MICHAEL GORDON KINGSBURY Vs. NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) U.K. Mishra, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics ControlBureau (hereinafter referred toas"NCB") filed a complaint dated 22.1.1987 againstMichael Gordon Kingsbury and Ms. Helen Anne Cooper for the offences punishable under Sections 20,23 and 28 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic SubstancesAct (hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS Act"). The case came up before theAdditional Sessions Judge, New Delhi on 8.5.1987 when the following chargeswere framed against them :-Charge framed Against Michael Gordon Kingsbury:--"Firstly that on 12.1.87in early hours at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi TransitLounge, you were found in possession of 0.9 Kg. of Hashish (Cannabis)concealed in especially made cavities in both the black shoes worn by you andthereby committed an offence punishable u/Sec. 20 of the NDPS Act withinmy cognizance.Secondly, on the aforesaid date time and place you attempted to export outof India the aforesaid 0.9 Kg. of Hashish (Cannabis) in contravention ofprovisions of Sec. 8 of the NDPS Act punishable u/Secs. 23 r/w. 28 of theNDPS Act 1985 and within my cognizance"Charge Framed Against Michael Gordon Kingsbury and Ms. Helen AnneCooper :-...."That you both accused named above on 12.01.87 in the earlyhours at Indira Gandhi International Airport New Delhi transit Lounge werefound in joint possession of 2.3 Kg. of Hashish (Cannabis) in a suit-caseconcealed in the inner linnings of all the four inner sides of the said suit-casewhich you had retained without any permit or licence, and thereby committed an offence punishable u/Sec. 20 NDPS Act within my cognizance.Secondly, on the aforesaid date, time and place you both attempted to exportout of India the aforesaid 2.3 Kg. of Hashish (Cannabis) in contravention ofprovision of Section 8 of NDPS Act and thereby committed an offencepunishable u/Sec. 23 read with Sec. 28 of the NDPS Act within my cognizance".

(2.) Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. Insupport of its case, seven witnesses, namely, Shri U.K. Mishra, P.W.1; Shri D.C.Mishra, P.W.2; Shri Shiv Dewan, P.W.3; Shri Gurpreet Singh Nanda, P.W.4; Ms.Uma Rana, P.W.5; Shri S.K. Goel, P.W.6 and Shri K.K. Sood, P.W.7 were examinedby the prosecution. Both the accused persons when examined under Section 313Cr.P.C. have denied the allegations against them and pleaded that they have beenfalsely implicated. It has also been pleaded by them that the suit-case did not belong; to them and no recovery, in fact, was made from them and from theirpossession. It was also claimed that they were tortured, intimidated and subjectedto mental torture on account of which, they were forced to write the statements. Noevidence was, however, produced in defence. Both Michael Gordon Kingsburyand Ms. Helen Anne Cooper were convicted for the offences with which they werecharged and both the accused were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonmentfor a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000.00 each for the offencepunishable under Section 20 with a further direction that in case of default in thepayment of fine, they would undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 yearseach. They were also sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years and to paya fine of Rs.1,00,000.00 each and in default to undergo further R.I. for 2 years eachfor the offence punishable under Section 23 read with Section 28 of the NDPS Act,vide judgment and order dated 30.7.1990, by an Additional Sessions Judge, NewDelhi. It was also directed that substantive term of imprisonment awarded to boththe accused shall run concurrently.

(3.) Michael Gordon Kingsbury being not satisfied with his conviction andsentence, filed Criminal Appeal No. 135/90 against his conviction and sentence.Similarly Ms. Helen Anne Cooper was aggrieved from her conviction and sentenceand so filed an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 132/90 against her convictionand sentence. Both these appeals being against the common judgment and orderof Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, they are being disposed of by thisjudgment.