MURUGAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused, who stood charged, tried and convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years under S.8(c) r/w 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act and to pay a fine of Rs.1.00 lakh and in default to undergo R.I. for 2 years has brought forth this appeal.

(2.) Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are: P.W.6 Beski, Sub Inspector, attached to NIB/CID, on receipt of an information on 15.10.1998 at about 10.00 A.M. as to the transport of narcotic substance, reduced the same into writing and informed the same by telephone to P.W.7 Jeyakumar, Inspector. He accompanied by P.W.1 H.Velusamy, Village Administrative Officer and his menial proceeded to the Central Bus Stand, Tuticorin, where two persons were identified in front of Paul Sornam Lodge. Of those two persons, the appellant/accused was one. In the presence of the witnesses, they were enquired. The appellant and the other person informed that they were in possession of two kilos of abin each. They were informed of their right that they could be searched before a Magistrate or before a gazetted Officer, and the same was replied not necessary. Under such circumstances, in the presence of the witnesses, the appellant and the other person produced the parcels what they kept secret in their waist, and the parcel produced by the appellant was unfolded. It was weighed in the presence of the witnesses. The samples were taken, and they were given mark, and the rest was also put in a parcel, and they were also given mark as B1 and B2. The seizure athatchi was prepared and signed by the witnesses. The accused was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. A report was sent to the Inspector, marked as Ex.P10. The F.I.R., the samples and the rest of the seized contraband all were produced before the concerned Magistrate's Court on the same day. On requisition, the samples were sent for analysis, while the rest was returned to the Inspector to be kept in his custody. On 21.10.1998, the samples were sent for analysis, and they were accordingly done and found to be a narcotic substance, according to the evidence of P.W.6. On completion of the investigation, P.W.7 filed the charge sheet under S.8(c) r/w 18 of the NDPS Act.

(3.) In order to prove the charge levelled against the appellant/accused, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses and marked 12 exhibits and 3 material objects. When the appellant/accused was questioned under S.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, he denied the same as false. No defence witness was examined. After consideration of the rival submissions and materials available, the trial Court found him guilty under S.8(c) r/w 18 of NDPS Act and sentenced him as referred to above.