Crl. Appeal No.617/2004

UOI v Victor Nnamdi Okpo

Page 1 Of 16

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Reserve: 16^th August, 2010

Date of Order: September 16, 2010

+ Crl. Appeal No.617/2004

%

16.09.2010

Union of India

...Appellant

Versus

Victor Nnamdi Okpo

...Respondent

Counsels:

Mr. Satish Aggarwala with Mr. Shirish Aggarwal for appellant

Mr. Ankit Khetarpal for respondent.

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

Yes.

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

Yes.

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 has been preferred by the appellant Union of India assailing the judgment dated

20^th March, 2003 passed by learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, New Delhi acquitting the

respondent/accused of the charges under Section 21, 23 and 28 of Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act (“NDPS Act” for short).

2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding present appeal are that

respondent/accused, a Nigerian citizen holding Nigerian Passport No.C-420048 was

intercepted on 15^th September, 1998 while he had checked in for going to Lagos at Indira

Gandhi International Airport. After checking in for boarding Ethiopian Airline and after

clearance of immigration and custom formalities, while he was proceedings towards

2010:DHC:4615

Crl. Appeal No.617/2004

UOI v Victor Nnamdi Okpo

Page 2 Of 16

Security Hold Area, he was intercepted by the custom officers and was asked if he was

carrying a narcotic drug for foreign currency or any contraband goods either on his

person or in any checked-in-baggage or hand baggage. To this, the respondent/accused

replied in negative. Thereafter, he was served a written notice under Section 50 of NDPS

Act informing him that his baggage and person would be searched and if he desired, his

search could be conducted in presence of either a Magistrate or a Gazette Officer of

Customs to which he replied, in writing, that his baggage could be searched in presence

of any custom officer. His baggage which he had already checked was retrieved noting

down the baggage number from his ticket tag and called from the belt. He was also

having hand baggage. On checking checked-in-baggage nothing incriminating was

found. However, when his black coloured leather executive handbag was checked, a

false bottom was found in this executive bag which on opening resulted in the recovery

of two polythene bags containing brown powder. The brown powder was tested with the

help of Field Test Kit. It gave result of heroin. The respondent/accused was taken to

Custom Prevention Room situated in the Departure Hall itself and his personal search

was conducted. Nothing incriminating was found on the personal search. This entire

operation of search had taken place in presence of witnesses. The respondent/accused

was asked if the brown powder recovered from the false bottom of his handbag in the

polythene was heroin, to which he admitted. The brown powder in two polythene bags

was marked as A and B weighed. Packet marked A was having gross weight of 1090

gms and net weight of 1065 gms and packet marked B was having weight of 1065 gms

and net weight of 920 gms. Thus the total quantity of heroin was found to be 1985 gms.

This brown power was confiscated by the custom authorities along with executive

handbag and polythene bag used for packing and sealing the brown powder. Two

representative samples each of 5 gms were taken from the two polythene bags and were

marked as A1 and A2, B1 and B2 and kept in small polythene bags separately further

kept in paper envelops and sealed with the seal of custom officers. Rest of the brown

2010:DHC:4615

Crl. Appeal No.617/2004

UOI v Victor Nnamdi Okpo

Page 3 Of 16

powder was placed in a r