WILBERT APPUSAMY ANTHONY BENDICT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the appellant/accused against the judgment of the learned Additional Special Judge for NDPS Act, Madras, made in CC No.145/97 under which the accused was convicted under S.8(c) r/w 21 of N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1.00 lakh, in default of which to undergo RI for 6 months.

(2.) The gist of the prosecution case can be stated as under: The appellant/accused who was bound for Colombo by Airlanka Flight on 10.6.97 was intercepted at about 9 P.M. at the Anna International Terminal, International Airport, Chennai by a Customs Officer. His baggage was checked in the presence of the witnesses. The baggage was found to contain 3080.91 grams of heroin in three packets. They were seized under a mahazar in the presence of the witnesses. The appellant/accused gave a voluntary statement. He has also stated about the involvement of the second accused. On 12.6.97, the second accused gave a voluntary statement admitting his knowledge about the fact of handing over the seized contraband to the first accused and his role in the conspiracy. Samples were drawn from the seized contraband and sent for chemical analysis through the concerned Magistrate's Court. The report of the Analyst confirmed the presence of Discetyle morphine which is heroin. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy entered into by A-1 and A-2 and some other persons, A-1 transported 3 packets of heroin concealed in the cardboard box from Hotel Sri Ram Nallamani at Egmore to Anna International Airport. A complaint was filed against the accused for the offence under S.8(c) r/w Ss 29 and 21 of NDPS Act.

(3.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and marked 29 exhibits and 13 material objects. After the evidence of the prosecution was over, the appellant/accused was questioned under S.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and the accused has denied the same as false. No defence witness was examined. After hearing the rival submissions and scrutiny of the available materials, the lower Court has found the appellant guilty under S.8(c) r/w 21 of NDPS Act, convicted and awarded the sentence as stated supra. Aggrieved appellant/accused has brought forth this appeal.