SONAM BAHADUR GURUNG Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON April 17, 1999 Sonam Bahadur Gurung, holding Passport from Nepal, was waiting at the Calcutta Airport to board the Thai Flight, TG-314 going to bangkok. On an intelligence information the Customs Authority intercepted him. His checked-in baggage was brought from the luggage hold. On examination of the baggage in presence of Gurung, 6 Kgs. of black sticky substance was recovered which was kept in the suitcase at its inter bottom panel. On a primary examination with the help of necessary kit, the substance was found to be Hasish being a contraband drug under the narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (N. D. P. S. Act of 1985 ). Gurung was immediately arrested and he is still under detention. Gurung was subsequently charge-sheeted under the provisions of Section 21 and 23 of the N. D. P. S. Act. He was ultimately held guilty of the offence and was imposed a sentence of twelve years Rigorous Imprisonment. As of date gurung already suffered detention of more than ten years in jail custody. Being aggrieved, Gurung preferred the instant appeal which was heard by us on the above mentioned date.

(2.) MRS. Rupna Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing in support of the appellant contended as follows :-

(3.) OPPOSING the appeal Mr. Prasun Datta, learned counsel appearing for the customs Authority contended that the consignment was seized from the suitcase which was identified and claimed by the accused himself of his own. Hence, question of compliance of Section 50 of the N. D. P. S. Act did not arise. In any event, no such plea was taken by the accused at the time of trial. Mr. Datta also relied on various statements made in writing by the accused on his own volition during interrogation which were exhibited during the trial. Mr. Datta lastly contended that the entire investigation had been conducted following the strict mandate of the N. D. P. S. Act. The Court below rightly held the accused guilty of the offence and sentenced him accordingly. No interference was called for by the Court of appeal.