MAHESWARI Vs. JAIDEEP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the accused in S.C. No. 1289/2000 on the file of the Special Judge (for trial of cases under the NDPS Act), Thiruvananthapuram. She has been charged with offences punishable under S.20(b)(ii), 21 and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'). She was found guilty and was convicted under those counts.

(2.) The occurrence was on 27.9.2000, before the enforcement of the amendments as per Act 9/01, but the conviction was on 16.11.2001, after such enforcement. The quantity of the psychotropic substances (cannabis plant and hashish oil) involved violating S.20(b)(ii) of the Act was 158 grams, whereas the quantity of heroin, a narcotic drug, to invite punishment under S.21 was 100 grams. The interception of the accused was at Thiruvananthapuram Airport, while she was proceeding overseas from Trichy to Maldives. She did possess Exts. P1 to P4 air tickets and other travel documents to show that she had to fly on the same day to Maldives. Therefore, she had attempted export of the said drug and psychotropic substance; thereby committing an offence under S.23 of the Act. Considering the evidence on record and adverting to the points of defence including violation of the provisions contained in S.42, 50 and 57 of the Act, the Court below convicted the accused as mentioned above.

(3.) The contraband articles were concealed inside the panties worn by the accused. The panties were not produced. This was also one among the arguments of the defence. That was also considered by the court below. There is a further contention before me that the gazetted officer, in whose presence the search was made, was also not examined. Again it is contended that though the proceedings before the court below terminated after the enforcement of Act 9/01 amending the NDPS Act, 1985, the benefit of the amended provision was not given to the appellant/accused.