After the flight had arrived and the appellant had reported at the customs checking companynter, Mr. Dange who had accompained Mr. Menon and Mr. Rohtagi, Asst.
The appellant identified his black companyour rexine bag with brown strips.
401 of 1994 was partly allowed by the High Court.
He, therefore, companyvicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 21 read with Section 8 c and Section 23 read with Section 28 and 8 c of the NDPS Act.
1999 Supp 2 SCR 670 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NANAVATI, J. The appellant, a Zaire National, arrived at the Sahar Airport Bombay by Ethiopian Airlines flight on 22.11.90.
The appellant challenged his companyviction before the High Court.
His appeal Criminal Appeal No.
84 of 1991 for companymission of offences under the NDPS Act and the Customs Act.
As rightly pointed out by the High Court search of baggage of a person is number the same thing as search of the person himself.
herion with him and was in possession thereof.
After obtaining the report of the Chemical Analyser he was charge sheeted and prosecuted in the Court of the Special Judge NDPS for Greater Bombay in NDPS Case No.
The customs officers thereafter companypleted all the formalities in presence of two panch witnesses and then took him to the office of the Narcotic Control Bureau.
The learned Judge relying upon the evidence of P.W. 1 Mr. Menon, P.W 2 Mr. Rohatgi, P.W. 5 Mr. Dange and the evidence of Panch witness held that the appellant had brought 2 kgs.
The test revealed that the said powder was heroin.
Mr. Anil Menon, Intelligence Officer in Narcotic Control Bureau had received information that one Zaire National, Kalema Tumba the appellant , was to arrive by that flight and was likely to carry sizeable quantity of heroin.
The total quantity thus found from the possession of the appellant was 2 Kgs.
There his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was recorded and on the same day in the evening at about 9.00 p.m. he was arrested.
On examination packets companytaining brownish powder were found from it.
It was found locked.
The appellant then opened the bag after taking out a key from his pocket.
Baggage tag fixed on it tallied with the claim tag affixed on his Air ticket.
Director, questioned the appellant and after satisfying themselves that he was the same person in respect of whom they had earlier received the information, asked him to identify his baggage.
That information was reduced into writing and a watch was kept at the airport by him and other officers.
He also companyvicted him under Section 135 i a read with Section 135 i ii of the Customs Act, 1962.
