DAPHIRA WALLANG Vs. INSPECTOR OF CUSTOMS HPU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are heard and disposed of together as they arise out of the same judgment. The appeal in Criminal appeal 463/2013 is filed by accused no.1 and the appeal in Criminal Appeal no.383/2013 is filed by Accused no.2 and the appeal in Criminal Appeal No.951/2013 is filed by the complainant.

(2.) The facts of the case, as alleged by the prosecution, are that on 20.2.2009, the Inspector of Customs HPU, Bangalore, the complainant, is said to have gathered intelligence that an African black male and a woman were proceeding to book courier parcels containing concealed narcotic drugs to other countries, through M/s Blue Dart Express, at its branch at Koramangala, Bangalore. It is stated that the complainant, along with his staff and panch witnesses, is said to have immediately proceeded to the courier agent's office at Koramangala and reached there in time, to see the African and the woman in conversation with a person at the counter in the said office. The complainant had immediately approached them and on enquiry, he was told by the woman that her name was, Daffy and by the African man, that his name was Bertrand Tochukwu and he was also told that they were booking shipments to Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom. The representative of the courier agent attending to them was one Kashi, an Operation Executive. He, in turn, had stated that there were four shipments and that he had prepared airway bills and cash memos in respect of the same. It was further learnt by the complainant that the shipments contained garments and sports items.

(3.) On the basis of the material placed before the court, it was presumed that the accused were found in the possession of heroin. The burden was hence held to be on them to prove that they were innocent. The complaint was hence filed for offences punishable under Section 8 (c), 21, 23, 27A, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act', for brevity). The presence of the above accused persons was secured before the court immediately after registration of the case. The accused had entered appearance through counsel. The parties were heard before framing of charges and the Court had framed the charges, to which the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution had then tendered evidence and examined 13 witnesses, apart from producing several exhibits and material objects. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'CrPC', for brevity). Thereafter, the prosecution and the accused having been heard, the court had framed the following points for consideration:-