Madras High Court acquits man who carried Heroin believing it to be wheat flour

The Madras High Court recently overturned a trial court judgment that found a man guilty of attempting to carry about 1.5 kilograms of Heroin on an airplane mistaking it to be wheat flour [Anandam Gundluru vs Inspector of Police, NCB].Justice G Jayachandran noted that the accused was in an all probability carrying a parcel given by another person. Hence, knowledge about the contraband in his bag could not be attributed to him since it seemed probable that he was carrying the contraband without knowing that it was a banned substance."Though not in all cases, the carrier can plead absence of culpability, in the peculiar circumstances and facts of this case as narrated above, the knowledge of contraband in the Airbag cannot be attributed to the accused/appellant. Through his statement it is probabilised that he had carried the parcel given by Venkateswara Rao, without knowing that it is a prohibited substance," he stated..According to the prosecution, in September 2014, a Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) Officer got information about one Venkateshwara Rao transporting 1.5 kg of Heroin through Anandam Gundluru (the appellant) to Kuwait via Chennai Airport. Following immigration clearance, a team checked the passports of passengers and subsequently identified Gundluru..Gundluru was informed of his right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer but purportedly refused to exercise it. On examination, his check-in luggage was found to have two packets of Heroin weighing around 1 kg and 0.5kg..As the prime suspect absconded and was untraceable, Gundluru alone was prosecuted by the NCB which lead to a special NDPS court convicting him for the charge of possessing commercial quantity of Heroin and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1 lakh..Advocate TS Sasikumar for the appellant claimed before the High Court that the appellant had been truthful in his statement about lack of conscious possession and had disclosed the source of the contraband. He pleaded innocence, stating that like few other villagers, Venkateswara Rao had given him a parcel saying it contains tamarind and wheat flour.He also pointed out that at the airport, he had without any hesitation identified his bag and allowed the officials to examine his bag.Further, he contended that the trial court erred in concluding that the accused's comment — recorded as a statement by the NCB — that he was apprehensive of carrying the packages overseas meant that he knew what they contained. He stated that the statement actually meant that the appellant legitimately feared transporting items overseas for others because he was a first-time international traveller..He also contended that the collection of Call Detail Records (CDR) between the accused and Venkateshwara Rao were not proven as per law and also underlined the person who provided those records was not examined as a witness before the trial court..The High Court pointed out that the trial court had acquitted the appellant from the charge of criminal conspiracy and had only convicted him for possessing the contraband based on his CDR, and on a statement recorded by the Andhra Pradesh police from Rao's father. .It observed that the CDR were not accompanied by a certificate under section 65B of the Evidence Act and also that person who provided the same was not examined as a witness before the trial court. It further observed that the persons who recorded and translated Rao's father's statement were also not examined by the trial court..It, therefore, held that the accused had established absence of knowledge of possession of a banned substance and set aside the trial court judgment that convicted him..[Read Judgment]