Compliance with mandatory provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, admissibility of confessional statements, and the significance of independent witnesses are crucial legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

B.P. SINGH, J.

The appellants herein with one other namely, Hiralal were tried by the Special District and Sessions Judge, Madurai in Crime Case NO.320 of 2001 charged of the offences under Section 8 (c) read with Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Learned District & Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated November 20, 2002 found them guilty of the offences with which they were charged and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2-1/2 years.

Each one of the accused aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court preferred an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant Ravindran @ John was registered as Criminal Appeal NO.1144 of 2003 while the appeal of Peter John was numbered as Criminal Appeal 14 of 2003. The High Court by its impugned common Judgment and Order dated April 2, 2004 upheld the conviction of the appellants but acquitted Hiralal against whom it found no satisfactory evidence to prove the charges. The appellants have preferred the instant appeals by special leave.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1201 OF 2005

1. The facts of the case are that PWs 1 and 2 who were officials of the Customs Sea Base Party, Tiruchendur on receiving specific information rushed to the Kayalpattinam Bus Stand at about 3.00 a.m. on December 21, 2000 since there was reliable information that one person carrying psychotropic substance was to come there. At the bus stand they found appellant Ravindran and on suspecting him to be the person concerned they informed him that they are going to conduct personal search and asked him whether he would like the search to be conducted before a Judicial Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The appellant die not insist on his search before a Magistrate of Gazetted Officer. He was searched by PWs 1 and 2 in the presence of two independent wit1esses namely, Ravi and Chandrasekar. The appellant was found to be carrying a white coloured polythene bag. On searching the bag one polythene packet was found inside the bag which was opened in the presence of the independent witnesses. It was found to contain white colour powder. On being asked the appellant informed them that the substance was Diazepam. The same was, therefore, seized under Mahazar, exhibit P-2. The packet was sealed and brought to the Customs Office since there was no facility to weigh the substance and to prepare samples at the bus stand. The two independent witnesses also accompanied the appellant and PWs 1 and 2. On weighing, the substance was found to weigh 1.528 Kilograms. Two representative samples each weighing 5 grams were drawn and sealed in two separate covers which were duly packed, labeled and sealed with the customs seal. According to the prosecution the substance seized was worth about Rs.75,000/-.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on further questioning the appellant confessed his guilt and his confessional statement exhibit. P-4 was recorded. From the confessional statement of the appellant, the involvement of the other two accused was revealed. The appellant was arrested on December 21, 2000 while the other two accused were arrested on December 23,2000. Peter John (co-accused) admitted that the plastic bag containing white colour powder had been given to him by his friend Hiralal (co-accused) and that he had handed over the same to the appellant for sale.

3. The report of the Chemical Analyst established that the sample on being tested showed the presence of Diazepam. One other accused namely, Bharat Lal was found involved in the conspiracy. It appears that he absconded and therefore his trial was separated.

4. It was argued before the Trial Court as well as the High Court that the conviction of appellant Ravindran was not justified in view of noncompliance with the mandatory provis