Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Nigerian National in NDPS Case — 13-Year Rigorous Imprisonment Affirmed. Conscious possession of 2.5 kg heroin in checked-in baggage established; presumption under Section 35 NDPS Act not rebutted.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 91
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Okacha Mike, a Nigerian national aged 68 years, was convicted by the Special Judge under the NDPS Act for offences punishable under Sections 21(c) read with 8(c) read with 28 read with 23 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to 13 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1 lakh. The prosecution case was that on the night of 22nd/23rd March 2009, PW1 Sanjay Kumar, an Intelligence Officer of the Customs Air Intelligence Unit at Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai, noticed suspicious behaviour of the appellant at the departure hall. The appellant had checked in for Flight No.ET 611 of Ethiopian Airlines to Accra. PW1 discreetly requested PW7 Mary Anastin, a Customer Service Agent, to keep aside the appellant's checked-in bags. After the appellant proceeded for security check, PW1 intercepted him and, after informing him of his rights, searched his hand baggage and found nothing incriminating. However, upon searching the two checked-in bags (a black trolley bag and a grey duffel bag), PW1 recovered 2.5 kg of heroin concealed in the lining of the bags. Samples were drawn, panchnama prepared, and the appellant was arrested. The appellant claimed that the bags belonged to someone else and that he was only carrying them for a friend, but he could not provide any details. The trial court convicted him. The High Court, on appeal, examined the evidence including the testimony of PW1, PW7, and the panch witnesses. The court held that the appellant was in conscious possession of the contraband as the baggage was in his custody until check-in and remained under his control. The presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act that the accused had conscious possession was not rebutted. The search and seizure were conducted in compliance with Sections 41-43 of the NDPS Act, and Section 50 was not applicable as the search was of baggage, not the person. The court found no infirmity in the sampling procedure or the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. The sentence of 13 years was held to be proportionate given the commercial quantity of heroin. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

Headnote

A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Conscious Possession - Sections 21(c), 8(c), 28, 23 - Recovery of 2.5 kg heroin from checked-in baggage - Appellant, a Nigerian national, was intercepted at airport before departure - Baggage was in custody of airline after check-in - Court held that possession of baggage remains with passenger until delivery to aircraft - Appellant failed to rebut presumption of conscious possession under Section 35 - Conviction upheld (Paras 1-30).

B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Search and Seizure - Sections 41-43 - Compliance with procedural safeguards - Search conducted by Customs officer under Section 43 - Panch witnesses present - No violation of Section 50 as search was of baggage, not person - Seizure and sampling procedure found valid - Evidence of PW1 and PW7 credible (Paras 31-45).

C) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sentencing - Section 21(c) - Commercial quantity - 13 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1 lakh - Court considered gravity of offence, quantity of heroin, and lack of mitigating factors - Sentence not excessive - Appeal dismissed (Paras 46-50).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 21(c) read with 8(c) read with 28 read with 23 of the NDPS Act is sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record, and whether the sentence of 13 years rigorous imprisonment is appropriate.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence of 13 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1 lakh upheld.

Law Points

  • Conscious possession of contraband
  • presumption under Section 35 of NDPS Act
  • burden of proof on accused
  • recovery from baggage in custody of airline
  • applicability of Section 23 of NDPS Act for import/export
  • validity of search and seizure under Sections 41-43 of NDPS Act
  • admissibility of panch witness testimony
  • sentencing discretion under NDPS Act
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (BOM) (03) 230

Criminal Appeal No.420 of 2013 in Criminal Application No.323 of 2018

2019-03-14

A. M. Badar, J.

Mr. Ayaz Khan with Ms. Zehra Charania for the Appellant; Mrs. A.A. Mane for Respondent No.1; Mr. P.H. Gaikwad Patil APP for the Respondent State

Okacha Mike

Union of India and Another; The State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence under NDPS Act

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought acquittal or reduction of sentence

Filing Reason

Appellant was convicted for possession and attempted export of 2.5 kg heroin

Previous Decisions

Trial court convicted appellant on 8th October 2012 in NDPS Special Case No.118 of 2009

Issues

Whether the appellant was in conscious possession of the heroin recovered from his checked-in baggage Whether the search and seizure complied with the procedural requirements of the NDPS Act Whether the sentence of 13 years rigorous imprisonment is excessive

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the baggage did not belong to him and that he was not in conscious possession Appellant contended that the search was illegal as Section 50 was not complied with Prosecution argued that the appellant had checked in the bags and was in control, and that Section 50 does not apply to baggage search Prosecution submitted that the evidence of PW1 and PW7 was credible and the recovery was proved

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that once a passenger checks in baggage, he retains possession and control until the baggage is loaded onto the aircraft. The recovery of heroin from the lining of the bags, coupled with the appellant's failure to rebut the presumption under Section 35 of the NDPS Act, established conscious possession. The search of baggage does not require compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which applies only to personal search. The sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offence.

Judgment Excerpts

By this appeal, the appellant/accused is challenging the judgment and order dated 8th October 2012 passed by the learned Special Judge under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985... Facts in brief, leading to the prosecution and resultant conviction of the appellant/accused, can be summarized thus...

Procedural History

The appellant was arrested on 23rd March 2009. After investigation, chargesheet was filed and trial commenced in NDPS Special Case No.118 of 2009. The Special Judge convicted the appellant on 8th October 2012. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.420 of 2013 before the Bombay High Court, which was heard and dismissed on 14th March 2019.

Acts & Sections

  • Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: 21(c), 8(c), 28, 23, 35, 41, 42, 43, 50
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses State's Appeal in Gujarat Sales Tax Act Case Due to No Breach of Exemption Conditions and Application of Promissory Estoppel. The assessee was entitled to exemption under Entry No.255(2) of Notification dated 05.03.1992 as raw...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Nigerian National in NDPS Case — 13-Year Rigorous Imprisonment Affirmed. Conscious possession of 2.5 kg heroin in checked-in baggage established; presumption under Section 35 NDPS Act not rebutted.