M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.

These two appeals arise from one and the same judgment passed by the Special Judge for trial of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act cases, Vadakara in S.C. No. 32/97. The two appellants are accused 1 and 2 respectively in the aforesaid case involving offence under S.21 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

2. The prosecution alleged that at about 5.30 p.m. on 5.7.1996 PW.7 Sub Inspector of Panniyankara Police Station received information that a person dressed in white shirt and dhoti and another person in brown pants and striped shirt and aged about 30-35 years were engaged in the sale of brown sugar near Meenchanda Railway Gate at Kozhikode. After recording the information and sending a report to the Circle Inspector of Police, who is the Official Superior, he proceeded to the spot along with other policemen. On the way, they also took PW-3 and PW-6, two independent witnesses along with them. On reaching the portion near the northern side of the Railway Gate, Meenchanda, the two accused were spotted standing in front of the "Appu's Hotel". On seeing the Police, they tried to slip away; but they were stopped and questioned.

3. It is the prosecution case that to the question put by PW-7 as to the option of the accused with regard to the proposed search, both answered in the negative and that thereupon body search was effected. On searching the body of the 1st accused M.O.3 towel was found on his hand. When that was opened, a polythene cover which in turn contained six small polythene packets of brown sugar (M.O.I) was detected. Similar search on the body of the 2nd accused showed that at the waist fold of the dhoti worn by him a polythene packet covered with newspaper and containing brown sugar (M.O.2) was available. After preparing necessary seizure mahazar, the contraband and the accused were removed to the Police Station and Crime No. 76/96 was registered vide Ext. P8 FIR. The Circle Inspector of Police - PW-8 took over the investigation and ultimately charge was laid by PW-5.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants argued only three points. According to him, there is no guarantee that the article allegedly seized from the spot was the same as that reached the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. The second point argued is a procedural lapse on the part of the Court. Though the accused were questioned under S.313 Cr.P.C. on 27.10.1997, there was no direction to the accused thereafter to enter their defence. Instead the case was merely adjourned to 28.10.1997 for arguments, after recording that there was no defence evidence. According to the learned counsel, sufficient opportunity should have been given to the accused to enter their defence and to adduce defence evidence and an entry that there was no defence evidence should not have been made on the same day. The last point argued is that there was procedural irregularity in having a single trial with regard to the seizures of different quantity of contraband from the two accused.

5. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, there is no procedural irregularity or doubtful circumstances.

6. The points that arise for decision are:

(1) Whether sufficient evidence exists to find the accused guilty of the offence under 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act? And

(2) Whether there are procedural lapses enabling the accused to get an acquittal.

7. Points 1 and 2: These are considered together for the sake of convenience. PW.7, who is the seizing official, stated that after the seizure made at the scene of occurrence, the seized contraband was covered and sealed at the spot. The 6 packets found in the hand of the 1st accused were covered in brown paper and marked Bl. The plastic cover in which the said packets were kept was also covered with brown paper and affixed the label marked P1. Likewise, the plastic cover seized from the 2nd accused including the brown sugar was covered with brown paper and marked B2 and the piece of the newspaper (Malayala Manorama) u