Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. Dooni Chand and Neel Chand accused-appellants (hereinafter referred to as `the accused) were tried for the offences under Section 20, 21, 23, 25 and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act), pursuant to the complaint filed by the Narcotic Control Bureau (hereinafter referred to as `NCB). Eventually, they were convicted by the Judge, Special Court, Roop Nagar, vide its judgment dated 16.2.2004 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- each. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each. 2-3 On 17.2.1999, on receipt of the secret information that the accused were bringing Charas by concealing the same in the luggage, pickle or ghee tins, during night time, by transporting through bus of M/s. Harison Travels started from Manali and leading to Delhi, picket was arranged at Swar Ghat, but the accused did not arrive on that day. The on 18.2.1999, a picket was placed at Garamorh, Kiratpur Sahib, District Ropar and vehicles were checked by the team consisting of R.P. Singh, O.P. Bhatt, both Intelligence Officers, Gurdev Singh Driver, Rajesh Sapoy, Paramjit Singh Sapoy and Ramesh Sapoy. At about, 0.30 hours a bus bearing registration No. HP-01-1743 belonging to M/s. Harison Travels came and was checked. On checking of the dicky, it was found that except two suit cases, remaining luggage were claimed by the passengers. The said suit cases were bearing seat Nos. 31 and 32. On verification by the conductor, the suitcases were found to be those of the accused. Neel Chand accused, who was apprehended at the spot, cheated the officers by saying that he had lost the key of the suit case and he also affirmed that the second suit case belongs to his friend Dooni Chand sitting in the bus. The NCB and the police officials then looked for the another accused who managed to escape. Sh. Sarabjit Singh, Zonal Director, NCB gave authorisation to Mr. R.P. Singh, Investigating Officer to search the luggage. Thereafter authorisation of search was served upon Neel Chand accused in the presence of two independent witnesses. The NCB and the police officials then looked for the another accused who managed to escape. Sh. Sarabjit Singh, Zonal Director, NCB gave authorisation to Mr. R.P. Singh, Investigating Officer to search the luggage. Thereafter authorisation of search was served upon Neel Chand accused in the presence of two independent witnesses. When the accused Neel Chand did not hand over the keys of the suitcases, then locks of the suitcases were broken and on search of the suit case 3 packets weighing 5.050 kgs Charas was recovered. Out of the second suit case, 8 packets containing 12.950 kgs. of Charas was recovered. Notice Ex. PF under Section 67 of the Act was served upon Neel Chand accused for recovery of 18 kgs. of Charas. Neel Chand accused made a voluntary statement Ex. PG. The independent witnesses namely Ram Kishan Saini and Yogesh Kaushik also made their statement Ex. PL and Ex. PM respectively. Notice Ex. PH was also served upon Manoj Kumar and Labh Singh driver and conductor of the bus and their statements Ex. PI and Ex. PJ respectively were also recorded. Accused Dooni Chand, who had absconded was ultimately arrested on 19.2.1999 vide memo Ex. PN. Statement of Dooni Chand accused was also recorded under Section 108 of Central Excise and Customs Act. On completion of the investigation, complaint was filed against both the accused. 4. Formal charge under Sections 20 and 21 of the Act was framed against both the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to support its case, the NCB examined O.P. Bhatt IO (PW-1), Nanak Chand (PW-2), R.P. Singh (PW-3), Manoj Kumar (PW-4), M.L. Narang, Chemical Examiner, Retd. (PW-5), Ram Kishan (PW-6), Jagdish Kumar (PW-7), Anil Kumar Sood (PW-8), Sarabjit Singh, Zonal Director (PW-9) and closed the evidence. 6. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., both the accused pleaded their innocence and pleaded their false implication. 7. The trial ended in conviction. Hence this appeal. 8. We have heard Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate with Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate for the appellant-Dooni Chand, Mr. Rajeev K. Kapila, Advocate and Ms. S.K. Kapila, Advocate for the appellant-Neel Chand, Ms.Deepika Verma, Advocate as Amicus Curaie for the appellants, Mr. S.S. Bhinder, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab and perused the records with their able assistance. 9. Hence this appeal. 8. We have heard Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate with Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate for the appellant-Dooni Chand, Mr. Rajeev K. Kapila, Advocate and Ms. S.K. Kapila, Advocate for the appellant-Neel Chand, Ms.Deepika Verma, Advocate as Amicus Curaie for the appellants, Mr. S.S. Bhinder, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab and perused the records with their able assistance. 9. Present is not the case which has only been supported by O.P. Bhatt (PW-1), R.P. Singh (PW-3). Both the recovery witnesses of the rank of the officers of the NCB, but other overwhelming evidence corroborating the official testimonies is of Manoj Kumar (PW-4), the driver of M/s. Harison Travels (in which both the accused were travelling). He knew both the accused. He stated that both the accused started from Manali for Delhi in Bus No. HP-01-1743. He further corroborates that the bus was checked at Garamorh. Though, in later part of his statement, he resiled, yet this fact cannot be ignored that the bus was got checked by the officers of the NCB. The other independent witness examined by the prosecution is Ram Kishan (PW-6) who testified that on 18.2.1999, Mr. R.P. Singh (PW-3) had come to him and he joined the investigation at his instance. Buses were checked and at about 00.30 hours, a bus from Kullu-Manali came for going to Delhi. On checking of the dicky, two suitcases were recovered. Neel Chand accused, though claimed the ownership of the suitcase but refused to deliver the key. However, Dooni Chand escaped. The other independent witness Jagdish Kumar (PW-7) had also proved the statement made by him before R.P. Singh, Investigating Officer of the case. He has stated that he recorded the statement Ex. PA/C in his hand. Similarly, Anil Kumar Sood (PW-8), owner of the Harison Travels bus has proved the issuance of tickets which were produced by the accused through a person namely Bittu. Both, O.P. Bhatt (PW-1) and R.P. Singh (PW-3) have fully supported the prosecution case. They had no enmity against the accused for implicating them falsely in this case. Such a heavy recovery of Charas, could not be foisted against the accused by the complainant from their own sources. After Neel Chand was arrested, he made a voluntary statement under Section 67 of the Act before the Customs Officers stating himself and Dooni Chand as one of the perpetrators of the crime. Such a heavy recovery of Charas, could not be foisted against the accused by the complainant from their own sources. After Neel Chand was arrested, he made a voluntary statement under Section 67 of the Act before the Customs Officers stating himself and Dooni Chand as one of the perpetrators of the crime. Similarly, Dooni Chand after his arrest made a statement on 28.9.2000 accepting the version of the prosecution admitting the possession of the contraband being smuggled by him before R.P. Singh, Intelligent Officer. Copies of the statements were also given to the accused persons. Thus, confessional statement Ex. PG and Ex. PA/1 made by the accused does not seems to have been taken by coercion or threat. Even after receiving the copies of the statements, the accused never protested against such statements. Mr. R.P. Singh, while appearing in the witness box as PW-3, categorically testified that before recording their statements, he had explained to them regarding the consequences of the statements and both of them made statements without any pressure or fear and they were in sound disposing mind at that time. While evaluating such statements, the Apex Court in case K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector, Central Excise Collectorate, Cochin, 1997(2) Recent Criminal Reports 48, observed that confessional statements made by accused to a Custom Officer is admissible in evidence, a Custom Officer is not a Police Officer. He is not empowered to file charge- sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. A Custom Officer though is empowered to arrest, investigate and search, but he does not become a Police Officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the confessional statements Ex. PG and Ex. PA/1 are voluntary and as already stated have been written without any type of coercion, threat or pressure. 10. As regards the violation of Section 50 of the Act, it may be observed that the recovery was effected from the suitcases belonging to the accused persons and sufficient chain of evidence has been brought on record to prove that the Seat Nos. 31 and 32 were occupied by the accused and that too synchronized the numbers affixed on their luggage. 31 and 32 were occupied by the accused and that too synchronized the numbers affixed on their luggage. The recovery was not from the person of the accused, therefore, option of search as provided under Section 50 of the Act was not required and such option was required only if the search was to be conducted from their person. While relying upon the judgments i.e. State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, 1999(3) RCR(Criminal) 533 : 1999(6) SCC 172; Sarjudas v. State of Gujrat, 1999(4) RCR(Criminal) 614 : 1999(8) SCC 508; Gurbax Singh v. State of Haryana, 2001(1) RCR(Criminal) 702 : 2001(3) SCC 28; Madan Lal v. State of H.P., 2003(4) RCR(Criminal) 100 : 2004(1) Apex Criminal 426 : 2003(7) SCC 465; Saikou Jabbi v. State of Maharashtra, 2004(1) RCR(Criminal) 96 : 2004(2) Apex Criminal 43 : JT 2003(9) SC 609; Krishna Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan, 2004(2) SCC 608; State of Punjab v. Makhan Singh, 2004(3) RCR(Criminal) 1 : 2004(3) Apex Criminal 168 : 2004(3) SCC 453 the Apex Court examined in considerable detail the scope and ambit of State Government 40 of the Act in cases State of Himachal pradesh v. Pawan Kumar; State of Rajasthan v. Bhanwar Lal, JT 2005(4) SC 373, and observed as under :- "9. We are not concerned here with the wide definition of the word "person", which in the legal world includes corporations, associations or body of individuals as factually in these type of cases search of their premises can be done and not of their person. Having regard to the scheme of the Act and the context in which it has been used in the section it naturally means a human being or a living individual unit and not an artificial person. The word has to be understood in a broad commonsense manner and, therefore, not a naked or nude body of a human being but the manner in which a normal human being will move about in a civilized society. Therefore, the most appropriate meaning of the word "person" appears to be - "the body of a human being as presented to public view usually with its appropriate coverings and clothing." In a civilized society appropriate coverings and clothing are considered absolutely essential and no sane human being comes in the gaze of others without appropriate coverings and clothing. Therefore, the most appropriate meaning of the word "person" appears to be - "the body of a human being as presented to public view usually with its appropriate coverings and clothing." In a civilized society appropriate coverings and clothing are considered absolutely essential and no sane human being comes in the gaze of others without appropriate coverings and clothing. The appropriate coverings will include footwear also as normally it is considered as essential article to be worn while moving outside ones home. Such appropriate coverings or clothing or footwear, after being worn, move along with the human body without any appreciable or extra effort. Once worn, they would not normally get detached from the body of the human being unless some specific effort in that direction is made. For interpreting the provision, rare cases of some religious monks and sages, who, according to the tenets of their religious belief do not cover their body with clothing, are not to be taken notice of. Therefore, the word "person" would mean a human being with appropriate coverings and clothing and also footwear. 10. A bag, briefcase or any such article or container etc. can, under no circumstances be treated as body of a human being. They are given a separate name and are identifiable as such. They cannot even remotely be treated to be part of the body of a human being. Depending upon the physical capacity of a person, he may carry any number of items like a bag, a briefcase, a suitcase, a tin box, a thaila, a jhola, a gathri, a holdall, a carton etc. of varying size, dimension or weight. However, while carrying or moving along with them, some extra efforts or energy would be required. They would have to be carried either by the hand or hung on the shoulder on back or placed on the head. In common parlance it would be said that a person is carrying a particular article, specifying the manner in which it was carried like hand, shoulder, back or head etc. Therefore, it is not possible to include these articles within the ambit of the word "person" occurring in Section 50 of the Act." 11. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, no option of search before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate in this case was required. 12. Therefore, it is not possible to include these articles within the ambit of the word "person" occurring in Section 50 of the Act." 11. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, no option of search before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate in this case was required. 12. No other point has been brought forward to assail the impugned judgment. 13. Even otherwise, having scanned the trial Court judgment, it is observed that the points as raised by the accused before it, were beautifully answered. No plausible defence has been led by the accused to prove their innocence. 14. Now coming to quantum of sentence. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment of this Court in case Inder Singh v. Inspector Customs, Raja Sansi Airport Customs Division, Amritsar, 2004(2) RCR(Criminal) 203, wherein the Court reduced the sentence of the accused from 15 years rigorous imprisonment to 10 years rigorous imprisonment, while taking the mitigating circumstance that the appellant was a carrier. 15. Nevertheless, quantity of 18 kgs. of Charas was recovered from the accused when they were travelling by bus from Manali to Delhi, on the intervening night of 18/19.2.1999, it may be observed that the accused are in custody since then. They are not previous offenders. Though, legislature has provided a stringent sentence for those indulging in the transporting of the narcotics, yet in the given circumstances of the case, ends of justice would be met, if the minimum sentence is awarded to them. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the accused is dismissed with the modification in the sentence so as to reduce to 10 years each, without alteration of sentence of fine. However, the sentence awarded by the trial Court in default of payment of fine is reduced to one year each. Order accordingly.