CHITHAYAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused in a case, wherein he stood charged, tried and found guilty under Sec.8(c) read with 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 2 years R.I. has brought forth this appeal.

(2.) The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: P.W.1 Veerannan, Sub Inspector of Police, attached to N.I.B. C.I.D., Salem on 16.12.1999 at about 9.00 A.M. along with P.W.4 Vellingiri, Head Constable No.910 and other police party on secret information were patrolling at Pethanayakkampalayam Bus Stop and entertained suspicion on the appellant/accused, who stood near the bus stop with a yellow colour bag on his right hand, at about 12.00 noon. P.W.1 after introducing himself, conveyed to him that he is entitled for the conduct of the search before a gazetted Officer or a Judicial Magistrate. The accused gave consent to be searched by the official himself. Accordingly, P.W.1 searched his bag in the presence of the two independent witnesses namely P.W.2 Duraisamy, Village Administrative Assistant and P.W.3 Duraisamy, Assistant and P.W.4 Head Constable and found 2 kilograms of Diazepam. P.W.1 seized the same under Ex.P2 mahazar in the presence of the said witnesses. He took two samples each 25 grams marked as M.O.2 and affixed the seal and the rest of the contraband was sealed, which is marked as M.O.1. The appellant/accused was arrested under Ex.P3 arrest memo, a copy of which was served on him. The accused was brought to the Office, and a case was registered in Crime No.91/99 under Sec.20(b)(1) of the N.D.P.S. Act. Ex.P4 printed F.I.R. was prepared. The accused was taken to the concerned Court along with the F.I.R. and the material objects. They were all produced before the Court. A detailed report under Ex.P5 under Sec.57 of the NDPS Act was prepared and sent to the higher officials. P.W.6 Sankarapandian, Inspector of Police, NIB CID, Salem took up further investigation after obtaining Ex.P5 and other relevant records from P.W.1. He proceeded to the site of occurrence and also to the house of the accused, made a search in front of the witnesses, prepared Ex.P7 search memo, examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and recorded their statements. P.W.6 Investigating Officer made a request under Ex.P8 to the Court for sending M.O.2 for chemical analysis. Accordingly the sample was analysed by P.W.5 Arulanandam, Scientific Assistant attached to the Forensic Laboratory and found that the sample under M.O.2 is diazepam. P.W.5 sent Ex.P6 report to the Court. On 19.1.2002 P.W.6 examined P.W.5 and recorded his statement. On completion of the investigation, P.W.6 filed a charge sheet against the accused under Sec.22 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

(3.) In order to prove the charge levelled against the appellant/accused, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses and marked 8 exhibits and 3 material objects. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant/accused was questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating materials found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and the accused flatly denied the same as false. On the side of the defence, the wife of the appellant/accused namely Palaniammal was examined as D.W.1. No documents or material objects were marked on the side of the defence. On consideration of the rival submissions and scrutiny of the materials available, the trial Court has found the appellant/accused guilty under Sec.8(c) read with 22 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as stated supra. Aggrieved appellant/accused has brought forth this appeal.