Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 742 (PAT)

Jaan Mohammad @ Geinivin Daubin v. Union Of India

2000-05-19

ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, NARBDESHWAR PANDEY

body2000
Judgment Ashok Kumar Verma, J. 1. Both these criminal appeals arise out of the same judgment and order, dated 16th of October, 1996, passed by the Sessions Judge, Motihari in Excise Case No. 96 of 1995. Therefore, both these criminal appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. In criminal Appeal No. 596 of 1996 the sole appellant is Jaan Mohammad @ Geinivin Daubin and in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1997 the appellant is Sheela Bhatt. Both the appellants have been convicted under Section 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter called, the Act) by the Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Motihari, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fourteen years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- (one lac and fifty thousand) each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three years. 2. In short the case of the prosecution is that on receipt of a confidential information the Assistant Commissioner, Customs (P) Division, Motihari, led a customs preventive party, including the complainant Navin Chandra, Inspector, Customs, (P) Motihari, and proceeded for interception of suspected foreign nationals travelling in Maruti Van No. BR-1B-3210 on Motihari-Patna Road. After a hot and continuous chase the suspected vehicle Maruti Van bearing registration No. BR-1B-3210 which had the foreign nationals as its occupants, was located and intercepted at Pipra. In the vehicle there were two foreign nationals, including a lady, besides the driver and owner of the Maruti Van. The lady disclosed her name as Sheela Bhatt and said that she, along with her husband, was going to Delhi via Patna and she showed her Nepali passport. The said husband of the lady failed to show any passport or visa. The raiding party checked the Maruti Van and the luggages on it but nothing could be detected there. 3. As the complainant has specific information about possible carriage of sophisticated and costly contraband goods, the vehicle, along with its four occupants, were taken to the Motihari customs office for thorough check and search with two independent witnesses from the spot. The Maruti Van was thoroughly checked again but nothing could be found. 3. As the complainant has specific information about possible carriage of sophisticated and costly contraband goods, the vehicle, along with its four occupants, were taken to the Motihari customs office for thorough check and search with two independent witnesses from the spot. The Maruti Van was thoroughly checked again but nothing could be found. A miscroscopic search was carried out in the two travelling bags after emptying clothings and other belongings of the foreign nationals before the two independent witnesses and the four occupants of the vehicle and the concealed bottom portion of the two travel bags were cut open by the complainant with the help of sharp blade and white powder (suspected to be narcotic drugs) in eighteen small idential packets and in two large packets of pofythene were recovered from the travel bags of the accused persons. The packets had been heavily perfumed with intention to deceive the officers about correct identity of the contents inside the polythene packets. The recovered packets were weighed in presence of the accused persons and independent witnesses and the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and the Superintendents of Customs were also present at that time. The white powder, which were recovered, were tested in presence of the accused persons and the customs officials on U.N.O. chemical kit provided to the department and it was observed that the white powder was a narcotic drug mentioned in Schedule I and Schedule ll of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 4. The three male accused persons were thoroughly searched before the gazetted officer and in presence of independent witnesses and the lady accused, Mrs. Sheela Bhatt, was searched by lady Inspector of Customs, Smt. K.K. Sinha On further enquiry and in course of interrogation of the four accused persons it was revealed that Mrs. Sheela Bhatt and Mr. Daubin had gone to Bangkok (Thailand) from Kathmandu for their honeymoon, but they had no documentary evidence of their marriage. Mrs. Sheela Bhatt refuted the story of marriage and had said before the Customs officials that she had gone to Bangkok on payment given to her at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per day and they had returned back to Kathmandu on 20.09.95 and they were going to Delhi via Patna on the date of occurrence. It was also revealed that Mr. 1,000/- per day and they had returned back to Kathmandu on 20.09.95 and they were going to Delhi via Patna on the date of occurrence. It was also revealed that Mr. Geinivin Daubin, a French national, had entered the Indian territory without any passport or visa. Mrs. Sheela Bhatt had said that she had been utilised by Dr. Daubin by giving threats to her and by coercion. Mr. Daubin and Mrs. Sheela Bhatt had confessed that the narcotic drugs had been recovered from their travel bags. Six samples were taken before all the four accused persons and independent witnesses for chemical examination by Chemical Laboratory, Calcutta, and Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi. The Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi, had given their test report, which were "each of the two samples is in the form of white coloured powder. Each answers test for the presence of diacetvl 5. The complainant, in exercise of power conferred under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, and Sections 42 and 43 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, seized the four kilograms of heroin valued at rupees four crores, which was provisionally assessed, as per international market, and two travel bags, used for its concealment and one Maruti Van bearing registration No. BR-1B-3210 for violation of Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Section 3 of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. All the four accused persons were arrested and forwarded to judicial custody for violation of Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, punishable under Sections 22 and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. On the basis of the complaint petition, the learned Sessions Judge, Motihari, took cognizance of the offences under Sections 22 and 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, against all the four accused persons and proceeded with the trial. 6. The defence of the accused persons, according to the trend of cross examination of the witnesses, and the statement of the accused persons, under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is that they have been falsely impliated in this case. They have also denied the recovery of the narcotic drug from their possession. 7. 6. The defence of the accused persons, according to the trend of cross examination of the witnesses, and the statement of the accused persons, under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is that they have been falsely impliated in this case. They have also denied the recovery of the narcotic drug from their possession. 7. In this case 23 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution in support of its case. Three witnesses D.W. 1 Surendra Prasad, D.W. 2, Md. Zubair, and D.W. 3, Anand Kumar, have also been examined on behalf of accused Rameshwar and Anwar as defence witnesses and one witness D.W. 4, Vinod Kumar Srivastava, had been examined on behalf of the accused, Mrs. Sheela Bhatt and Mr. Daubin. It may be mentioned here that accused, Anwar Alam and Rameshwar Prasad, have been acquitted by the trial court. 8. It was argued by the learned lawyer for the appellant that in this case there is complete violation of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act since the search was not made before a gazetted officer or a magistrate. It was argued that it is imperative for the investigating officer to inform the suspect, orally or in writing, about his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a magistrate. In support of this contention the learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court, reported in (1996) 6 S.C.C. 172. In paragraph 25 and 57 of the said judgment, it has been mentioned that to be searched before a gazetted officer or a magistrate, if the suspect so requires is a valuable right which the legislature has given to the person concerned having regard to the grave consequences that may entail the possession of illicit articles under the N.D.P.S. Act. In paragraphs 26 and 57 of the said judgment it has been mentionedthat the safeguard or protection to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate has been incorporated in Section 50 to ensure that persons are only searched with a good cause and also with a view to maintain the veracity of evidence derived from such search. The duty to inform the suspect of his right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate is a necessary sequence for enabling the person concerned to exercise that right under Section 50. In paragraphs 33 and 57 of the same judgment, it has been mentioned thatthe question whether or not the safeguards provided in Section 50 were observed would have, however, to be determined by the court on the basis of the evidence led at the trial and the finding on that issue, one way or the other, would be relevant for recording an order of conviction or acquittal. 9. Thus, the search of the suspects is to be made before a gazetted officer or a magistrate. In K.M. Saleem V/s. State (supra) Assistant Commissioner of Police, who is a gazetted officer, was a member of the raiding party and the search of the accused was taken in his presence. It was held that provision of Section 50 stood complied with and there was no question of giving any option to the accused to get his search done in the presence of any other gazetted officer. In the present case, it is evident from the evidence of the witnesses that the search was made in presence of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, who is a gazetted officer. P.W. 23, Navin Chandra, the informant of this case, who is an Inspector of Central Excise, has stated in his evidence that when they reached Pipra Kothi, the Assistant Commissioner told him to stop the car bearing registration no. BR-1B-3210 and on signal the vehicle did not stop and they chased and intercepted and searched the vehicle, but at that time nothing could be found in the vehicle and they informed the Assistant Commissioner that there was a lady also in the vehicle and they took two independent witnesses and the Maruti van bearing registration no. BR-1B-3210 to Motihari office and checked it there and the lady was checked by a lady Inspector. BR-1B-3210 to Motihari office and checked it there and the lady was checked by a lady Inspector. He has also stated that they took out all the clothes of the two bags but there was nothing in the clothes and then they saw some cushioned like material in the bottom portion of the bag and they informed about it to the Assistant Commissioner and he ordered to get the bag cut and the bag was cut by blade before the four accused persons and the Assistant Commissioner and the Superintendent and two independent witnesses, Sunil Kumar and Siya Ram Singh, and after the cutting ot the bag eighteen small pouches and two big pouches were recovered which contained white material which was weighed and it was about four kilograms. According to him, they have heen provided kits by U.N.O. and the material was examined by it and the result showed positive and samples of it were taken and all the works were done before the accused persons, independent witnesses and the two gazetted officers (Assistant Commissioner and the Superintendent) and the sample was sealed. Exhibit 1 is the seizure memo, dated 29.09.95, of the four kilogram of amphetamines cocaine methoqualone (suspected to be) and Maruti Van bearing no. BR-1B-3210 and passport (No. 330532) in the name ot Sheela Bhatt and two bags, which bear the signature of witnesses, Siya Ram Singh and Sunil Kumar and the four accused persons. The Assistant Commissioner, Customs, is admittedly, a gazetted officer before whom the search and seizure was made. The above facts prove that in the present case the provision of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act has been complied. 10. P.W. 3, Deepak Kumar, is a constable of the Customs Department, who has stated that the Assistant Commissioner returned to the office at the 06.00 P.M. with a Maruti Van which had four persons. P.W. 4, Ashok Kumar Singh, is a driver of the Customs Office. According to. him, he had taken one lady and three accused persons on vehicle to the C.J.M. and from there to Jail. During his evidence in trial court, he had pointed to accused, Sheela Bhatt, as the lady whom he had taken on his vehicle to the C.J.M. P.W. 5, Maithili Sharan Mishra, is also a driver of the Customs Department. him, he had taken one lady and three accused persons on vehicle to the C.J.M. and from there to Jail. During his evidence in trial court, he had pointed to accused, Sheela Bhatt, as the lady whom he had taken on his vehicle to the C.J.M. P.W. 5, Maithili Sharan Mishra, is also a driver of the Customs Department. According to him, on 24.09.95 he had taken three persons on his jeep bearing registration No. BPI 5330 to the C.J.M. During his evidence in court, he had pointed to the three male accused of the case. 11. P.W. 20, Rajendra Rajak and P.W. 10, Mithilesh Kumar Mishra, are the Customs Constables, who were in raiding party. P.W. 6, Shafique Hussain, is a driver of the Custom Office, Motihari. According to him, on 22.09.95, Assistant Commissioner had ordered him at about 04.45 P.M. to proceed immediately with him and on that vehicle Assistant Commissioner, Superintendent of Customs, Inspector of Customs and Constables were there. Further according to him, when he reached beyond Pipra Kothi, one Maruti Van passed from there, which had registration no. BR-1B-3210, which was intercepted and stopped and it was checked and then it was taken to Customs office, Motihari as there was no Lady Constable there and the lady had to be checked. 12. P.W. 7, Parmeshwar Jha, is a Havildar of Customs Department, who had escorted the accused to the Chief Judicial Magistrate and from there to jail on 24.09.95. P.W. 8 is Amresh Prasad, Superintendent of Customs. According to him, at about 06.00 P.M. one Maruti Van with four accused persons was brought to Customs Office, Motihari. P.W. 9, Bhola Baitha, is a Constable of Customs office, Motihari, who had guarded three accused persons in the night of 22.09.95 in the guard room of the Custom office. P.W. 14 is Smt. Kamala Kumari Sinha, a Custom Inspector. She was posted in Custom office, Motihari, on 22.09.95 and she was on duty on that day in office and on that day of about 06.00 P.M. the Assistant Commissioner came there in Gypsy with a Maruti van in which the four accused persons were there. According to her, on the direction of Assistant Commissioner she had searched the lady accused. During her evidence in the court she had pointed to accused Sheela Bhatt as the lady whom she had checked. According to her, on the direction of Assistant Commissioner she had searched the lady accused. During her evidence in the court she had pointed to accused Sheela Bhatt as the lady whom she had checked. P.W. 15, Subhash Rai, is another Constable of Custom Office, who had guarded three male accused in the guard room of Custom Office, Motihari. 13. P.W. 2 is Dadhibal Topno, Inspector of Custom. According to him, on 22.09.95 at about 06.00 P.M. when he was in the office, one Gypsy and one Maruti van came to the Custom Office and in the Gypsy, the Assistant Commissioner, Inspector, Constable and Superintendent of Customs were there and there were four persons in the Maruti van and the Assistant Commissionerordered to check the Maruti van and the Inspector, Mrs. K.K. Sinha, Uma Prasad and R.P. Singh checked the Maruti van. He has said that in presence of Assistant Commissioner and Superintendent the bag was checked and the bag was cut by the blade and eighteen small and two big pouches were recovered from it which contained white material and on checking by the kit bag, it was found to be intoxicant and it weighed four kilograms. P.W. 1 is Sunil Kumar Choudhary, a Superintendent of Custom. He has stated that on 22.09.95, the Assistant Commissioner, Custom, D.K. Sinha, told him to proceed with him on the basis of confidential information and after constituting a raiding party they proceeded and he along with Assistant Commissioner, Inspector and six Constables were in jeep. In the way the Assistant Commissioner gave him number of a vehicle, which was BR-1B-3210 and said that the contraband articles were being carried in it which has to be checked. According to him, they saw the vehicle and chased it and stopped it and there were four persons in that vehicle out of whom two were foreign nationals, including a lady, and the vehicle was searched and nothing could be found there. At that place the raiding party had no lady Constable and there was a lady in that vehicle, therefore, they brought the vehicle to the Customs office where the lady staff had checked the foreign lady. At that place the raiding party had no lady Constable and there was a lady in that vehicle, therefore, they brought the vehicle to the Customs office where the lady staff had checked the foreign lady. Both the foreign nationals had bags and in both the bags pad like materials were fitted and during the check the pad was torn and white powder were recovered from it and the powders were in eighteen small and two big pouches which were tested by U.N.O. Kit and it was found to be heroin like material. He has stated that he prepared the seizure memo there and gave a copy of it to the accused persons and before preparing the seizure memo the white powder was weighed which was four kilogram and the international price of this narcotic drug was about four crores in rupees. According to him, he took the statement of four accused persons. He has said that he arrested the accused persons and gave a copy of memo to them and forwarded them to court. 14. The above evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution proves that the vehicle in which the two appellants were travelling were chased and intercepted by Custom officials and the accused appellants had two bags with them which contained four kilograms of narcotic drug which were seized and the statement of the accused persons were recorded and they were arrested and forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate from where they were sent to jail custody. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that there has been violation of the fundamental rights of the appellants guarai, teed under Section 21 of the Constitution, In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the above evidence adduced on behalf ot the prosecution, there has been no violation of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 15. It was also agrued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case and the materials were planted to implicate them. 15. It was also agrued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case and the materials were planted to implicate them. The above evidence clearly shows that both the appellants were intercepted and caught in the Indian territory by the Custom Officials, including an Assistant Commissioner, who is a gazetted officer, and the search was made in the presence of the Assistant Commissioner, independent witnesses and the accused persons and the materials were recovered from the two bags of the accused appellants and the seizure memo has been signed by all the accused persons. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the facts, stated above, it can not be inferred that the seized materials were planted to implicate the accused appellants. 16. P.W. 11, Paramatma Singh, P.W. 12, Gauri Pujan Prasad, P.W. 13, Raghunath Singh, P.W. 16, Gauri Shankar Prasad Sah, and P.W. 17, Shivjee Paswan, have been tendered by the prosecution. P.W. 18 is Chandramohan Mishra, a Custom Inspector, who has proved seizure memo-cum-detention memo, which is Exhibit 1 in this case. 17. P.W. 23, Navin Chandra, is an Inspector of Customs, who had filed the complaint petition. He has said in his evidence that all the four accused had confessed their guilt and Sheela Bhatt had also made a confessional statement and she had given it in writing. Exhibit 2/b is the statement of Sheela Bhatt, which runs in three pages. Exhibit 2 is interrogatory statement of accused Geinivin Daubin, under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, made before the Superintendent of Customs on 23.09.95, which runs in six pages. According to it, he is a French citizen and he is a businessman by profession and he has not got any export licence and he had come to India on 22.09.95 from Kathmandu and he had no passport/visa with him. Further, according to it, four kilograms of contraband psychotropic drugs, valued at rupees four crores approximately, which were concealed in chambers of his two bags, were recovered by custom officials. According to him, he does not know as to who kept this drug in his bags. Thus, he has admitted the recovery of four kilograms of contraband psychotropic drugs. Further, according to it, four kilograms of contraband psychotropic drugs, valued at rupees four crores approximately, which were concealed in chambers of his two bags, were recovered by custom officials. According to him, he does not know as to who kept this drug in his bags. Thus, he has admitted the recovery of four kilograms of contraband psychotropic drugs. Further, according to Geinivin Daubin, he had purchased these two bags from the hawkers of Kathmandu on 21.09.95 and he had not found at that time any abnormality because he was in drunken mood. The lady sitting with him in the Maruti van bearing registration no. BR-1B-3210 was his wife and her name is Sheela Bhatt and they have physical relationship with each other for the last twenty days, but they could not marry legally and they had gone to Bangkok on 13.09.95 to celebrate honeymoon and had returned to Nepal on 20.09.95. Statement of Sheela Bhatt is Exhibit 2/b. According to it, on 22.09.95 when she was going with John @ Geinivin Daubin in Maruti van bearing registration no. BR- 1B-3210 from Raxaul to Patna, the Custom officials had stopped her car and searched it and white coloured powder had been recovered from her two bags but she does not know as to what drug it was. 18. Exhibit 3 is Panchnama which bears the signature of all the four accused persons and the witnesses. Siya Ram Singh and Sunil Kumar, which shows that four kilograms of amphetamines cocaine methaqualone and Maruti van bearing registration no. BR-1B-3210 had been seized. Exhibit 4 is report of Central Revenues Control Laboratory, Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi, admissible under Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which shows that the sample was received in sealed envelope bearing three lac seals in intact condition as per the specimen affixed on the last memo "Custom Collectorate (Prev.) Indo-Nepal Border, Patna, 125" for chemical analysis. According to it, each of the two samples was in the form of white coloured powder and each answered test for the presence of diacetyl morphine (Heroin). The report of the Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi, shows that the seized material was Heroin. 19. P.W. 23 is Navin Chandra, an Inspector of Excise, who is complainant of this case. According to it, each of the two samples was in the form of white coloured powder and each answered test for the presence of diacetyl morphine (Heroin). The report of the Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi, shows that the seized material was Heroin. 19. P.W. 23 is Navin Chandra, an Inspector of Excise, who is complainant of this case. According to him, the Assistant Commissioner had constituted a raiding party, in which there were ten persons, which included Assistant Commissioner, Superintendents, Inspectors and Constables. On the direction of Assistant Commissioner, they (P.W. 23 and others) proceeded towards Patna on National High Way No. 28 and when they reached Pipra Kothi, the Assistant Commissioner asked them to stop vehicle No. BR-1B-3210 and when that vehicle came they gave signal to it to stop, but the vehicle did not stop and then they chased it and stopped it. He has said that they searched the vehicle but they could not find anything there and the Assistant Commissioner said that the vehicle had one lady and so the vehicle should be taken to the office where lady Inspector was available. They also took two independent witnesses and they reached Motihari Customs office with Maruti van. On the direction of the Assistant Commissioner, the Custom officials cut the two bags which were of the accused persons and on cutting the two bags before the four accused persons and Assistant Commissioner and Superintendent of Customs and two independent witnesses, Sunil Kumar and Siya Ram Singh, eighteen small pouches and two big pouches containing white materials were recovered, which weighed four kilograms on test these materials were found to be heroin vide Exhibit 4, already mentioned above. P.W. 23 has said that Panchnama and seizure memo were prepared of that material. 20. P.W. 22, Dharamveer Kumar Sinha, is Assistant Commissioner, Custom. He has stated that on 22.09.95 he received a confidential information on telephone and he formed a raiding party headed by him and they proceeded on Motihari-Patna road. He has said that the information was that two foreign nationals were going on the Maruti van. When the Maruti van reached near Pipra, they gave signal to it to stop, but the vehicle did not stop and they (P.W. 22 and others) intercepted the vehicle beyond Pipra. He has said that the information was that two foreign nationals were going on the Maruti van. When the Maruti van reached near Pipra, they gave signal to it to stop, but the vehicle did not stop and they (P.W. 22 and others) intercepted the vehicle beyond Pipra. He (P.W. 22) ordered Superintendent and Navin Chandra to search the vehicle but nothing could be found there on preliminary search. There was a lady and a foreigner in the vehicle. The vehicle with its occupatns was taken to Custom Office, Motihari, and he (P.W. 22) ordered the Superintendent to check the vehicle again. After some time Navin Chandra informed him (P.W. 22) that he wanted to cut the lower portion of the two air bags to see it and he ordered for it and he (P.W. 22) also went there. On cutting the bag, pouches and polythene were recovered and it created suspicion and he ordered Navin Chandra to test it on the kit meant for test of drug and on test it gave positive report that it was narcotic drug. On weighment the material was four kilograms with polythene. He ordered the Superintendent and Navin Chandra to take further steps and to complete the formalities and to report. This witness is himself a senior officer and is superior to the Superintendent and Inspector of Customs, who had made searches on his direction. 21. P.W. 21 is Uma Prasad, an Inspector of Central Excise. According to him, on 22.09.95 he was posted as Custom Inspector at Motihari and on that day some materials were seized. According to him, on 23.09.95 the Superintendent had called him and he (P.W. 21) had recorded the statement of accused Rameshwar Prasad and Superintendent was asking the question and accused was replying to it and he (P.W. 21) was recording it. P.W. 19 is Rajendra Prasad Singh, a Custom Inspector. According to him, he had recorded interrogatory statement of accused Daubin which runs into six pages and he had read it over to accused Daubin, who had put his signature on each page of it and the Superintendent, Custom, had also signed on it. There is nothing in the cross examination of these witnesses to disbelieve their evidence. 22. Four evidences have been examined on behalf of the defence in this case out of whom D.W. 1, Surendra Prasad, P.W. 2. Md. There is nothing in the cross examination of these witnesses to disbelieve their evidence. 22. Four evidences have been examined on behalf of the defence in this case out of whom D.W. 1, Surendra Prasad, P.W. 2. Md. Zubair, and D.W. 3, Anand Kumar had been examined as defence witness on behalf of accused, Rameshwar and Anwar. D.W. 1, Surendra Prasad, is a witness of formal nature, who had typed an affidavit (Exhibit E) on the dictation of Arvind Kumar Mishra. He had also typed a letter of sale (bikrinama) on the dictation of Arvind Kumar Mishra, which is Exhibit F. Md. Zubair has stated that he is proprietor of Pashupati Travels and on 22.09.95 Sheela Bhatt had gone to him and ordered for a vehicle for going to Patna and there was a foreigner with him and he (D.W. 2) had provided a Maruti van, BR-1B-3210 and Anwar Alam was the owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was booked from Raxaul to Patna on payment of Rs. 1400/-. D.W. 3 is Anand Kumar, who has said that he had purchased the Maruti van bearing no. BR-1B-3210 in 1990 and he had sold it on 17.05.95 to Kaleem, son of Anwar Alam, and Gambhira Sah, son of Motilal Sah of Raxaul. It cannot be inferred from the evidence of D.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 that the appellants have not committed the offences, as alleged. D.W. 4, Vinod Kumar Srivastava, is another defence witness, who had been examined on behalf of accused, Sheela Bhatt and Daubin. According to him, he had typed the reply of the show cause on the direction of the lawyer and Sheela Bhatt had signed on it, which is Exhibit J. Further, according to him, he had also typed another reply of show cause of Jaan Mohammad on the direction of the lawyer on which Jaan Mohammad had signed, which is Exhibit J/1 in this case. It cannot be inferred from the evidence of D.W. 4 and these Exhibits that these two appellants have not committed the offences as alleged. 23. The above evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that four kilograms of Heroin was recovered from the possession of these two appellants, Jaan Mohammad @ Geinivin Daubin and Sheela Bhatt, and they have committed the offence punishable under Section 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 23. The above evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that four kilograms of Heroin was recovered from the possession of these two appellants, Jaan Mohammad @ Geinivin Daubin and Sheela Bhatt, and they have committed the offence punishable under Section 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The conviction and sentence of the appellants, Jaan Mohammad @ Geinivin Daubin and Sheela Bhatt under Section 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is justified. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge against the appellants, Jaan Mohammad @ Geinivin Daubin and Sheela Bhatt, is maintained. There is no merit in these two criminal appeals. Both these criminal appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. Narbdeshwar Pandey, J. 24 I agree.