the appellant was only the owner of the vehicle, while the recovered Charas belonged to others. The defense also argued that the punishment imposed was too severe, considering the circumstances. On the other hand, the Union of India asserted that the recovery of a substantial amount of Charas justified the conviction and sentencing. The prosecution maintained that the Custom Officers' actions were lawful, and all necessary provisions were adhered to during the seizure and investigation.

Upon review, the court found that the trial judge had meticulously analyzed the evidence and correctly relied on the prosecution witnesses and confessional statements. The court upheld the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act, confirming the prosecution's case regarding the possession of Charas by the appellant. However, the court acknowledged the excessive nature of the sentence and fine imposed, considering the appellant's circumstances and lack of criminal history.

In light of the circumstances, the court partially allowed the appeal, reducing the appellant's rigorous imprisonment sentence to 11 years and six months. The fine amount was upheld, but the imprisonment term in default of payment was reduced to six months. The court emphasized the need for proportionate and reasonable sentencing, taking into account the offender's situation and the nature of the offense, as highlighted in relevant legal principles and precedents.