High Court
Case Details
Crl.A. 141/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE DR. (MRS). JUSTICE INDIRA SHAH This is an appeal against the judgment dated 30th July, 2011 passed by the learn ed Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kamrup in Sessions (Spl.) Case No. 301(K)/ 2009 convicting the appellant under section 21(c) of NDPS Act and sentencing him thereby to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 in default, further rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. Heard Mrs. T. Som, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. D.C 2. Chakravarty, learned PP, appearing for the respondent. 3.
Legal Reasoning
4. During the trial evidence before the charge was recorded by the Trial Co urt. Prima facie material being found against the accused, charge under section 21(c) of NDPS Act was framed against him. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 5. All together 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The accused in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C denied the allegations level ed against him. He, however, did not adduce any evidence. PW-1 Sukanta Das was the Superintendent of Customs. He received the sec 6. ret information which he reduced into writing in DRI-I. It was forwarded to the Director General of DRI New Delhi copy of which was also forwarded to the Commi ssioner of Customs N.E.R Shillong and Deputy Commissioner, Customs, Guwahati. T hereafter, he alongwith his team rushed to the Speed Express (Courier Service) a nd recover the consignment booked by the accused. He also recorded the statemen t of the Manager of the Speed Express. The Manager told him that on the previou s day one Nigerian National booked the consignment. The Manager also produced a photo copy of his pass-port and visa papers along with his declaration at the time of booking of the consignment. The consignment box was opened in presence of the inspector G. Kalita (PW-6), Sukumar Deka (PW-7), Tridip Mahanta (PW-5), S anuj Kumar choudhury (PW-2) and Debajit Kakoti (PW-3). When they opened the box they found that it contained readymade ladies garments/T-shirts etc. In some of the ladies garments big round buttons were stitched. They removed the outer ca p of one of the big stitched round buttons. They found that the button was made of some metal by applying little pressure on the side of the button, body metal cover of the button was separated and they discovered that there was small cavi ty inside the button. In the cavity a plastic pouch was found covered with plas tic paper and opening the plastic pouch the officers recovered off white powered substance. Some quantity of the powder was subjected to chemical test with the help of Narcotic Drugs Detection Kit and thereafter the officers told the Manag er that the white powder substance was believed to be heroine. On examination o f all the garments a total of 186 big round buttons were found stitched with 13 pieces of readymade garments. They brought the entire consignment to the custom s office for final checking of the content of all such buttons and for other for mality of seizure etc. The authorized representatives of the Speed Express (Cou rier Service) and 2 witnesses accompanied the officers along with the package co ntaining garments seized with the buttons, to the custom Divisional office, loca ted at Christan Basti where another chemical test with Narcotic Drugs Detection Kit was conducted. The officers opened all the 186 big round buttons which cont ained small plastic pouch containing white powder substance concealed inside the buttons. The recovered off-white powder substances were weighed and they were found to be 609.400 gms. The aforesaid powder substance was then seized as per the provisions of NDPS Act and an inventory along with other seized articles was prepared and handed over to the representative of Manager of Speed Express. On compliant being lodged case No.07/UCL/NARC/AS/GAU/09-10/5569 dated 12th Septembe r, 2009 was registered. Two samples each of 5 gm, from the recovered off-white powder substances were drawn in presence of witnesses. Seized contraband substa nces and the sample were sealed and one of the samples was sent to the Director- cum-chemical examiner Forensic Laboratory on 14th September, 2009 as 13th Septem ber, 2009 was Sunday. 7. PW-2, the Manager of Speed Express deposed that on the previous day one Nigerian person booked a parcel which was to dispatched it to USA. Before it cou ld be dispatched, the customs officers Mr. H Das and Mr. G Kalita came to the of fice and enquired about the booking of any parcel by a Foreign National. PW-2 t hen produced the parcel to the custom officers which was opened in his presence. He coroborating the evidence of PW-1 stated that the parcel contained ladies g arments having big size buttons stitched on it. On opening the cap of the butto ns they found some powdery substance and after testing the powder the custom off icers expressed that it may be contraband heroine. PW-2 allowed the officers to take the consignment to the customs office. Debojit Kakoti, Sukumar Deka and T ridip Mahanta accompanied the customs officers. PW-2 also stated that the perso n who booked the consignment with the courier service was a Foreign National who was kept at vigil at the Railway Station and information were sought from Airpo rt authority Guwahati and an information was received from the Airport authority that one person named Dike Kenneth Chibuke will be be leaving by Kingfisher Fli ghts in the evening and the said person has already undergone security check. T he airport authority and the CISF authority were requested to detain the person. A team of custom officers accompanied by 2 independent witnesses and authorize d representatives of the Courier service rushed to the Airport and with the help of the persons of CISF, Airport authority and Kingfisher Airlines, the accused was brought out of the security point area. He was then asked whether he booked any consignment of ladies garments with the Speed Express Courier Service and w hether his name is Dike Kenneth Chibuke, he answered in affirmative. He was inf ormed in writing that he may be allowed personal search in presence of the gazat ted officers. On being allowed PW-1 conducted personal search of the accused in presence of the Deputy Commissioner Shri BK Das and independent witnesses. The passport issued by the Republic of Nigeria in respect of Mr. Dike Kenneth Chibu ke, air ticket of Kingfisher Airlines Limited, one wallet containing US Dollars, Indian Rupees in cash, one mobile handset, air bag containing books and cloths, original consignment note dated 11th September, 2009 of Speed Express, Indian R ailway ticket, one pamphlet, encashment certificate and one empty polythene bags were recovered and seized. He was brought to the office of customs and his sta tement was recorded by PW-1 wherein he admitted that he had carried the consignm ent of garments from New Delhi to Guwahati to book the same in the Speed Express courier on 11th September, 2009. According to him he had no knowledge that the garments contained heroine inside the buttons stitched with the garments. The consignment, he stated, was given to him by one Daniel in New Delhi Railway Stat ion for sending to USA, from courier Speed Express at Guwahati. Further, he sta ted that he reached Guwahati on 10th September, 2009 by train from New Delhi and booked the consignment of readymade garments under seizure, with the Speed Expr ess courier service. He had came to Guwahati for the first time. The stateme nt of the accused was recorded several times and his statements were exhibited d uring the trial alongwith his questionary statement which was recorded on 13th S eptember, 2009. The accused reiterated what he had stated on12th September, 200 9. According to the accused he came to Guwahati for playing football in a club and Daniel sent him to Guwahati with the consignment of ladies garments and told him that he will introduce him to that club. On being asked he could not produ ce any certificate to the effect that he is a trained footballer or any item rel ating to football, such as boot, etc. In one of his statements recorded on 16th September, 2009, the accused confessed that his actual name is Felix Samuel and not Dike Kenneth Chibuke. He admitted that he was carrying a fake somebody els e’s passport not his own passport which was recovered from his personal search. He also admitted that he had signed so long false and fabricated signature as D ike Kenneth Chibuke. The accused who had checked-in in the Star Lodge at Panbaz ar, had declared that he was coming from Kolkata and going back to Kolkata. 8. PW-3 Debojit Kotoki was serving as Computer Operator in the Speed Expres s courier Service. Corroborating the evidence of PW-2 he deposed that on 11th S eptember, 2009 a person came to book a parcel. He identified himself as Dike Ke nneth Chibuike and his appearance was like an African. The said person deposite d some documents including one Photostate copy of his passport. 9. The custom officers enquired about the parcel booked by the accused Dike Kenneth Chibuike. The parcel was opened on requested by the custom officers. He also deposed that the parcel contained ladies garments and after opening the buttons stitched with the ladies garments powdery substances came out. Then the parcel was taken to the custom office. PW-3 along with Tridip Mahanta and S De ka accompanied the custom officers to the customs office. The officers in the o ffice again conducted test of rest of the suspected contraband. On the same day , he along with S. Deka and Tridip Mahanta accompanied the customs officers to G uwahati Airport where he identified the accused at the Airport. He could identi fy the accused in the court also. In his cross-examination he denied that he co uld not identify the accused. PW-5 Tridip Mahanta deposed in the same line corr oborating the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3. 10. PW-6 Birendra Kalita was the inspector of customs. He was directed by the Superintendent, Anti Smuggling Unit Guwahati to collect Narcotic Drugs Detec tion Kit and to come to Hotel Bilas Complex as he had received specific informat ion that a consignment of ladies garments has been booked in Speed Express (Cour ier Service) containing heroine. He was also informed that the consignment was booked by a Nigerian for Atlanta. He along with S Das came to the Speed Express Courier Service and enquired booking of about any such consignment. From on the evidence of PW-1, it transpires that one consignment booked 11. for Atlanta (USA) in the Speed Express courier Service containing some ladies ga rments were seized by PW-1 in presence of PW-6. When consignment was opened the y found ladies garments out of which 13 pieces of garments were stitched with th e metal buttons. Total number of such buttons was 186. Contraband heroine were concealed inside each button. PW-2, 3, 5 and 7 have stated that they were pres ent at the time of opening of the consignment and seizure of powdery substance s uspected to be heroine. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the provision s of Section 42 of NDPS Act were not complied with. The information received by PW-1 was not reduced in writing and was not sent to the superior officers as pe r the provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act. Exhibit-1 DRI information report, s hows that the information received by PW-1, that a consignment of ladies garment s is booked in the Speed Express (courier service) and that substantial quantity of heroine is concealed inside the cavity of buttons stitched on garments and t hat immediate visit of the officer will result in recovery of heroine, was reduc ed into writing, a copy of which was forwarded to the Director General of Revenu e Intelligence at New Delhi, the Commissioner of customs (NER, Shillong), Deputy Commissioner of customs, Customs Divisions Guwahati and the Deputy Commissioner Shri PK Das acknowledged receipt of the said information by putting his signat ure on the same date i.e., 12th September, 2009. All though the place, date and time of recording information in exhibit 1 has been shown as the residence of P W-1, PW-1 stated that it was typed by some officials at his office. 13. 1378, it was observed that In the case of Hamidbhai Azambhai Malik Vs State of Gujrat AIR 2009 SCC (cid:28)9. Sub-section (1) of Section 42 lays down that the empowered officer, if has a prior information given by any person, he should necessarily take it down in w riting and where he has reason to believe from his personal knowledge that offen ces under Chapter IV have been committed or that materials which may furnish evi dence of commission of such offences are concealed in any building, etc. he may carry out the arrest or search, without a warrant between sunrise and sunset, an d he may do so without recording his reasons of belief. 10. The proviso to sub-section (1) lays down that if the empowered officer has r eason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained witho ut affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the esc ape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclose d place, at any time between sunset and sunrise, after recording the grounds of his belief. Vide sub-section (2) of Section 42, the empowered officer who takes down information in writing or records the grounds of his belief under the provi so to sub-section (1), shall forthwith send a copy of the same to his immediate official superior. Section 43 deals with the power of seizure and arrest of the suspect in a public place. The material difference between the provisions of Sec tion 43 and Section 42 is that whereas Section 42 requires recording of reasons for belief and for taking down of information received in writing with regard to the commission of an offence before conducting search and seizure, Section 43 d oes not contain any such provision and as such while acting under Section 43 of the Act, the empowered officer has the power of seizure of the article, etc. and arrest of a person who is found to be in possession of any narcotic drug or psy chotropic substance in a public place where such possession appears to him to be unlawful. (SCC p. 189, paras 9-10) (cid:28)25. The questions considered above arise frequently before the trial courts. Th erefore we find it necessary to set out our conclusions which are as follows: (1) If a police officer without any prior information as contemplated under the provisions of the NDPS Act makes a search or arrests a person in the normal cour se of investigation into an offence or suspected offences as provided under the provisions of CrPC and when such search is completed at that stage Section 50 of the NDPS Act would not be attracted and the question of complying with the requ irements thereunder would not arise. If during such search or arrest there is a chance recovery of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance then the police o fficer, who is not empowered, should inform the empowered officer who should the reafter proceed in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act. If he happens to be an empowered officer also, then from that stage onwards, he should carry out the investigation in accordance with the other provisions of the NDPS Act. (2-A) Under Section 41(1) only an empowered Magistrate can issue warrant for the arrest or for the search in respect of offences punishable under Chapter IV of the Act, etc. when he has reason to believe that such offences have been committ ed or such substances are kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or place . When such warrant for arrest or for search is issued by a Magistrate who is no t empowered, then such search or arrest if carried out would be illegal. Likewis e only empowered officers or duly authorised officers as enumerated in Sections 41(2) and 42(1) can act under the provisions of the NDPS Act. If such arrest or search is made under the provisions of the NDPS Act by anyone other than such of ficers, the same would be illegal. (2-B) Under Section 41(2) only the empowered officer can give the authorisation to his subordinate officer to carry out the arrest of a person or search as ment ioned therein. If there is a contravention, that would affect the prosecution ca se and vitiate the conviction. (2-C) Under Section 42(1) the empowered officer if has a prior information given by any person, that should necessarily be taken down in writing. But if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge that offences under Chapter IV have be en committed or materials which may furnish evidence of commission of such offen ces are concealed in any building, etc. he may carry out the arrest or search wi thout a warrant between sunrise and sunset and this provision does not mandate t hat he should record his reasons of belief. But under the proviso to Section 42( 1) if such officer has to carry out such search between sunset and sunrise, he m ust record the grounds of his belief. In the case Union of India Vs Satrahana 2008 SCC 313 it was observed her 14. e that:- 13. (cid:28)So far as the applicability of Section 42 is concerned few decisions need t o be noted. In M. Prabhulal v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence it was noted as follows: (SCC pp. 453-54 & 456, paras 8-9 & 14) (cid:28)8. Now, we come to the last and rather more serious objections raised on behalf of the appellants regarding the non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act vitiating the conviction which looks quite formidable but only on the first impr ession and not on its deeper examination. The contention of Mr R.K. Jain is that the view of the High Court that when a gazetted officer himself conducts a sear ch it is not necessary to comply with Section 42(2) of the Act, is clearly erron eous. Section 42(2) provides that where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the provi so thereto, he shall forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate official sup erior. This was the statutory provision at the relevant time. By the Narcotic Dr ugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001 which came into force on 2 -10-2001, Section 42(2) was amended whereunder the information taken down in wri ting under sub-section (1) or grounds of belief recorded under the proviso there to are required to be sent within seventy-two hours to the officer’s immediate o fficial superior. The contention is that the officer who searched and seized the contraband did so on information received by him as per Ext. PW 1 but the said information was not forwarded to his superior officer as contemplated in Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, thus vitiating the entire prosecution. Further argues th e counsel that the respondent after grant of bail to the appellants by the High Court taking into consideration the non-compliance with Section 42(2) has tried to fill in the lacuna with a view to show the compliance with this mandatory pro vision. 9. The officer who conducted the arrest, search and seizure was an empowered gaz etted officer of the Department. This fact is not in dispute. According to Mr Va sdev, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, Section 42(2) is not applicable when an empowered gazetted officer conducts the arrest, search and seizure. The counsel submits that there was no obligation on the officer to comply with the requirement of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act. It was also contended, in the alte rnative, that Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act was complied with. 14. Section 41(1) which empowers a Magistrate to issue warrant for arrest of any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable u nder the NDPS Act or for search, has not much relevance for the purpose of consi dering the contention. Under Section 41(2) only a gazetted officer can be empowe red by the Central Government or the State Government. Such empowered officer ca n either himself make an arrest or conduct a search or authorise an officer subo rdinate to him to do so but that subordinate officer has to be superior in rank to a peon, a sepoy or a constable. Sub-section (3) of Section 41 vests all the p owers of an officer acting under Section 42 on three types of officers (i) to wh om a warrant under sub-section (1) is addressed, (ii) the officer who authorised the arrest or search under sub-section (2) of Section 41, and (iii) the officer who is so authorised under sub-section (2) of Section 41. Therefore, an empower ed gazetted officer has also all the powers of Section 42 including the power of seizure. Section 42 provides for procedure and power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation. An empowered officer has the power of entry into and search of any building, conveyance or place, break open any do or, remove obstruction, seize contraband, detain, search and arrest any person b etween sunrise and sunset in terms provided in sub-section (1) of Section 42. In case of an emergent situation, these powers can also be exercised even between sunset and sunrise without obtaining a search warrant or authorisation, in terms provided in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 42. Sub-section (2) of Se ction 42 is a mandatory provision. In terms of this provision a copy of informat ion taken down in writing under sub-section (1) or ground recorded for the belie f under the proviso thereto, is required to be sent by the officer to his immedi ate superior official. It is clear from Section 41(2) that the Central Governmen t or State Government, as the case may be, can only empower an officer of a gaze tted rank who can either himself act or authorise his subordinate on the terms s tated in the section. Under sub-section (1) of Section 42, however, there is no restriction on the Central Government or the State Government to empower only a gazetted officer. But on an officer empowered under sub-section (1) of Section 4 2, there are additional checks and balances as provided in the proviso and also provided in sub-section (2) of Section 42. It is clear from the language of sub- section (2) of Section 42 that it applies to an officer contemplated by sub-sect ion (1) thereof and not to a gazetted officer contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 41, when such a gazetted officer himself makes an arrest or conducts se arch and seizure. It would be useful to also notice Section 43 which relates to power of seizure and arrest in a public place. Any officer of any of the departm ents mentioned in Section 42 is empowered to seize contraband, etc. and detain a nd search a person in any public place or in transit on existence of ingredient stated in Section 43. It can, thus, be seen that Sections 42 and 43 do not requi re an officer to be a gazetted officer whereas Section 41(2) requires an officer to be so. A gazetted officer has been differently dealt with and more trust has been reposed in him can also be seen from Section 50 of the NDPS Act which give s a right to a person about to be searched to ask for being searched in the pres ence of a gazetted officer. The High Court is, thus, right in coming to the conc lusion that since the gazetted officer himself conducted the search, arrested th e accused and seized the contraband, he was acting under Section 41 and, therefo re, it was not necessary to comply with Section 42. The decisions in State of Pu njab v. Balbir Singh, Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat and Becko dan Abdul Rahiman v. State of Kerala on the aspects under consideration are neit her relevant nor applicable. (cid:29) 14. Section 67 reads as follows: 67. Power to call for information, etc.-Any officer referred to in Section 42 wh o is authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or a State Government m ay, during the course of any enquiry in connection with the contravention of any provision of this Act,- (a) call for information from any person for the purpose of satisfying himself w hether there has been any contravention of the provisions of this Act or any rul e or order made thereunder; (b) require any person to produce or deliver any document or thing useful or rel evant to the enquiry; (c) examine any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. (cid:29) 15. Section 41(2) deals with two situations. One is relatable to gazetted office r while in the other case the gazetted officer may authorise his subordinate to do the relevant act or may do it himself. Section 41(3) refers to the power unde r Section 42 which refers to subordinates. (cid:29) 15. Here in this case PW-1 categorically stated that he reduced into writing the secret information received by him. He exhibited the exhibit-1 and stated that it was forwarded to his superior officers in compliance with the provisions of NDPS Act. The evidence of PW-1 as regards with the compliance of the provis ions Section 42 of NDPS Act has been corroborated with the evidence of PW-9, Pra dip Das, who was the Deputy Commissioner of customs division and immediate super ior officer of PW-1. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant t 16. hat the contraband articles were seized in the courier service and the complaina nt made no attempt to call any independent witnesses to witness the seizure. Ad mittedly, contraband was not recovered from the exclusive possession of the accu sed. It was in custody of the courier service and it was seized in presence of the employees of courier service who cannot be termed as independent witnesses. The facts that one consignment was recovered in the courier service; it was ope ned by the customs officials, the consignment contained ladies garments with but tons stitched were booked by the accused are not disputed. 17.
Arguments
In brief the prosecution story is as follows:- On 12th September, 2009 the Superintendent of Customs, Guwahati Sri Suka nta Das received an information, which he reduced into writing to the effect tha t a consignment of ladies garments is booked at (Speed Express Courier Service), which contains therein contraband heroin, by a Nigerian person, for Atlanta (US A). After reducing the information in writing, the same was forwarded to the De puty Commissioner, Guwahati Customs Division in DRI Desk-1. A team of officers of Anti-smuggling unit of Guwahati Customs Division was formed. The team immedi ately rushed towards the premises of Speed Express (Courier Service) situated in the Hotel Bilas Complex, GS Road, Ulubari, Guwahati-7). The Manager of the Spe ed Express Shri Sanuj Kumar Choudhury (PW-2) informed that they had received 1 c arton box booked by a person named Dike Kenneth Chibuke bearing consignment No. 123151 dated 11th September, 2009. As per the declaration, the description of i tems were ladies suit weighing 4.050 kg and items were for personal use. The co nsignment was to be dispatched to Atlanta (USA). The said consignment was seize d by the customs officials. It was opened in presence of the Manager of the Spe ed Express and on opening they found 19 pieces of ladies garments/T-Shirt, 13 of the garments were stitched with big-round metal buttons, when metal caps of the buttons were separated, they found a cavity inside the buttons where plastic po uch containing off-white powder like substance was concealed. The officials tes ted the off-white powder on the spot and believed the same as heroine. They bou ght the aforesaid consignment to the customs office along with two representativ es of Speed Express. They also seized the X-rox copy of pass-port issued by the Federal Republic of Nigeria in respect of Dike Kenneth Chibuke and original cop y of declaration that the consignment was booked by the Dike Kenneth Chibuke, on being produced by the courier service. Then the customs officer drew sample fr om the off white powder substance and prepared inventory of seized goods. Since the accused is a Nigerian, the team alerted all the exit points from Guwahati, in order to restrain the accused from leaving out of the state. The station Man ager of LGBI Airport informed that one Mr. Dike had booked a ticked in Kingfishe r Airlines for New Delhi. On receipt of the information the customs officers re quested the Manager to detain the person and then they immediately went to LGBI Airport. They brought the accused to the customs office and personal search of the accused was conducted. During investigation the accused was arrested and on receipt of chemical examination report, complaint was filed against the accused under section 21(c) of NDPS Act by the inspector of customs division.
Decision
It is further argued that the provision of Section 52 of NDPS Act was not complied with. It is submitted that the seized articles along with the samp les were kept in the customs office on 12th September, 2009, sample was sent to the Director-cum-Chemical Examiner FSL on 14th September, 2009 as 13th September , 2009 was Sunday. Sub-clause (2) and (3) of Section 52 stipulates that the arti cles seized shall be forwarded without unnecessary delay to the officer in-charg e of the nearest police station or to the officers empowered under Section 53. As per Section 53, the Central Government or the State Government by notificatio n can invest any officer of the Central Excise, Narcotic Customs Revenue Intelli gence or any other of the Central Government including para-military forces or a rmed forces or any members of such officers with the powers of the officer in-ch arge of police station for investigation of the offence. In view of Section 53, the Superintendent of Customs Division is also 18. empowered as officer and therefore, he had the power of a officer in-charge of p olice station. 19. The arrival of the accused at Guwahati on 10th September, 2009 with la dies garments, booking of consignment of the said garments at Speed Express Cour ier Service, is admitted by the accused. He arrived on 10th September, 2009 and immediately on the next day i.e., on 10th September, 2009 he booked the consign ment under false name and indentity. He tried to check out from the Hotel Star Lodge twice where he stayed using another persons passport. After booking the c onsignment, he immediately attempted to leave Guwahati. All though he in his st atement stated that he came to Guwahati to play Football but he did not contact any football club. All these facts are admitted by the accused. The accused who booked the consignment with false name and false passport and the consignment t hat contained heroine which were concealed in the buttons stiched in ladies garm ents are proved and are not in dispute. The prosecution was able to establish t hat the accused booked with the consignment which contained heroine with false p assport and fake name. the presumption under Section 114 therefore, goes agaisn t the accused. The plea of the accused during the investigation was that he had no knowledge that the contrabend was concealed in consignment he had booked. M ere denial of knowledge will not sufficient to rebut the prosecution evidence. All the circumstances lead to the definite conclusion that it was the accused wh o concealed the contraband inside the buttons stiched with the ladies garments a nd booked the consignment. Therefore, the conviction of the accused appellant u nder section 21(c) of NDPS Act is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 20. Send down the records.