The failure of customs officers to follow simple procedures has resulted in the acquittal of two foreign nationals and an Indian from the charges of smuggling heroin and hashish from India. It is mandatory to record, in writing, the information received about attempts to illegally transport narcotic drugs, and this was not carried out by the officials. The Karnataka High Court, in its two recent verdicts, acquitted Mohammed Zulkar Ali, a Singapore national; Betrand Tochukwu Ikwuka, an African national; and Daphira Wallang, a native of Meghalaya; for the sole reason that the procedure of “search and seizure” adopted by the customs was a “clear” violation of mandatory provisions in the law.
In the first case, the customs had arrested Mr. Ali after about 6.9 kg of hashish was allegedly found in his baggage, when he was leaving for Hong Kong from the Bengaluru International Airport in 2009. He was, however, acquitted by a Special Court for Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, in 2011, but the customs had appealed to the High Court. Mr. Ikwuka and Ms. Wallang were arrested in 2009 when they were caught allegedly smuggling 2.56 kg of heroin concealed in buttons and other parts of readymade garments and sportswear, to the Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom, China and South Africa, through two international courier service providers. They were convicted and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment by the Special Court. They had appealed to the High Court questioning their conviction.
In his separate orders, Justice Anand Byrareddy held that the customs officials, in both the cases, had violated Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which makes it mandatory for the officials to record, in writing, the information received from any source about smuggling of NDPS and intimate such information to their higher officials within 72 hours. As per the apex court’s 2013 verdict in Sukhdev Singh vs. State of Haryana, the High Court said, in the case of lack of time to record in writing the information received due to urgency to prevent smuggling, customs officials could do so soon after seizure.
But, in both cases, the officials never recorded the received information in writing, and such acts of the customs officials “vitiated” the criminal proceedings, the High Court held.
