The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the conscious possession of contraband, the voluntary and truthful nature of the confessional statement, and the failure to rebut statutory presumptions under the NDPS Act to affirm the appellant's guilt.

S.P. GARG, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 31.10.2012 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.01/03/2010 by which the appellant – Sete Nepali @ Sarki was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 20(c) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (In short ‘NDPS Act’). By an order dated 19.11.2012, he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine Rs.1 lac.

2. Shorn of necessary details, the prosecution case was that on 25.11.2009 at about 12.45 p.m. the appellant was intercepted by the Custom Officers at the office of Himalyan Courier Company at House No.193, Shop No.17, New Camp, Majnu Ka Tila, Delhi-54 and was found in possession of 20.774 kgs (net weight) of Hashish illegally.

3. In the complaint case filed by complainant – B.N. Meena, Air Customs Officer, it was averred that on 22.11.2009 a consignment of 8.834 kgs of Hashish booked in the name of Rahul r/o F-26, Okhla Phase-I, New Delhi, was detected at Courier Terminal, IGI Airport, New Delhi. It was concealed under the cover of Tibetan religious books to be exported to France. PW-4 (Mohd. Iftakhar Alam), owner of Himalyan Cargo & Courier Company was summoned and he informed that one more shipment of similar type was likely to be received at his office at House No.193, Shop No.17, New Camp, Sakya House, Majnu Ka Tila, on 25.11.2009. A raiding party was constituted and two panch witnesses were associated. The raiding team reached near the office of Himalyan Cargo & Courier Services at around 09.00/09.30 a.m. to mount surveillance. At 12.45 p.m. the appellant came in a rickshaw and went inside the Courier Shop along with two black colour bags in his possession. Finally, on checking each bag, these were found containing 41 books wrapped in a yellow colour cloth. One of the religious books was taken out from the bag and upper and lower cover of the book was cut open which resulted in recovery of a strip wrapped in an aluminium foil. On removal of the aluminium foil, a black colour cake like material wrapped in the transparent polythene was recovered which on testing gave positive result for Hashish. Six samples of 25 gms each were taken out from the contraband and sealed. Necessary proceedings were conducted.

4. Further case of the prosecution is that pursuant to summons under Section 67 NDPS Act, the appellant tendered his statement voluntarily in NCB office; thereafter he was arrested. Compliance of Section 57 NDPS Act was made. Exhibits were sent to CRCL through Sanjeev and report (Ex.PW-9/A) was collected. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, the appellant was sent for trial for commission of offence punishable under Section 21(c) NDPS Act.

5. The prosecution examined eighteen witnesses in all to establish its case. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication at PW-4 (Mohd. Iftakhar Alam)’s behest. The trial resulted in conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Appellant’s counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into grave error to base conviction on the statements of the official witnesses without independent corroboration. The local police was not informed about the recovery of the contraband. The real perpetrator of the crime was PW-4 (Mohd. Iftakhar Alam) and he was involved in trafficking of the contraband. Material discrepancies and contradictions emerging in the statements of the official witnesses were overlooked without any cogent reason. The appellant was not in conscious and intelligible possession of the contraband. Learned APP controverting the arguments urged that huge quantity was recovered from the appellant’s possession and the statements of the official witn