ORDER
A.B. Palkar, J.
1. The appellant (original accused No.1) has challenged her conviction and consequent sentence passed against her by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, for different offences under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the “N.D.P.S. Act”) and the Customs Act. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as the “accused”) was convicted for the offence punishable under section 8(c) read with section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default to suffer R.I. for one year. She is also convicted for offences punishable under section 8(c) read with sections 23 and 28 of the N.D.P.S. Act and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default to suffer R.I. for one year. She was further convicted for the offence punishable under section 135(1)(a) read with section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and was sentenced to
suffer simple imprisonment for three years. The substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:—
On 20-2-1989 P.W. 1 Sanchis, who was working as Superintendent in the Customs Department, had joined the Narcotic Control Bureau (for short “N.C.B.”) and was on duty at Ballard Pier. He received information that two women viz., Ms. Alice Norman (present accused) and Ms. Grace Odarkor Lamptay, who has absconded pending trial, after being released on bail, being Nationals of Ghana, were about to smuggle 5 kgs. of heroin out of India by Ethiopian Airlines flight No. ET-611 on 21-2-1989 in the early hours i.e. soon after midnight. A gist of this information was recorded and the original information was sent to the Director of N.C.B. and D.R.I., New Delhi, after it was sealed in the office of the Deputy Director, N.C.B. R.N. Kakar (P.W. 2). The officers present, viz., Kakar (P.W. 2), Sanchis (P.W. 1) and one more officer Patel discussed and decided the strategy to carry out the raid at the airport. They proceeded to the airport and reached there at about 1.15 a.m. P.W. 1 Sanchis collected the passenger flight manifest of the aforesaid Ethiopian Airlines flight and found the names of the aforesaid two persons at Sr. Nos. 62 and 56, respectively. Thereafter, he deployed staff behind the Customs counter with a view to intercept the said suspects. As expected, the present accused and Ms. Lamptay arrived and cleared their immigration formalities and were proceeding towards security check. When they were about to depart by module-II, the New International Passenger Terminal (N.I.P.T), they were intercepted and their travel documents were checked. On confirming that they were the same persons listed at Sr. Nos. 56 and 62 in the manifest of the flight, they were taken to the baggage examination hall of the Customs Department. Their air-tickets were checked and it was found that their baggage claim tags were affixed to the air-tickets. Each of them has checked in one piece baggage. Thereafter, Patel called two panch witnesses from the airline’s staff. By that time, it was about 3.45 a.m. The panchas were explained the details of the facts which the officers had come to know and were requested to act as panch witnesses. Thereupon the accused was asked to identify her baggage from other baggages in the baggage examination hall and she identified one light brown nylon carry bag whereas the other lady identified a dark blue canvas carry bag. (Hereafter reference to the second lady would be made only if necessary as she has jumped the bail and was not tried alongwith the present accused).
3. The baggage claim tag on the aforesaid bag of the accused was tallying with the baggage claim tag in her possession which confirmed that the bag which was claimed to be hers was the same. The accused were then asked to open their respective baggages and when the present accused Alice Norman opened her bag in the presence of panchas, certain personal belongings were found therein and, in addition, it contained seven polythene bags containing what appeared to be toffees or chocolates. Three bigger polythene bags contained articles appearing to be Cadbury chocolates “Eclairs” and the two remaining bigger polythene bags contained what appears to be “Parle toffees” and the other two similar polythene bags contained what appeared to be Parle ‘Melody’ toffees. All the bags were opened and the toffees and chocolates were examined after opening their wrappers. They were found to contain brown powder. It had two types of wrappings, initially, wrapped in aluminium foil and then in gold foil which was finally wrapped in chocolate wrappers. Some of them were
tested on the kit carried by the officers for spot testing and the tests indicated that brown powder contained heroin. On taking actual weight, the seven bags were found to contain 3.5 kgs. of brown powder. The entire contents of the bags were emptied and it was found that, in all, there were 210 toffees.
4. Thereafter, 5 gms. of quantity from the larger polythene bag was separated for the purpose of one sample and, in all, three such samples were prepared, each containing 5 gms. and were initially heat sealed and were, thereafter, put in separate packets and the packets were also sealed. On each packet, the seals bearing the signatures of the panchas were affixed and the seal of N.C.B. No. 02 was also affixed. The remaining powder was kept in a carton and it was also duly sealed. Thereafter, one lady Customs Officer on duty at the airport named Mrs. Parmeshwaram was asked to carry out personal search of both the ladies suspected to be carrying the brown powder. However, nothing incriminating was found in their personal search. The hand bag of the accused contained a passport issued by the State of Ghana and Ethiopian Airlines ticket of flight ET 611. It was also found to contain foreign travel tax challan and baggage claim tag, as stated earlier. They had also taken boarding pass and the boarding pass was found in the hand bag. The tickets and the boarding pass were seized and, thereafter, enquiry was made from the accused regarding the source of the said brown powder in the presence of panchas. She replied that the said powder was given to her by the second accused Lamplay in order to smuggle it out of India and she was paid some consideration for this job. After all the articles were seized, a detailed seizure panchanama was drawn in the presence of two panch witnesses and their signatures were obtained on each page. The signatures of the accused were also obtained and the lady officer who had taken personal search of the accused also signed on the panchanama.
5. After taking charge of the entire muddemal property, the accused were taken to Ballard Estate office and the sample packets and muddemal property were kept in the cupboard by P.W. 1 Sanchis under his own lock and key. He, thereafter, reported about the seizure to R.R. Kakar (P.W. 2) who is the Deputy Director, N.C.B. Later, on the said muddemal property was deposited in the godown of Customs House, in charge of the Asstt. Collector of Customs by letter dated 22-2-1989. The sealed carton was kept in the warehouse at Sewree.
6. The sealed samples were later on sent to different authorities. One such sample was sent to the Chemical Analyser, Forensic Science Laboratory, Mumbai. Another such sample was sent to the Chief Chemist and one sample was retained in the Customs office. The Chief Chemist reported that the quantity received for analysis was inadequate and sent back the said sample whereas the Forensic Science Laboratory analysed the sample and sent report (Exh. 21) indicating that the sample contained heroin.
7. The accused were produced before R.R. Kakar (P.W. 2) and he interrogated them and recorded their statements under section 108 of the Customs Act. In their statements recorded by P.W. 2 Kakar, the accused clearly stated that the aforesaid facts, especially that they were carrying the brown powder in chocolate packets were kept in hand bag of the accused Alice Norman.
8. After the receipt of the Chemical Analyser’s report, the entire material was placed before the concerned authority in order to secure sanction to the prosecution of the accused and after the sanction, the order was passed,
complaint was filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
9. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges for different offences which are already indicated in the earlier part of this judgement. The prosecution examined five witnesses, including two panch witnesses, Edward Fernandes (P.W. 3) and Anil Gaikwad (RW. 4). The Intelligence Officer Sanchis was examined as P.W. 1 and the officer recording the statements R.R. Kakar was examined as RW. 2. In addition, one more officer who is Yogesh Shah (P.W. 5) who deposited the contraband was also examined. However, his evidence is not very much material.
10. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. Although her defence is of denial, she has stated that the contraband article found in the bag did not belong to her and she has been falsely implicated. In reply to the last question put to her in examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she has staled that the alleged bag contained narcotic drug, viz., heroin of 3.500 kgs. which was belonging to the absconding accused Lamptay and even the baggage also belonged to her. It was not identified by the present accused before the N.C.B. officers. She was travelling by Ethiopian Airlines flight ET 611 for Brazavilla via. Adis Ababa and was not carrying any incriminating article. Her signatures on the statement recorded by the Customs Officer were obtained by force after she was beaten up by the said officers and the entire prosecution story is false.
11. After scrutiny of the entire oral and documentary evidence, the learned Special Judge accepted the prosecution case and found the accused guilty and passed the above stated order of conviction and sentence which has been challenged before us.
12. In this Court, arguments were advanced at length by Mr. Lalla on behalf of the accused and Mr. Agrawal, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the complainant. The oral evidence mainly consists of the evidence of P.W. 1 Sanchis and two panch witnesses as regards the incident at the airport and the evidence of Mr. Karkar as regards the latter part of the incident and recording of statements of both the accused. The facts have already been narrated with the necessary details and it is not at all necessary to have repetition of the same.
13. Mr. Lalla, learned Counsel appearing for the accused, contended while challenging the prosecution evidence that the information received by P.W. 1 Sanchis was written down, but the same is not produced in Court and what is produced in Court is only a gist of the information. Mr. Agrawal replied to this that the original information which many times contains the name of the informant is not produced in Court and only a gist thereof is prepared and is produced in Court. The original information is kept in a sealed packet which is sent to Delhi and on the basis of which the informant gets his reward, if the information is found to be true.
14. A reference to section 68 of the N.D.P.S. Act would show that no officer acting in exercise of powers vested in him under any provision of this Act or any rule or order made thereunder shall be compelled to say whence he got any information as to the commission of any offence. Thus, there being full protection grjanted to the informant, it is not possible to accept that the information which may contain the name of the informant would be produced at the trial. In case of leakage of the name of the informant, them is every possibility of apprehension of danger to the life or limb of the informant.
15. It was next contended by Mr. Lalla, the learned ‘Counsel appearing, for the accused, that, admittedly, the key of the bag in which the contraband was found was not produced by the accused. In fact, the prosecution case does not even indicate that the bag was in a locked condition. If the bag was not at all locked, the question of producing the key does not arise. The nexus between the accused and the bag is established categorically by check in baggage claim tag which was affixed to the bag and the baggage tag which was with the accused as both tags contained the ticket number and the flight number and they were tallied before the accused was asked to open the bag. Moreover, in presence of the panchas and the officers, the accused identified the said bag to be belonging to her and this statement of the accused incorporated in the panchanama and deposed to by the witnesses is not, in any way, hit by the provisions of section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the contrary, the Customs Officers are even entitled to record the confessional statement of the accused which has, in fact, been recorded in the present case also.
16. As the contraband was found in the bag which was checked in by the accused, the case is not covered by the provisions of section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act as held by a Full Bench of this Court in Ebanezer Adebaya @ Monday Obter v. State of Maharashtra, . There was no dispute on this proposition before us. In this case, although P.W. 3 Fernandes was declared hostile, a perusal of his evidence would show that on almost all material points, he has corroborated the prosecution case whereas the second panch Anil Gaikwad (P.W. 4) has fully corroborated the entire case of the prosecution. P.W. 3 Fernandes was on duty at the airport as he was working with Ethiopian Airlines. He identified the accused before the Court and also identified his signatures on the panchanama and he was declared hostile because he stated that the contents of the panchanama were explained to him after the conclusion thereof and he was not allowed to read the contents. He was asked to put his signature on the panchanama and, accordingly, he has put his signature. In cross-examination by the prosecutor he has stated that the polythene bags contained articles appearing like toffees and were found in the baggage of the accused Alice Norman. He even denied the suggestion that the brown powder was not tested on the spot with the help of the kit. In addition, we have the evidence of another panch and his evidence as well as the evidence of 0P.W. 1 Sanchis is not at ail shaken in the cross-examination. There are no material discrepancies in their evidence and the discrepancies which were pointed out by the prosecutor in the trial Court were so minor and negligible that we find no purpose in referring to the same. The evidence of these three witnesses clearly show that it was the accused-appellant who was carrying the particular hand bag for which she had checked in, the tag in her possession and the tag on the baggage containing the flight number and the ticket number tallied and she had also undergone the formalities of immigration and this evidence is, in our opinion, sufficient to establish that the article i.e. the contraband was seized from the possession of the accused and since she had kept it in her baggage which was checked in at the counter at the airport, she was obviously attempting to smuggle it out of India. Had she not been intercepted by the office at the Customs counter, she would have been successful in her design.
17. This evidence is further corroborated by the statement of the accused (Exh. 31) recorded by P.W. 2 Kakar under section 108 of the Customs Act. In this statement, she has given all her personal details and also her previous visits to India. She has in
categorical terms admitted that the brown powder purported to be heroin was found in her baggage and she also identified her baggage and tag bearing the flight number.
18. On behalf of the accused, her learned Counsel Mr. Lalla strenuously contended that even if the evidence regarding possession of the article by the accused is accepted, the prosecution evidence fails short of establishing that the sample examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory was heroin. It is true that the office of the Chief Chemist to whom another sample packet was sent has returned the packet on the ground that the quantity therein was not sufficient for the purpose of analysis. There is, therefore, only one report of the Chemical Analyser sent by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Mumbai (Exh. 21). This report refers to one sealed envelope received with seals intact and as per the copy sent. It also states that it was sent by police constable Aroskar as is deposed to by P.W. 1 Sanchis and the reference of letter sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory is also mentioned as No. NCB/BZU/ENQ-10/89/329. The same number is found in the reference letter (Exh. 20). The Chemical Analyser’s office has endorsed on the letter for having received the sample in a sealed condition and this evidence is relied upon by the prosecution to connect the sample collected on the spot with the sample analysed by the Forensic Science Laboratory.
19. This report of the Chemical Analyser is admissible in evidence without formal proof thereof as per the provisions of section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
20. However, on behalf of the accused, Mr. Lalla contended that the aforesaid evidence is not sufficient to establish the link between the sample collected and the sample analysed inasmuch as the remaining sample after the analysis was not sent back by the Chemical Analyser. He also brought to our notice the directions issued to the officers for the purpose of collecting sample which show that it is necessary to send back the remanent sample by the Chemical Analyser and even while opening the sample, the Chemical Analyser is required to open it in such a fashion that the seals and the signatures of the panchas are not disturbed so that they can be again checked by the officers sending the sample. It was, however, clearly conceded by the learned Counsel for the accused that these directions issued by the N.C.B., Delhi, do not have any force of law as they are only departmental instructions. Although the production of the remanent sample would have further corroborated the prosecution case and would have been more advisable, the fact remains that the Chemical Analyser has not sent back the remanent sample and we have to examine whether on the basis of the above discussed evidence, the link has been established beyond doubt. Mr. Laila, the learned Counsel appearing for the accused, relied heavily on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Mainuddin Kasim Mulla v. State of Maharashtra, . In the said decision, it is observed that the articles sent to the Chemical Analyser were not before the Court at all for facilitating the identification thereof at the hands of the concerned witnesses. It was also observed that the learned Sessions Judge committed serious error in commencing the trial without ascertaining that the articles sent were before the Court. We are not aware as to whether the evidence as is available in this case which clearly establishes the link between the sample seized and the sample analysed was on record in that case before the Division Bench. There is no reference to the same in the said judgement and, therefore, it was on the basis of the facts and circumstances and the evidence in that case that the Division Bench made the aforesaid observations and, ultimately, held that
as the entire link leading to the possible conviction of the appellant was not established, the appellant was entitled to an acquittal. However, as we are satisfied from the evidence discussed above, the link in this case is established in clear terms and there is no manner of doubt that the sample collected from the contraband found in the baggage of the accused was the same which was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and which was analysed there and report (Exh. 21) was sent as a result thereof.
21. It was then contended oh behalf of the accused by the learned Counsel Mr. Lalla that the report of the Chemical Analyser is only to the effect that the sample contained heroin and it is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offence with which she was charged.
22. Mr. Lalla, thereafter, brought to our notice the decision of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Mahmad Hanit Shaikh Ibrahim v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1995(1) Crimes 274. It was held in this case that the report of the Public Analyst containing bare opinion and assertion that muddemal article was “charas” and in the absence of any full and complete data disclosing tests or experiments performed by him, such a report cannot be attached any probative evidentiary value to be used against the accused for recording order of conviction. The learned Counsel drew our attention to the portion of paras 7 on page 277 wherein the Gujarat High Court has observed what the Public Analyst is expected to do after he receives a packet containing sample of muddemat. About 15 points have been stated by the Gujarat High Court which are required to be noted down by the Public Analyst before taking a sample for analysis. The Gujarat High Court has also referred to one previous judgement of the same Court wherein it was observed that it is not enough for the Chemical Examiner merely to state his opinion as to what was the concentration of alcohol in the sample of the blood analysed by him. The report of the Chemical Examiner must show the tests or experiments performed by him, the factual data revealed by such tests or experiments and the reasons leading to the formation of the opinion from such factual data. It is on the basis of this that the learned Counsel contended that the report (Exh. 21) sent by the Forensic Science Laboratory merely stated that the sample was found to contain heroin which is not sufficient as it does not disclose the necessary test carried out, the data collected and the reasons for which the Chemical Analyser has to come to the said conclusion.
23. As against this, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, Mr. Agrawal, referred to an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court (A.A. Desai & M.L. Dudhat, JJ.) delivered on 19-2-1996 in Criminal Appeal No. 643 of 1995. It was contended before the Division Bench in that case that it was obligatory on the part of the Analysers to reproduce the data of analysis which is the basis of his conclusion or result. However, the Division Bench did not accept the said submission and observed in para 3 which reads as under :—
“We are unable to accept the submission as canvassed. Undisputedly Exhibits 61 to 67 are reports of the expert which are admissible in evidence in view of section 293(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The section further provides that the Court can call the expert for examination in case of any doubt. Undisputedly in the present case the report of the expert has been accepted during the trial without there being any demur. The defence has not applied for examination of the experts. Even otherwise
the trial safely proceeded on relying upon the report. Now it would not be open for the defence to turn round and suggest that the report is not admissible for want of certain data of analysis. To discard a report on the ground of alleged deficiency or requirement would be derogatory to the scheme of section 293 of Cri.P.C. itself. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission of Mr. Pathak in this behalf.”
Therefore, the Division Bench of this Court has already taken a view different from the one expressed by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court and we have no hesitation in taking the same view and with due deference to the learned Judges of the Gujarat High Court, we are unable to agree with the view they have expressed in the aforesaid judgment. We are, therefore, satisfied that the prosecution has not only established the link between the sample taken on the spot and the sample analysed, but has also established that the said sample contained heroin which is a narcotic drug and the possession and transportation of which is prohibited.
24. In the present case, apart from the evidence of the Intelligence Officer Sanchis (P.W. 1) and the two panch witnesses, there is also evidence of the statement of the accused in the form of confession recorded by P.W. 2 Kakar after issuing summons to her. This evidence further corroborates the case of the prosecution. The said statement is at Exh. 31. It was recorded immediately after the incident and after the accused was arrested, on the very next day, she was produced before the Magistrate. The accused gave an application before the Magistrate which, according to the learned Counsel Mr. Lalla, was the retraction of the confession. She also reported to the Magistrate that she was beaten up and she was examined by the Doctor to find out the injuries on her person. The application given by the accused is at page 57 of the record of the Magistrate’s Court. In fact, a perusal of this would show that there is no retraction of the confession as such. The accused has stated in this application that the contraband found in her suite-case was given to her by a Nigerian person as carrier. In fact, the accused No. 2 has nothing to do with the drugs. The accused submitted further that when the accused No. 2 denied the connection with her, she was also beaten up by the N.C.B. officers and both the accused had marks of injuries on their bodies. She has further specifically stated that as the accused No. 2 has nothing to do with the seizure of the drugs, the statement of the accused No. 2 was not voluntary. Thereafter, she stated that she be sent to the Doctor for treatment. This application was given on 22-2-1989. The accused No. 2 also gave an application on the same date and both were sent for medical examination. The Medical Certificate, which is marked as X-2 for identification is at page 154 of the paper-book, shows that the accused had very minor injuries. There was swelling to the left hand as well as to the right hand which was from distant to dorsum of the wrist and, in addition, there was found ecchymosis on the elbow of the size 4 cms. x. 4 cms. The injuries Nos. 1 & 2 cannot even be attributed to an assault and even injury No. 3 does not appear to be the result of the assault. If, as contended by the accused, she had been severely beaten up by the officers, including some lady officers, then number of injuries would have been found on her person. In any case, even if it is found that she had some injuries, it does not appear that the same were caused as a result of assault by the officers for extracting her confession and, as already pointed out, not only that she has not retracted the confession but has admitted the possession of the contraband and
has only claimed that the same was given to her by one Nigerian national and not by the accused No. 2. In her statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused stated that her signature on the statement was obtained by force by the officer and in reply to question No. 50, she has stated that the alleged baggage containing narcotic drug i.e. 3.5 kgs. of heroin belonged to the absconding accused i.e. accused No. 2 which is contrary to what she has slated in the application made to the Magistrate, the details of which are set out above. She has further stated in her reply to question No. 50 that neither she was concerned with the baggage nor she identified the same and regarding her statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, she stated that her signatures were obtained by force after beating her. However, in the cross-examination of P.W. 2 Kakar, it was suggested that her signatures were obtained on the blank papers and with the help of signatures on the blank papers, the statement was prepared later on to suit the prosecution case. These different stands taken by the accused at different times would clearly show that the defence is not only improbable but is even false and this would support the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the fact that the statement recorded by P.W. 2 Kakar is voluntary statement of the accused and in view of the provisions of section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, such a statement is admissible in evidence and has also been held to be sufficient to record a finding in favour of the prosecution if the Court is satisfied regarding the truthfulness thereof.
25. In the result, we find that the evidence of P.W. 1 Sanchis which is fully corroborated by P.W. 3 Fernandes and P.W. 4 Gaikwad is further borne out by the travel documents and checked in baggage tag and the baggage tag found in possession of the accused and the conduct of the accused in admitting at the time of panchanama that it was her bag and her further confession recorded by P.W. 2 Kakar, the truth of which is assured by her own application moved before the Magistrate, and her contradictory stand regarding the same at different times is sufficient to hold that it was the accused Alice Norman who was carrying the contraband in her bag and it was seizeu from her possession. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory clearly shows that it contained heroin and, as such, we find that the learned Judge was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the accused had contravened the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act and in contravention thereof was found in possession of heroin which she was about to smuggle out of India and, as such, she was guilty of the offences charged.
26. However, Mr. Lalla, the learned Counsel appearing for the accused, contended that the present accused appears to be a tool in the hands of the accused No. 2 who is absconding and who has successfully avoided to face the trial. The accused appears to be only a carrier and could have acted as a carrier for some monetary gain. Another aspect of the matter is that, right from the date of the incident on 21-2-1989, she has been in custody and by this time she has completed over eight years in jail. The minimum sentence prescribed for different offences under the N.D.P.S. Act with which she was charged is ten years. The learned Counsel, however, contended that the sentence in default of payment of fine can be reduced by this Court. The accused has not been able to pay fine nor the persons who made use of her for this purpose have come forward to deposit the fine. At the time of the incident, she was about 50 years old and even if it is accepted that prior to this also she may have acted as a carrier, we find that the period she has undergone in jail would be sufficient
deterrence for her not to repeat any such act. Taking into consideration her age and the fact that she has to complete minimum period of ten years of substantive sentence in jail, we are inclined to reduce the sentence in default of payment of fine to a period of three months for the offences punishable under Chapter V of the N.D.P.S. Act and since there is no fine imposed for offence punishable under section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, that question does not arise.
27. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant for all the charges levelled against her is confirmed and the following modification is made in the sentence in default of payment of fine after confirming the substantive sentences passed against her.
The appellant-accused is sentenced, in default of payment of fine of Rs. 1 lakh for offence under section 8(c) read with section 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, instead of one year as ordered by the trial Court. The appellant-accused is also sentenced, in default of payment of fine of Rs. 1 lakh for the offence punishable under section 8(c) read with sections 23 and 28 of the N.D.P.S. Act, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months, instead of one year as ordered by the trial Court. Her conviction and sentence for the offence under section 135(1)(a) read with section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act are confirmed.
The order of the learned Special Judge stands modified in the above manner.
28. Appeal partly allowed.