GOVENDER SAVITHREE @ CINDY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has assailed the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated March 8, 2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Judge under NDPS Act, Barasat, North 24 Parganas in Special Case No. N-171 of 2015.

(2.) By the impugned judgement of conviction and the order of sentence, the learned trial judge has convicted the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 10 years along with a fine of Rs.1.00 lakh for the offence punishable under Sec. 21 (c) of the Act of 1985 and to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 10 years along with a fine of Rs.1.00 lakh for the offence punishable under Sec. 23 (c) of the Act of 1985 and to suffer further imprisonment of 3 months on each count in the event of default of payment of the sum of Rs.1.00 lakh imposed under Ss. 21 (c) and 23 (c) of the Act of 1985.

(3.) At the trial, the prosecution had contended that, acting on a specific input, a team of Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) of Kolkata zonal unit entered the Kolkata airport on September 8, 2015 and detained the appellant arriving in Kolkata from Dubai by an Emirates flight. The luggage of the appellant had been searched whereupon, the appellant was found to be carrying 3.75 kg of cocaine. The appellant had confessed that she received the consignment from a Brazilian citizen and was knowingly carrying the luggage containing the drugs. Search and seizure process had been completed on September 8, 2015. Notice under Sec. 67 of the Act of 1985 had been issued to the appellant. The appellant had made a voluntary statement where she disclosed that she was supposed to deliver the consignment to an identified person at an identified location. In terms of such information given by the appellant, the team of NCB with the consent of the appellant had moved along with the appellant to the disclosed address for follow-up actions. However, the designated person could not be found. The appellant had been arrested on September 8, 2015. Original sample seized had been sent to the chemical examiner Central Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical test. The chemical report had been received which stated that, the seized materials were cocaine.