Case Note & Summary
The appellant, a Nigerian national, was convicted by the Special Judge for NDPS, Greater Mumbai, for offences under Sections 8(c) read with 21(B) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine. The case arose from a secret information received by the NCB on 21 January 2004 that the appellant would arrive at Gaurav City, Mira Road, with over 10 kg of heroin. The NCB raided the premises and recovered three packets of heroin from below the bed in Flat No. 201, and further recovered heroin from Flat No. 202 using keys found on the appellant. The samples tested positive for di-acetyl morphine. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses, and the appellant's statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded. The trial court convicted the appellant, holding that the NCB followed all mandatory procedures. On appeal, the High Court perused the evidence and found that the NCB had followed the mandatory procedure, and the appellant's statement was voluntary. The court upheld the conviction, noting that the appellant played a role in the conspiracy and possession of heroin. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Narcotic Drugs - Possession of Heroin - Section 8(c) read with Section 21(B) NDPS Act, 1985 - The appellant was found in possession of heroin recovered from flats - The court upheld the conviction holding that the NCB followed mandatory procedures and the appellant's statement under Section 67 was voluntary - Held that the prosecution proved conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 1-3). B) Criminal Conspiracy - Section 29 NDPS Act, 1985 - The appellant was convicted for conspiracy along with other accused - The court found that the appellant assisted in the transportation and concealment of heroin - Held that the ingredients of conspiracy were established (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 8(c) read with 21(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 8(c) read with 21(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act are upheld.
Law Points
- Conviction under NDPS Act requires proof of conscious possession
- Section 67 statement is admissible if voluntary
- Section 29 conspiracy requires meeting of minds
- Commercial quantity presumption under Section 21(B) applies
- Mandatory procedures under NDPS Act must be followed
