HUMA PARVEEN Vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HUMA Parveen (32), a house wife of Delhi, was convicted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Amritsar on December 7, 2001 for offence under Sections 21 and 23 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (For short the Act) for having been found in possession of 5 kgs of heroin which she had illegally imported to India from Pakistan when she arrived at the Land Custom Station, Attari, Amritsar on December 17, 1998. She was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.00 lac for the possession of heroin, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. She was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years for the illegal import of heroin into India and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.00 lac and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Huma Parveen has appealed to this court.

(2.) ON December 16, 1998 secret information was received to the effect that one Huma Parveen would be arriving at Land Custom Station, Attari from Lahore by Samjhauta Express on December 17, 1998 with a consignment of approximately 5 kgs of heroin. This information was reduced into writing and is Ex. PA. The information was sent to higher authorities and in pursuance thereof a raiding party of intelligence officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Regional Office, Amritsar was constituted consisting of Sanjay Sarpal (PW 1), Charanjit Singh (PW 2) and some others. The train arrived at platform No. 2 at 3.00 PM. Huma Parveen was spotted by the party, she was allowed to go through the health and immigration checks. At about 7.30 PM when she was moving towards counter No. 12 for customs clearance along with her baggage, she was informed by the officials of the raiding party that they wanted to search her person as well as her baggage. She was also asked whether she was in possession of narcotic drugs. Huma Parveen was taken to PRO's room on platform No. 2 and the presence of two independent witnesses namely Simerjit Singh and Harjinder Singh was procured. The appellant was served notice under Section 50 of the Act and was informed that she had an opportunity to get her person and baggage searched either before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. The appellant replied in writing and consented to her search to be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. Thereafter, Mrs. G.K. Sethi, Superintendent, Central Excise, Amritsar (PW 3) was called to the railway station. She reached the railway station at 8.30 PM and in her presence and also in the presence of two independent witnesses as well as Lady Constable Kashmir Kaur, Sanjay Sarpal (PW 1) searched the appellant's baggage. The appellant's baggage consisted of four items. The first three items were a brown bag containing clothes and personal effects, a second bag containing ghee and dry fruits, a third packet/bundle containing bed sheets and a fourth package which was a cane basket. This basket contained a black purse, fresh fruits, some poppy seeds, some dry fruits, Rs. 855 in Indian currency and Rs. 1021 in Pakistani currency. Under a bed sheet a packet was found which was wrapped with an adhesive tape. The packet opened and it revealed 5 smaller packets, four packets in white stitched cloth and the fifth in a plastic ploythene pouch. All packets were opened and found to contain light brown coloured powder in granular form with a sharp pungent smell. Small quantities were taken out from each packet and tested with a detection kit. Each sample tested positive of heroin. Each packet contained 1 kg of the drug. The recovered substance, the material used for packing, the appellant's passport, some visiting cards, cane basket and bed sheets used to wrap the cane basket were seized by Sanjay Sarpal under the provisions of Section 42 of the Act. The Panchnama Ex. PC (9 pages) was drawn up by Sanjay Sarpal and concluded at 4 AM on December 18, 1998. It was attested by Mrs. G.K. Sethi, Superintendent, Simerjit Singh and Harjinder Singh. It was counter signed by the appellant. The appellant made a voluntary statement before Sanjay Sarpal Ex. PE which was reduced into Hindi and signed by the appellant.

(3.) SEIZURE report of the Heroine was sent on December 19, 1998 to Director General, Narcotic Control Bureau, West Block, New Delhi, Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, JP Bhavan, New Delhi and the Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DZU), New Delhi. A summary of the brief facts of the case was annexed therewith as Annexure-A. The seizure report is Ex. PG and the summary is Ex. PH/1. The samples were sent for analysis to the Chief Chemist, Central Revenue Control Laboratory, IARI, New Delhi vide Memo Ex.PJ. The report of the Chemical Examiner dated February 12, 1999 wherein it was opined that each of the five samples of brown coloured powder was found to contain Diacetylmorphine (heroin). Since the investigation revealed that Huma Parveen had prima facie committed offence under Sections 21 and 23 of the Act for possessing and importing into India narcotics without any legal document, complaint dated March 12, 1999 was presented before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Amritsar.