1. The appellant Annabelle Analista Malibago assails, in this appeal, judgment dated 19th March, 2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (hereinafter referred to as the “learned ASJ”) convicting her of having committed the offence contemplated by Section 21(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the “NDPS Act”), as well as the consequential order, dated 26th March, 2014, sentencing her to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh, with default simple imprisonment of one month.

2. Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, appearing on behalf of the appellant, restricts her submission to one single ground, viz. that the entire proceedings were vitiated as the Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as the “IO”) was herself the complainant, who had submitted/filed the written complaint, wherefrom these proceedings emanated. She relies on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered by a Bench of three Hon’ble Judges, in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 974.

3. Arguing per contra, on behalf of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as “DRI”), Mr. Satish Aggarwala, learned counsel, would seek to distinguish the judgment in Mohan Lal (supra) on the ground that the said judgment held the proceedings to be vitiated where the informant was the IO, and not where the complainant was the IO. He submits that there is a distinction between an “informant” and a “complainant”, and that the cases investigated by the DRI are based, not on information, but on intelligence sourced by the DRI and the documents recovered pursuant thereto. He submits that, where the seizing officer was the complainant, as in the present case, the proceedings were not vitiated and Mohan Lal (supra) would not apply. He draws my attention to the contents of the complaint, and to the contentions advanced by him in his written submissions before the learned ASJ.

4. Ms. Sidhu, in rejoinder, submits that the distinction, sought to be drawn by Mr. Aggarwala, between an informant and a complainant, is a distinction without a difference, in cases relating to prosecution under the NDPS Act, as the source of intelligence was not known in such cases. Besides, she submits that a holistic reading of Mohan Lal (supra) reveals that it covers cases where the informant was the IO, as well as cases where the complainant was the IO. She, therefore, reiterates her reliance on Mohan Lal (supra).

5. Having thus identified the fulcrum around which the rival submissions, before this court, circumambulated, one may make a brief reference to the facts of the present case, insofar as they are relevant to decide the controversy in dispute.

6. The case of the respondent-DRI, as set out before the learned ASJ, was that, pursuant to receipt of a secret intelligence, a team of the DRI, accompanied by two public witnesses, intercepted the appellant, at the check-in counter of SpiceJet Flight No. SG-237, at about 3 p.m. on 15th October, 2008, and that 1.240 kgs of heroin was found concealed in a trolley bag carried by her. Three representative samples, of 5 gms each, were stated to have been recovered therefrom, sealed with the seal of the DRI and got tested by the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL), which revealed that the powder was heroin of 35.6% purity. Summons were issued to the appellant under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and her statement was recorded on 15th/16th October, 2008, in which she admitted being in possession of the abovementioned heroin.

7. The DRI cited sixteen prosecution witnesses (PWs) including the two public witnesses referred to hereinabove. After recording of their statements, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “CrPC”). The appellant did not choose to lead the evidence of any witness in her defence.

8. The complaint dated 9th April, 2009, was admittedly