The prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the seized contraband was produced before the court, an inventory was made, there was examination of independent witnesses to the seizure, and the seized contraband was destroyed during the trial.

JUDGMENT

Sahidullah Munshi, J. - This appeal is against the judgment and order of conviction dated 31.05.2016 and the order of sentence dated 10.06.2016 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Barasat, North 24-Parganas in N.D.P.S. Case No. N-147/2013 (835/2014) convicting the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(c)/23(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). Thereby imposing a sentence upon the convict to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year more for the commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and also directing the convict to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default to suffer imprisonment for one year more for the commission of offence under Section 23(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

2. The prosecution case in short is that the official of Air Intelligence Unit of Customs hereinafter called as Air Intelligence Unit, detained one person on suspicion while he was about to fly to Hongkong by Dragon Airlines flight No. KA169. Failing to give proper reply to quarries of the Air Intelligence Unit officials by the accused, his luggages were off-loaded from the concerned aircraft. The said luggages were three in number within which cardboard boxes were found and those opened by the authorities in presence of independent witnesses and the Superintendent of Customs. From one of the said boxes packets of spices were found to be kept wrapped with carbon papers. When such packets were opened, brown coloured cardboard boxes were found and those were tested with the full detected kit and the result whereof became positive to the test of 'Cannabis' (Charas). From the other two boxes packets of puffed rice were found when the detenu failed to show any papers to possess the said charas as a result whereof the officials issued and served a notice under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) upon the accused. According to prosecution the accused gave his voluntary statement and confessed his guilt later on he was arrested and was produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Barasat. After collection of materials, the Air Customs Superintendent, Air Intelligence Unit (AIU), Airport at Calcutta filed a complaint which gave rise to case No. 147 of 2013. On the basis of the materials on record charged was framed under Section 20(B)(ii)(C)/S23(c) of the (NDPS) Act was framed against the accused/ appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The case was committed to trial. As many as 31 witnesses who were cited by the prosecution but only 12 of whom were examined by the prosecution.

3. The appellant did not adduce any witness and took a plea of false implication during his examination under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. In the examination under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code the appellant took a plea that his actual luggages were not off-loaded and the luggages which were shown to him were not his luggages. He further pleaded that his confession was obtained under threat and coercion.

4. While arguing this appeal Mr.De, learned advocate, appearing for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt in as much as (a) contraband was not seized from the possession of the appellant, (b) seized contraband was never produced before the learned court below, (c) no inventory was ever made, (d) no examination of independent witnesses to the seizure, (e) seized contraband was not destroyed during trial and even no application for destruction was made before the court. Mr.De, accordingly, submitted that the appellant is entitled to an order of acquittal and the judgment and order of conviction and sentence is