Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1340 - HC - Indian LawsSmuggling - Heroin - Baggage Rules - appellant denied the charges and opted for trial, appellant was put to trial - offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - validity of conviction and sentences imposed on accused - Held that: - Section 54 of the NDPS Act creates a presumption that the Accused is guilty of an offence, if she fails to satisfactorily account for possession of contraband. Section 35 states that in a prosecution under NDPS Act, it would be pre sumed that the Accused has the culpable mental state necessary for the offence - In the instant case, the prosecution has discharged its initial burden. Whereas the appellant in this case has not rebutted the statutory presumption. Therefore, the submission of the appellant that the appellant was not in conscious possession of the same is liable to be rejected. The Apex Court has time and again held that once a physical possession of the contraband by the accused has been established, the onus is upon the accused to prove that it was not a conscious possession - The appellant has failed to discharge her burden in the manner known to law - In her statement submitted during the proceeding under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. also no plea has been taken that she was not in conscious possession of the contraband. It is to be noted that huge quantity of heroin was recovered from the possession of the appellant at the airport while she was about the board a flight bound for Malaysia. This court does not find any justification in the contention of the appellant that non examination of the person who was allegedly asked to bring M.O.4 suitcase for re-check would cause prejudice to the appellant. This court is of the considered view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and that the learned trial judge was right in holding that the appellant was guilty of charges and that this court does not find any illegally or irregularity in the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the trial court. Quantum of sentence - Held that: - considering both the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that the quantum of both physical and monetary sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned trial judge appear to be appropriate and thus, the same also do not require any interference at the hands of this court. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|