SALAMA NAIDU Vs. V M DOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was charged by the Special Judge for Greater Bombay in N. D. P. S. Special Case no. 2 of 1993, for offences punishable under section 22 read with section 8 (c), 23, 28 read with section 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (Hereinafter referred to as the N. D. P. S. Act) and under section 135 (1) (a) read with section 135 (1) (ii) of the Customs Act. He convicted and sentenced her under the said counts in the manner stated hereinafter :- (i) Under section 22 read with section 8 (c) of the N. D. P. S. Act to 10 years R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh only) in default to suffer six months R. I. ; (ii)Under section 23 and 28 read with section 8 (c) of the N. D. P. S. Act to undergo 10 years R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh only) in default to suffer six months R. I. (iii)Under section 135 (1) (a) read with section 135 (1) (ii) of the Customs Act but, awarding no separate sentence. THE substantive sentences of the appellant have been ordered to run concurrently. Through the present appeal, the appellant has challenged her said convictions and sentences.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is as under :- On 13th October, 1992 at about8. 15 p. m. Mr. Deepak Bhambri, Intelligence Officer of the Bombay Zonal Unit of the Narcotics Control Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the NCB) was called by Mr. Rohatgi, PW 5 Assistant Director of Narcotics Control Bureau, who informed him that Deputy Director Mr. Kakkar had informed him (Mr. Rohatgi) that he had received an information that two South African Nationals namely Mrs Salama Naidu and Mrs. Vyduruyam Govinder were likely to travel by Zambian Airways, Flight No. QZ-081 on 14th October, 1992 and were likely to smuggle mandrax tablets concealed in their baggage. Apart from Mr. Deepak Bhambri, Mr. Rohatgi also conveyed this information to Mr. P. J. Naik. Consequently, Mr. Deepak Bhambri and Mr. P. J. Naik left for Sahar Airport at about9. 30 p. m. on 13th October, 1992. THEy reached there at 10.45 p. m. the same day. On their enquiry, they were informed that the flight would leave at 2.20 a. m. on 14th October, 1992. Mr. Naik called two panchas out of whom Mrs. Mansi Sanjay Kulkarni who was working with the Air India, security Department has been examined as PW 3.Mr. Deepak Bhambri and Mr. P. J. Naik told the panchas about the information they had received and informed them that they would like to check the baggages of the appellant and Mrs. Govinder because, they had specific information that they were smuggling mandrax tablets concealed in their baggage. THEy took the assistance of two Customs Officers namely Mr. Ganu and Mr. Phansekar. Around 1 a. m. Mr. Deepak Bhambri observed two ladies approaching the baggage x-ray counter. Since he had their description, he recognised them. He, Mr. Naik, the panchas and the Customs Officers asked the ladies about their names which they furnished out as Mrs. Salama Naidu (appellant) and Mrs. Vyduruyam Govinder. Mr. Deepak Bhambri categorically told the appellant that they had a specific information that she was likely to smuggle mandrax tablets and wanted to check her baggage. He told the same thing to Mrs. Govinder. THEreafter, all of them checked the baggage of Mrs. Govinder but, found no narcotic drug therein. THEreafter, they opened the baggage of the appellant which included a black coloured zipper bag. Twelve packets were found therein containing mandrax tablets. THE recovery panchanama shows that their quantity was 5 kg and 700 gms. THE said mandrax tablets were seized under a panchanama and sealed. When tested with the help of field Testing Kit, the tablets seized were found to be mandrax.

(3.) THE case was investigated in the usual manner by the Investigating Officer Mr. Vinod Doshi. He filed an application to the Collector of Customs for sanction to prosecute the appellant. On 7th January, 1993, the Collector of Customs accorded the said sanction and the same day, Vinod Doshi filed a complaint in the Special Court against the appellant.