1999 (12) TMI 856 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
2. Compliance with Section 55 of the Act and the establishment of the identity of seized articles.
3. Preparation of the test memo at the time of recovery of contraband.
4. Voluntariness of the confessional statement made by the appellant.

Issue 1: Compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
The appellant contended that the recovery and seizure of the contraband should be regarded as illegal due to non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act. However, the court rejected this contention, stating that the mandatory requirements of Section 50 apply when a person is to be searched, not when contraband is recovered from personal baggage. The court cited a relevant case law to support this interpretation.

Issue 2: Compliance with Section 55 of the Act and identity of seized articles
The prosecution relied on the evidence of customs officials and witnesses to establish the identity of the seized heroin. The appellant's luggage was searched in her presence, and the contraband was recovered in the presence of witnesses and officials. Representative samples were sealed and deposited in the Customs Godown. The court found that the prosecution had sufficiently established the identity of the seized articles and complied with Section 55 of the Act.

Issue 3: Preparation of the test memo at the time of recovery
The defense argued that the delayed preparation of the test memo raised doubts about possible tampering with the samples. However, the court found that the paper slips attached to the sealed samples were intact, indicating no tampering. The court concluded that the prosecution adequately explained the delay in preparing the test memo and ruled out the possibility of tampering with the samples.

Issue 4: Voluntariness of the confessional statement
The appellant claimed that the confessional statement was obtained by force. However, the court noted that the statement was made voluntarily and in the appellant's handwriting. The appellant admitted in the statement that the contraband was recovered from her possession. The court rejected the appellant's claim of forceful extraction of the statement, emphasizing that no complaints were made against the customs officers until much later. The court relied on the confessional statement and other evidence to confirm the appellant's conviction and sentence.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the appellant's conviction and sentence based on the evidence presented, compliance with legal provisions, and the voluntariness of the confessional statement.