HEGEDUS LAHEL CSABA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.5.2000 and order dated 24.5.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, thereby convicting the appellant-Hegedus Lahel Csaba, a British National for the offences under Sections 20(b)(ii) and Section 23 read with Section 24 of the Narcotics Drug and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (in short the 'Act') and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and fine of Rupees one lac, or in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months.

(2.) The appellant herein was prosecuted by the Customs Department for the above offences on the allegations that on the intervening night of 26/27, June 1997 while he was bound for Amsterdam from the IGI Airport, New Delhi, he was found to be in illegal and unlawful possession of 13.476 kgs of charas in contravention of the provisions of Section 8 of the Act, which drug he was attempting to export out of the country. According to the prosecution case the appellant was travelling from Kathmandu to Amsterdam and when he stopped over at IGI Airport on the night intervening 26th/27th June, 1997 in order to board flight No.KL-872 from IGI Airport for Amsterdam, he had a through checked in baggage i.e. a rucksack bag having a tag No.KL-978745 which tallied with the baggage stub affixed on the air- ticket held by the appellant who was sitting in the security hold area of the Airport. On suspicion being created through the sniffer dog, the appellant was asked to identify the rucksack bag which he did and thereafter a notice under Section 50 of the Act was served upon him and the bag was searched in presence of panch witnesses and found to contain 11 packets wrapped with adhesive tapes, which in turn contained 31 packets. The packets were found to contain brown colour substance in the shape of rectangular slabs/balls which was disclosed by the appellant as charas having been purchased by him from Nepal. A small quantity of the substance was tested and it gave positive indication for charas/hashish. Samples were taken from the packets and remaining quantity from each of the 31 packets were sealed. On questioning, the appellant is stated to have made a statement under Section 67 of the Act. The appellant was arrested and produced before the Court and remanded to judicial custody.

(3.) Charges were framed against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution cited and examined six witnesses in all to substantiate its case. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied almost the entire incriminating evidence and circumstances put to him in regard to the search, recovery and seizure of the said contraband and various proceedings recorded in that connection in his presence. He claimed that his signatures were obtained on certain blank sheets which were later converted into documents. He admitted that the rucksack bag and the personal effects contained therein belonged to him, but came out with the plea that the bag had been tampered with when it was shown to him but nothing incriminating was recovered from said bag in his presence. He pleaded innocence and came out with the defence plea that the rucksack bag was given by him at the counter of Royal Nepal Airlines and it was locked at that time. That he was to go to Amsterdam and was a transit passenger at Delhi when he was asked by the Customs officers and the officials of Royal Nepal Airlines and KLM Airlines to accompany them and then they showed him the articles recovered from the bag which had already been opened. He disclaimed knowledge as to who had put these articles into his said bag. According to him, he was illegally arrested, mal-treated, given beatings and on false promise of taking his family history he was made to write a statement on the assurance that he would be let off afterwards. Pitted against such a situation and feeling helpless, he wrote whatever he was asked to write. The said statement was, however, later on retracted by him by means of another writing submitted to the Court. The appellant entered into the witness box as his own witness under the provisions of Section 315 Cr.P.C. with a view to substantiate his defence plea. The learned trial court on a consideration of the facts and circumstances, the evidence and material brought on record, found the appellant guilty of the said charges, convicted and sentenced him, as above. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the present appeal.