Criminal Appeal No.86 of 1992. Case: Mrs. Khan Rukhsena Banoo Vs B. S. Rawat Assistant Collector of Customs Bombay. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal No.86 of 1992 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: H. V. Nimbalkar and Vijay Kakade, Advs. and For Responents: M. U. Patwardhan (for No.1) and R. Y. Mirza, Public Prosecutor ( for No. 2), Advs. |
| Judges | S. P. Kurdukar , J. and M. F. Saldanha , J. |
| Issue | Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985) - Sections 43, 8(c), 28 |
| Citation | 1994 CriLJ 785 |
| Judgement Date | June 15, 1993 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
-
: The appellant, a young lady, who hails from South Africa was charged with having committed offences under the N.D.P. S. Act and the Customs Act in so far as it was alleged that on 20th January, 1989, she had checked in at Sahar International Airport, Bombay, for an Air Mauritius Flight No. M. K. 745 which flight was bound for Durban via Mauritius. She had checked in three suit cases which are the subject-matter of the present prosecution and which, on examination were found to contain women's clothing, principally maxis. The defence, however, disputes this fact and maintains that the accused only had hand-baggage, that the owner of the 3 suit cases could not be traced and that the officers have falsely alleged that they were checked in by the accused. Concealed within the folds of these maxis and wrapped in cotton were as many as 49 packages, each one containing 1000 tablets of Mandrax.
-
The Appellant had gone to the Airport on that day and was required to get the checked in baggage examined by the security staff. On the suit-cases being scanned through the X'ray screening machine, the Security Officer, who did not find anything objectionable by way of weapons or explosives noticed a large number of tablets in the baggage. He therefore proceeded to Customs Superintendent Raghvan (P.W.1) and informed him that the lady concerned was carrying three suit cases which appeared to contain large number of tablets. The passenger viz. the appellant had completed the check in formalities and the three suit cases which weighed over 49 Kgs. involved a payment of excess baggage fare. The staff at the check in counter therefore, collected approximately 452 Dollars as excess fare and issued a separate ticket against the said payment in the name of the appellant and setting out her passenger ticket number. As is the practice, three luggage tags bearing the destination Mauritius were affixed to the three suit cases and the counterfoils bearing the same serial numbers as the tags were stuck to the passenger's ticket, as is the normal practice. The appellant thereafter proceeded through immigration and when she came to the Customs Hall, she was intercepted by the officer who asked her to produce her tickets and tallied the numbers of the tickets with the tags on the said suit cases. She was asked to open the said suit cases, when she stated that the keys were not with her and therefore, the first of the three suit cases was opened and it was found to contain maxis. Concealed within the folds were several packets containing Mandrax tablets. The appellant along with the three suit cases was thereafter taken to the office and the Officers summoned panchas in whose presence the suit cases were checked. ln all 49 packages were recovered from the three suit cases each one containing 1000 tablets weighing 1Kg. each. The officer took out 18 samples containing 5 tablets each and sealed the same as representative samples. Summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act, was therefore, served upon the appellant and her statement was recorded.
-
In her statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, the appellant has stated that she is a South African National that she is the mother of four children; that her one child is blind and that she had come to India for the purpose of praying and fulfilling a vow. She has spent a few days in Bombay and one Shyam is alleged to have been very helpful to her during this period. It was he who had approached her and handed over to her the three suit cases with a request that she should carry the same to South Africa. She had not much luggage of her own and, therefore, she agreed to carry the suit cases without the least of suspicion that there was anything wrong. She contended that she was totally innocent. She had no knowledge of the fact that the suit cases contained contraband and in these circumstances she prayed that the Court should pardon her. The Customs Officer has drawn up a detailed panchanama in respect of the seizure of the concealed contraband that came to be attached. The accused was placed under arrest and on completion of the investigation. she was put up for trial.
-
We need to mention at this juncture that we are rather shocked by the size of the record of this case. This is a simple case of seizure at the airport which involves the evidence of the concerned officers, panchanama and Chemical Analyser's report. Totally only six witnesses have been examined. The evidence however runs into as many as 165 pages towards which effort both the learned Counsel, who appeared, the Special Prosecutor and the Defence Counsel have contributed in equal measure. The trial unfortunately commenced on 22-8-1989 and carried on till 31-7-1991, almost for two full years. A perusal of the roznama shows that on all sorts of grounds the trial was dragged on. The 313 statement consists of 150 pages and to our mind, the evidence could have easily been summarised in 1/10th of this volume. Thereafter, Volume III consists almost entirely of the judgment which accounts for close to 200 pages. We specifically refer to this aspect of the matter because it is a matter of serious concern in Special Cases and trials under the NDPS Act, as grievances are always made to this Court that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial