Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2011 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (12) TMI 352 - HC - Indian LawsSmuggling of heroine - One of the samples was submitted to the Deputy Chief Chemist, New Custom House, Mumbai along with test memo dated 07.05.2002 and another sample was forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Kalina, Mumbai for its analysis. The report from both of them confirmed that the samples contained heroin - The provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act about recording of information were not strictly followed nor the Intelligence Officer Rosario was examined to prove that such intelligence was received in respect of the present accused appellant - The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Intelligence Officer Rosario was not examined by the prosecution, and therefore, it has failed to prove the receipt of the intelligence - The air ticket purchased by the accused from Kenya Airways with two boarding passes were recovered from her and the evidence also shows that the baggage claim tags were found affixed on her air ticket - Held that: prosecution has proved satisfactorily and beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused was in possession of 5.400 kg. heroin kept in two separate polythene bags, which were concealed in the false bottom of the two suitcases which she had checked-in as her baggage with the Kenya Airways - it is clear that the accused was in possession of commercial quantity of heroin and she was trying to export the same. Therefore, she was rightly convicted of the offences under Section 21(c) and Section 23 r/w. Section 28 of the NDPS Act It is settled position of law that a confessional statement before the officers of NCB or Revenue Intelligence under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is not hit by Sections 25 or 26 of the Evidence Act and is admissible but it is necessary to scrutinize the same strictly though the Court may act upon it if it is satisfied about its absolute truth but at the same time it is held unsafe to rely on the confessional statement without some corroboration - learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is a woman and in jail since 2002. The learned trial Court has awarded rigorous imprisonment of one year in default to pay fine on each count - Appeal is partly allowed
|