The main legal point established in the judgment is that the fairness of the investigation and compliance with procedural requirements, as mandated by the NDPS Act, are crucial for upholding the principles of natural justice and fair trial.

1. This appeal assails judgment, dated 14th August, 2014, passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS), whereby the appellant stands convicted of having committed the offences contemplated under Section 21(c) and 23(c) read with Section 28 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the “NDPS Act”), and the consequent order, dated 19th August, 2014, whereby the appellant stands sentenced, for the said offence, to 10 years” rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1 lakh and default simple imprisonment of 3 months, for each of the aforementioned offences, the sentences being directed to run concurrently.

2. The issue in controversy stands covered by the judgment in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, (2018) SCC OnLine SC 974 and Arif Khan v. State of Uttarakhand, (2018) SCC OnLine SC 459. As such, it is not necessary to dwell deep into the facts of the case. An overall view, thereof, to the extent it is necessary to justify the present judgment, would suffice.

3. The case of the prosecution may be set out thus.

4. PW-1 Rajendra Verma, Intelligence Officer in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) received intelligence, on 12th April, 2010, to the effect that the petitioner would be travelling from Delhi to Toronto by Air India Flight No. AI 187, on 13th April, 2010, and would be carrying narcotics in his baggage. The said information was reduced, by PW-1, into writing, and put up to his immediate superior Man Singh Yadav (PW-6), who after discussing the matter with his senior officer, directed PW-1 to form a team and act on the information. Consequent thereto, a team of DRI officers, led by the I/O Rajendra Verma (PW-1) reached the departure hall of the Indira Gandhi International Airport, accompanied by two independent panch witnesses. The appellant, who was spotted near the Air India check-in counter, was intercepted before he could check-in to the flight. Two suitcases of the appellant, which had already been checked in were withdrawn. The appellant was also carrying one hand baggage.

5. The appellant was, thereafter, taken to the traffic office of Air India, where a written notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act (Ex. PW-1/A) was served on him, informing him of his right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, to which the appellant replied, in writing, on the body of the said notice itself, agreeing for his search to be conducted by the raiding officers.

6. Consequent thereto, the appellant was searched by the DRI Officers. The two checked-in baggages of the appellant were also searched. On opening them, the rear walls of the suitcases were found to have wooden frames, behind which, cavities, containing transparent plastic polythene packets, were seen. One such packet was recovered from the grey suitcase of the appellant, and marked “A” and three packets were recovered from the black suitcase of the appellant and marked “B”, “C” and “D”. These packets, on being opened, were found to contain an off white coloured powdery substance, which, on being tested with the Field Testing Kit carried by the officials, tested positive for heroin. The net weight of the packets came to 2.960 kg, 0.956 kg, 1.004 kg, 1.033 kg, working out to be a total net weight of 5.923 kg of heroin, valued at around Rs. 6 crores.

7. Two samples of 5gm each were retrieved from the above mentioned four packets, and transferred to 8 separate transparent polythene pouches, individually marked. The said pouches were seized and, after following due procedure, transported and deposited in the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL), which returned a finding to the effect that the packets contained heroin of 65.8% to 84.8% purity.

8. Summons, under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, were served on the appellant by the I/O Rajendra Verma (PW-1), in consequence whereof, the statement of the appellant (Ex. PW-1/H) was recorded in the DRI office. The appellant admitted, in the said statement, to having sought