- (1.)CRL. M. P. No. 2050 of 2006 in Crl. A. No. 524 of 2005 has filed by the State through the Inspector of Police, erode Taluk Police Station, Erode, with a prayer to allow the prosecution to take additional evidence under Section 391 of Code of Criminal Procedure to mark the information which was reduced into writing in volume III of general diary maintained by the inspector of Police, Erode Taluk Police Station, Erode, in Crime No. 126 of 2004 and in Crl. A. No. 524 of 2006 pending before this Court.
(2.)THE accused in this case has come forward with an appeal against conviction as he has been convicted under Section 8 (c)read with 20 (b) (ii) (c) of N. D. P. S. Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- fine, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. This appeal is posted before this Court for final hearing. At this stage, the State has preferred a petition, as stated above, for the purpose of marking the information which is said to have reduced into writing in respect of this case. One of the main defence raised by the accused in this appeal is that there is a violation of mandatory provisions under Section 42 (2) of the Act.
(3.)MR. M. K. Subramanian, learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submits that p. W. 2, the Sub-Inspector of Police, on receiving the information over phone that the accused was in possession of Ganja at Door no. 51, Balaji Garden, Thindal Village, erode, recorded the same in the general diary and informed to the superior officers through Ex. P. 3. It is further contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side)that the Special Public Prosecutor, who had examined the witnesses, due to inadvertence failed to mark the relevant information in the general diary which was reduced into writing in the General Diary Volume III maintained by him. It is contended by the learned government Advocate (Crl. Side) that the marking of the General Diary, as stated above, is just and essential for the just de-cision of the case and such error on the part of the prosecution agency may be rectified by directing the trial Court to take additional evidence. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) also placed reliance on the following decisions : (1) Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell reported in 1999 SCC (Crl) 1062 : (1999 Cri lj 3529 ). (2) Zahira Habibullah H. Sheik v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2004 SCC (Crl) 999 : (2004 Cri LJ 2050) (Best Bakery Case)