9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g/airway Bill No. 451813. This parcel was booked for Lagos Nigeria. The intimation of the seizure was given to Narcotic Control Bureau India on 6th December, 1993. The NCB Officers found that this consignment had been booked from M/s. Skypak Couriers, Rajendra Place, New Delhi under Airway Bill dated 24-11-1993. It was also revealed that this consignment had been booked by an African National who had booked a parcel earlier also and someone had been making inquiries regarding this parcel as it had not reached Nigeria. M/s. Skypak Couriers were directed to ask the person making enquiries to come to their office. On 24-1-1994 at about 12.00 Noon the appellant approached the booking counter of M/s. Skypak and asked them about the parcel in question. The officers of NCB who were keeping surveillance intercepted him and took his personal search. The original airway bill dt. 24-11-93 was recovered from him along with one more Airway bill of M/s. DHI, Couriers dated 21-1-1994 by which was also a parcel booked for Lagos, Nigeria via U.K., London, the information regarding this parcel was immediately passed on to H.M. Customs London who confirmed that the said parcel also had been intercept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he card board. This plastic bag was taken out. It contained brown powder. It was checked with the help of test kit and gave a strong indication that the powder was heroin. The said bag was kept inside and the parcel was re-sealed and deposited in the Custom lock up. On 11-2-1994 he was asked by his superiors to cut open the other three sides of the card board box to find out if some other contraband was concealed therein. He again reopened the parcel and after taking out the plastic bag cut open the other three sides of the box and found three more polythene bags concealed in the two layers of the three sides of the box. The box as well as the contraband was sealed, photographs of the card board box, copies of which are marked X Y, were taken. Four polythene packets recovered from the card board box were sent to the laboratory of the Government Chemist. Ms. Jacqueline Maria Connoley, the Scientific Officer in the Government laboratory gave her report marked 'Z'. This witness identified her signatures on the report and stated that he knew her. The photocopy of the Airway Bill was marked Z-1 and photocopy of the Invoice Z-2. The photographs Ex. PW. 5/A and 5/B were also proved on r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him. At the time of his apprehension, he had tried to escape also and there was a big scuffle between him and the Officers. He stated that parcel was booked by the appellant under the name of Rajiv Khanna. He denied the suggestion that the appellant had not booked the parcels in question and he had been falsely implicated in this case. 7.After the close of the prosecution case, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the case of the prosecution in to and stated that he had been falsely implicated. He did not lead any evidence in defence. 8.After considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge held the appellant guilty and as such convicted and sentenced him under Section 21 read with Section 29 of the Act. 9.The first and foremost contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the CFSL reports marked 'Z' and marked A-4 have not been properly proved on record and as such the prosecution has failed to establish that the consignments intercepted at London contained contraband punishable under the provisions of the Act. Learned Counsel submits that the reports of the Chemical Analysts placed on record cannot be admitted in evidence und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wo Scientific Officers of Government Laboratory, London. Nothing could be brought out in their cross examination to hold that they were deposing falsely or wrongly. A perusal of the cross-examination of PW5 reveals that no question whatsoever was put to him in regard to the proof of the report marked Z nor any suggestion was given to him that he was deposing falsely. PW7 was also not cross examined in regard to the report marked A-4 and no suggestion was given to him that it was not bearing the signatures of Chemical Examiner, Government Laboratory, London. Therefore, the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that the prosecution had failed to prove the reports to establish that the consignments intercepted at Heathrow Airport, London contained heroin cannot be accepted. This Court is further of the view that reports marked Z and A-4 are admissible under Section 293 of the Code also as both these reports are given by Scientific Officers of Government. Section 293 of Code nowhere says that it covers the experts of Government of India only. 10.The statement of the accused appellant Ex. PW4/B corroborates the prosecution case in as much as appellant admitted that he had se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h M/s. Skypak Couriers and DCL Couriers on two different dates which were seized by Her Majesty Customs and Excise Department at Heathrow Airport, London. The samples were drawn and sent to the Chemical Examiners for analysis who found the same to be of heroin. The original airway bills in regard to the booking of these consignments were recovered from the person of the appellant and in his statement recorded under Section 67 of the Act he admitted that these consignments were booked by him and he knew that these were containing heroin. Nothing could be brought out in the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses to show that the appellant had been falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Trial Judge was fully justified in holding the appellant guilty under Section 21 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act and sentencing him accordingly. The sentence awarded to the appellant was minimum prescribed under the Act and as such no interference in the conviction and sentence is called for. 13.No other point has been raised. 14.In view of the foregoing reasons the conviction and sentence of the appellant is upheld. The appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
