1. The sole accused in Calendar Case No. 3 of 2009 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Additional Special Court under NDPS Act, Chennai, is the appellant herein. She stood charged for offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 21(c), 28 and 29 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 135(1)(a)(ii) of The Customs Act. When the appellant was questioned as to the charges, she pleaded not guilty and therefore, she was put on trial. The learned Special Judge, after full-fledged trial, found the appellant guilty of offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 21(c), 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act and under Section 135(1)(a)(ii) of The Customs Act. The appellant was accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for each offence in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for each default and further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 135(1)(a)(ii) of The Customs Act, 1962. Challenging the above said judgment of conviction and sentences, the accused is before this court with this criminal appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-

During 2008, PW-1 was working as Intelligence Officer at Chennai Airport. While he was on duty, on 29.04.2008 at abut 10.30 p.m. he noticed that the accused moving in a suspicious manner towards security check area. When she was about to board Jet Airways Flight 9W032 bound for Kualalumpur, she was intercepted by PW-1 and on being questioned, she did not give proper answer. PW-1 developed suspicion and so he decided to check the luggage of the accused which were already checked-in by the authorities. Therefore, PW-1 directed PW-4 to bring the "checked-in luggage" of the accused and checked in the presence of PW-4 and another lady officer who were on duty as Security Supervisor in Jet Airways. At that time PW-6, the Superintendent of Customs was also present. She was told about her right to be searched before the Gazetted Officer or a Judicial Magistrate and enlightened about Section 50 of The NDPS Act and she declined to accept the offer.

3. On checking, PW-1 found a bulge in the bottom of black colored EMINENT suitcase and when it was cut and opened, he found 4 polythene bags containing powdered substance concealed into the suitcase, then it was tested with the field test kid by PW-1 and test answered, that the tested powder was heroin. On further inquiry, the accused also admitted the same. PW-1 took two samples of each weighing 5 grams from each of the four polythene covers and packed and sealed with customs seal and marked them visibly. The remaining bulk heroin were packed and sealed with customs seal. He seized the suitcase and obtained the signature of witnesses and the accused and he also signed in the labels. He also seized the travel documents of the accused. PW-2 sent a letter to Thailand Consul General informing them about the arrest of the accused. Thereafter, the accused was forwarded to the court for judicial remand. With the above allegations, PW-2 filed the complaint against the appellant under Section 8(c) r/w 21(c), 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

4. On appearance before the trial court, the substance of the offences were explained and charges were framed as stated in first paragraph of this judgment. The appellant denied the charges and opted for trial. Thus, she was put on trial.

5. Based on the materials collected during investigation, the prosecuting agency has examined as many as 7 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-7, Exs.P.1 to P.23 were marked and M.Os.1 to 15.

6. Out of the above said witnesses, PW-1 was the Intelligence Officer at Chennai Airport during the relevant point of time. He has stated that on 29.04.2008 while he was on duty he found the accused moving in a suspicious manner towards security check. When the accused was about to board Jet Airways Flig