Tue. Jan 19th, 2021

Lydia Ninglianting vs Directorate Of Revenue … on 5 February, 2016

3 min read

1. On 20.11.2006 at about 1100 hours, an information was received by Mr Madan
Singh, Intelligence Officer, DRI (PW1) that two women of Indian origin shall be
carrying narcotics drug in their baggage while travelling from Jallandhar to Delhi by
Punjab Roadways bus and likely to reach ISBT, Kashmere Gate, Delhi between 1400
hours to 1430 hours. The said information was reduced into writing vide Ex.PW1/A
and was submitted to Pankaj K Singh, Deputy Director DRI, (PW3), New Delhi for
suitable action.
2. Mr Pankaj K. Singh called the Intelligence Officer – M.C. Maheshwari and
directed him to take necessary action on the information. Thereupon, Mr. Maheshwari
(PW-6) and other officers of DRI reached local bus stand, opposite ISBT, Kashmere
Gate, Delhi at about 2 pm and saw two ladies of the same description alighting from
Punjab Roadways bus at the local bus stand, opposite ISBT Kashmere Gate alongwith
green colour and blue colour bags. They were intercepted at 2.05 pm. After showing

Crl. Appeal Nos.770/2011 & 1046/2012 Page 1 of 12
their identity cards, the women were asked whether they were carrying any narcotics
drug with them in person or in their luggage to which they replied in negative. Both the
ladies were informed that they have an intelligence that they may be carrying narcotic
drugs with them and since that place was a busy place and was not suitable, therefore,
they were asked to come to DRI office to which they agreed. Thereafter, all of them
alongwith both the ladies intercepted at the bus stand reached DRI office where two
panch witnesses were called and asked to join the proceedings. Both the ladies revealed
their names as Lydia Ninglianting and Sheikh Dilshad. Notice under Section 50 of the
NDPS Act (for short, ‘the Act’) Ex.PW6/B and Ex. PW6/C was served upon them
inquiring whether they wanted to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a
Magistrate to which they replied that any lady officer in DRI can take search of their
person as well as baggage. Thereafter, Ms Parminder Kaur, Administrative Officer,
DRI (PW8) took search of their person in total privacy but nothing incriminating was
found from their person. Thereafter, the green colour bag carried by the appellant –
Lydia Ninglianting was searched and after removing her personal effects, two heat
sealed polythene packets containing some substance were found. On checking, it was
found to contain off-white colour powdery substance which was given mark X1 and
X2. Thereafter, the blue colour bag of brand name ‘Splendid’ was searched which was
found to be containing three heat sealed polythene packets containing off-colour
powdery substance. The packets were given mark Y1, Y2 and Y3. The small quantity
of powdery substance was taken from each bag – one by one and tested with drug
detection kit which gave positive result for heroin. The substance of all the packets was
weighed one by one and the total weight came to 5.017 kgs. Five gm each was taken
out from the packets as sample and were sealed with the seal of DRI. One paper slip
was also affixed which was signed by both the accused, the panch witness and the lady
officer Parminder Kaur. The sealed parcels were duly deposited and thereafter sent to
CRCL which were examined by R.P.Meena, Assistant Chemical Examiner, CRCL
(PW-5) who gave his report Ex.PW5/A opining that the samples analyzed by him were
found to be heroin (diacetyl morphine). Summons were issued to both the accused in
pursuance of which they appeared and their statements Ex.PW6/H and Ex.PW6/K were
recorded under Section 67 of the Act. After completing investigation, the
complaint under Section 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 was filed against them.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply