Rouse Avenue Court Convicts Nympha De Jesus for Charas Export, Notes NCB Chandigarh Lapse

New Delhi: A Delhi trial court on September 17, 2026, convicted Filipino national Nympha De Jesus for exporting 560 grams of charas, while separately flagging a "serious lapse" in inter-unit cooperation within the Narcotics Control Bureau. Special Judge Sandeep Yadav of the Rouse Avenue Courts held the accused guilty under Section 23(b) of the NDPS Act for attempting to smuggle the narcotic drug to the United Kingdom via a courier parcel.

A Parcel, a Book, and 560 Grams of Charas

The case began on November 30, 2015, when NCB's Delhi Zonal Unit received secret information about narcotics concealed in a parcel at a DHL Express facility in Kirti Nagar. Upon inspection, officers found a black book whose front and back covers contained a dark brown substance. A field test confirmed it was charas. The parcel, destined for Brighton, UK, bore an AWB number and was booked by a "Nympha De Jesus," whose passport copy was affixed as ID. Two 25-gram samples were drawn and later confirmed as charas by the CFSL, CBI.

Arguments and Evidence

Prosecution relied on a chain of witnesses: the postal assistant at Connaught Place Post Office who identified the accused as the person who booked the parcel; hotel staff from Cottage Yes Please and Natraj Yes Please, where the accused stayed multiple times, including on November 26, 2015; and NCB officers who recovered the contraband. Defence counsel Gaurav Chandok argued that the accused's ID was misused, that she was not in Delhi when the parcel was seized, and that Section 52A of the NDPS Act was not complied with.

The court rejected the alibi, noting the accused failed to lead any evidence. It also held that non-compliance with Section 52A or standing orders was not fatal to the prosecution, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Bharat Aambale vs The State Of Chhattisgarh (2025). The court emphasized that "one does not find any discrepancy in physical evidence casting doubt on prosecution’s case."

Unanswered Letters: NCB Chandigarh's Lapse

While convicting the accused, Judge Yadav took note of a troubling internal failure. The Delhi Zonal Unit had written to NCB Chandigarh on December 10, 2015, and again on November 23, 2016, seeking the customer application form and call detail records of a mobile number linked to the accused. Neither request was answered.

"It is surprising that one official of NCB at Chandigarh is not cooperating with other official of NCB at Delhi in connection with investigation of present case," the court observed. It added that the matter should have been escalated to higher officials, but "no sincere and positive efforts were made at the higher level." The judge concluded: "This serious lapse on the part of officials involved in the investigation of this case deserves the attention of Director, NCB."

The court, however, clarified that the overwhelming evidence on record was sufficient to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Key Observations from the Judgment

  • "It is surprising that one official of NCB at Chandigarh is not cooperating with other official of NCB at Delhi in connection with investigation of present case."
  • "This serious lapse on the part of officials involved in the investigation of this case deserves the attention of Director, NCB."
  • "The plea of alibi has to be proved by reliable evidence and cannot be accepted only on the basis of oral submission."
  • "Failure of accused to cross examine PW 11 amounts to an admission of factum of parcel with 560 gram Charas being found at DHL Express Courier Company Office with ID document in the name of accused Nympha De Jesus being annexed therewith."

The Final Verdict

The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was exporting 560 grams of charas from India, an offence under Section 23(b) of the NDPS Act. It convicted Nympha De Jesus and directed that she be heard on the point of sentence. The quantum of punishment is yet to be pronounced. Being a trial court judgment, it is subject to appeal before higher courts.