M. S. A. Siddiqui ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 26. 2. 1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in S. C. No. 45/95 convicting the appellant under Sections 21/28 read with Section 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short the Act ) and sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of rupees one lac or in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. ( 2 ) ON the night intervening 23rd and 24th September, 1995, the appellant, a Spanish national, was intercepted at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi by the Inspector Customs S. S. Jasan (Public Witness 1) while she was leaving for Matrid by Flight No. BA-1142. The search of her personal luggage (Ex. P 11) resulted in recovery of 10. 976 kgs. of Hereoin. After completing the procedural formalities, representative samples of the contraband were sent for chemical analysis, which on analysis were found to be diacetyl morphine (Heroin) commonly known as Brown Sugar. ( 3 ) THE prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of Inspector Customs S. S. Jasan (Public Witness 1), A. M. Sidharthan (Public Witness 8) and the Interpretator Ravi Kumar (Public Witness 2) besides the confessional statement (Ex. P 2/a) of the appellant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on appreciation of evidence on record, accepted the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant contended that in the instant case the mandatory requirements of Section 50 of the Act were not complied with and, therefore, the evidence regarding recovery and seizure of the contraband should be regarded as illegal. This contention deserves to be rejected because only when a person of an accused is to be searched then he is required to be informed about his right to be searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. As per prosecution case, the contraband in question was recovered from the appellant s personal baggage (Ex. PI 1) and not from her person and, therefore, it was not necessary to make an offer for her search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate as required by Section 50 of the Act. As per prosecution case, the contraband in question was recovered from the appellant s personal baggage (Ex. PI 1) and not from her person and, therefore, it was not necessary to make an offer for her search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate as required by Section 50 of the Act. {state of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, J. T. 1999 (4) SC 595=vi (1999) SLT 109-111 (1999) CCR 109 (SC)]. ( 5 ) IT was next contended that the provisions of Section 55 of the Act were not complied with and further identity of the articles alleged to have been seized from the appellant and the representative samples examined by the Chemical Examiner has not been established by the prosecution. Inspector Customs S. S. Jasan (Public Witness 1) materially corroborated by the Superintendent Customs A. M. Sidharthan (Public Witness 8) testified that on the night intervening 23rd and 24th September, 1999, the appellant was intercepted in the baggage hold area of the departure hall of IGI Airport, New Delhi and her luggage in black zipper bag (Ex. P II) was taken in possession on suspicion. The appellant identified her zipper bag (Ex. P II) which was found booked. Baggage tag (Ex. P 1) fixed on it tallied with the claim tag affixed on her air ticket. The appellant was given the option of being searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate but she declined the said offer. Thereafter the appellant opened the bag (Ex. P 11 ) and on search seven poly bags containing 10. 976 kgs. of Heroin were recovered from it in the presence of the Panch Witnesses, namely, Sukhdev Singh and Ms. Richho vide seizure memo Ex. Public Witness I/a. The Customs Superintendent A. M. Sidharthan (Public Witness 8) deposed that the contraband was tested with the Field Testing Kit and it revealed that the powder recovered from the said zipper bag was Heroin. It has also come in the evidence of the Inspector Customs S. S. Jasan (Public Witness 1 ). Interpretator Ravi Kumar (Public Witness 2) and the Customs Superintendent A. M. Sidharthan (Public Witness 8) that two representative samples of ten grams each were drawn and each sample was sealed with the Customs Seal No. 8 with a paper slip signed by the Customs Officials, two Panch witnesses and the appellant. Interpretator Ravi Kumar (Public Witness 2) and the Customs Superintendent A. M. Sidharthan (Public Witness 8) that two representative samples of ten grams each were drawn and each sample was sealed with the Customs Seal No. 8 with a paper slip signed by the Customs Officials, two Panch witnesses and the appellant. Thereafter, the remaining Heroin was also sealed on the spot with the Custom Seal No. 9 over a paper slip signed by the aforesaid persons. The seized articles were deposited in the Customs Godown. ( 6 ) INSPECTOR Customs S. S. Jasan (Public Witness 1) further testified that the sealed packets were handed over to the Superintendent Customs A. M. Sidharthan (Public Witness 8) on 24. 9. 1995 and the test memo was filled in on 26. 9. 1995. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that no plausible explanation has been offered by the Prosecudon as to why the test memo could not be prepared at the time of the alleged recovery of the contraband. According to the learned Counsel, in view of this serious lacuna, the possibility of tampering with the sample cannot be ruled out and the benefit arising out of such doubtful situation must necessarily go to the , appellant. Learned Additional Sessions Judge devoted a substantial part of the impugned judgment to deal with the aforesaid submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant. According to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the paper slips Ex. Public Witness 15/1-7 and Ex. Public Witness 20/1-7 had been appended on the sealed samples marked 18 to 78 deposited with the CRCL by Shri C. L. Meena (Public Witness 5) alongwith the test memo Ex. Public Witness I/c vide receipt (Ex. Public Witness 5/a) and these paper slips were duly signed by the appellant, the Panch witnesses and the Inspector Customs S. S. Jasan (Public Witness 1) and that being so, the aforesaid circumstances clearly exclude the possibility of any tampering with the samples. In my opinion, on a consideration of the evidence of S. S. Jasan (Public Witness 1) and Mr. A. M. Sidharthan (Public Witness 8), I am not inclined to take a different view. The reason being that the aforesaid paper slips appended on samples were found intact and the sample cannot be tampered with without tampering with these paper slips. In my opinion, on a consideration of the evidence of S. S. Jasan (Public Witness 1) and Mr. A. M. Sidharthan (Public Witness 8), I am not inclined to take a different view. The reason being that the aforesaid paper slips appended on samples were found intact and the sample cannot be tampered with without tampering with these paper slips. Therefore, there is no force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to rule out the possibility of tampering with the samples in question. ( 7 ) THAT apart, it has come in the evidence of Superintendent Customs, A. M. Sidharthan (Public Witness 8) that the appellant had made the voluntary statement (Ex. Public Witness 2/ A) before him. The said confessional statement (Ex. Public Witness 2/a) is in the handwriting of the appellant and it is in Spanish language. The confessional statement (Ex. PW 2/a) is accompanied by an English translation thereof. In her aforesaid statement, she has unequivocally admitted that 10. 976 kgs. of Heroin was recovered from her bag (Ex. P II ). In her examination under Section 313, Cr. P. C. , the appellant had stated that the statement (Ex. Public Witness 2/a) was obtained by force. It is significant to mention that the statement (Ex. Public Witness 2/a) was made on 24. 9. 1995, and the appellant retracted it on 31. 1. 1997. Till then, she had not complained against any Officer of the Customs Department as regards the alleged use of force in obtaining the said statement. In short, there is nothing on the record to substantiate the said allegations of the appellant. That being so, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly concluded that the appellant had voluntarily made the confessional statement (Ex. PW 2/a) before Superintendent Customs A. M. Sidharthan (Public Witness 8 ). Thus, the appellant had herself admitted in her statement (Ex. Public Witness 2/a) that the aforesaid contraband was seized from her possession. In this context, I may usefully excerpt the following observations of Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kalema ;r Tumba v. State of Maharashtra and Another, JT 1999 (8) SC 293=vhi (1999) SLT is 463: "5. It was next contended that the report which was given by the Chemical Analyser was a cryptic report, and therefore, no reliance could have been placed upon it. It was next contended that the report which was given by the Chemical Analyser was a cryptic report, and therefore, no reliance could have been placed upon it. It was submitted that as it contained no details of the test, it had no evidentiary value. As rightly pointed out by the High Court the appellant had himself admitted in his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act that it was Heroin. Moreover, in this case we have evidence of the officers of the Narcotic Control Bureau also who had tested the substance found from the appellant. Therefore, this contention is also rejected. 6. It was then urged that no reliance should have been placed upon the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act as it was not made by the appellant voluntarily and he did not know what was written in it when he had signed it. The submission was that the appellant does not know English language. He knows only French language. In his examination under Section 313, Cr. P. C. , he had stated that the statement was obtained by force and that he was beaten by the officers of Narcotic Control Bureau. He had not stated at that time that he did not know English. Apart from the evidence of the officers of the Narcotics Department there is evidence of an employee of the Jewel Hotel where the appellant had stayed from 16th November, 1990, who was proved some of the entries made in English by the appellant himself in the register maintained by the hotel. The Panchnama, also contains words received copy written by the appellant. The said statement of the appellant was recorded in 1990. He retracted it in 1994. Till then he had not complained against any officer as regards the alleged beating or use of force nor he had stated that he did not know English. Therefore, this contention also cannot be accepted. "for the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly relied upon the evidence of aforesaid witnesses and the statement (Ex. Public Witness 2/a) of the appellant in convicting the appellant. The appellant s conviction and sentence, therefore, will have to be confirmed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the appellant s conviction and sentence are confirmed.