M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.

1. The accused in S.C.No. 97 of 2000 of the Special Court for trial of N.D.P.S. Act cases, Vadakara, challenges the conviction against him for the offence under S.21 of the N.D.P.S. Act and the sentence of R.I. for 12 years and fine of Rs. 2 lakhs imposed thereof.

2. The prosecution case was that at about 8.15 p.m. on 20.1.2000 PW 2 Circle Inspector of Police, Kottakkal. got information that a person had reached with brown sugar intended for sale in front of the closed room on the ground floor of Canara Bank building at Shankuvatty; that after recording the information and reporting it to the Dy. S.P. he reached the spot at 8.35 p.m.; found the accused standing on the veranda of the closed room aforementioned; that after interception and after conveyance of the right under S.50 of the N.D.P.S. Act to him he was questioned about his option; that on the accused giving a negative reply, which was reduced to writing at the spot vide Ext. P.1, he conducted a body search on the person of the accused which revealed the availability of a plastic cover concealed inside the trousers worn by him and that when this was opened . it was found to be brown sugar. The weight was subsequently ascertained as 100 gms. (102.65 gms including the cover).

3. The Trial Court believed PWs. 1 and 2 and entered the conviction disbelieving the accused with regard to his version in the statement under S.313 of the Cr. P.C. that he was actually taken to custody on the previous day and that after he was taken to custody some others who had been detained in the police station were released.

4. During the arguments learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no proper identification of the accused in so far as neither PWl nor PW 2 specifically identified the person in the dock as the person from whom the seizure was effected as alleged in the charge. Yet another contention was the failure on the part of the prosecution to examine the goldsmith, who allegedly fixed the weight of the contraband. This, according to him, is of special significance in view of the fact that the colour of the contraband examined in the laboratory was brownish, whereas the witnesses stated it as yellowish. The further argument is that there was no proper opportunity which enabled the accused to adduce defence evidence in support of his version given under S.313 of the Cr. P.C.

5. On the arguments advanced in the case, the points that arise for decision are: 1. Whether there is sufficient evidence to show that the appellant was the person from whom allegedly the seizure was made? 2. Whether there was sufficient opportunity given to the accused to adduce defence evidence? and 3. Reliefs

6. Point No. 1. I have perused the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, who alone are the witnesses to the.seizure. PW 2 is actually the seizing official himself. However, neither of these witnesses has specifically identified the person in the dock in the Trial Court as the person from whom seizure was effected. Of course reference was made to the fact that the seizure was effected from the 'accused'. But then who was the particular person? Was he the person in the dock? On these aspects no sufficient light is seen in the depositions recorded. The depositions should either have included a specific endorsement by the Judge that the accused in the dock was identified by the witness or that the answer regarding identification was made pointing towards the accused in the dock or some other indication that the witness has identified the person available in the box as the perpetrator of the crime about which the witness is deposing before court. This is so because it is essential in a criminal trial, that the identity of the person who faces the trial as the perpetrator of the crime is established. For this to be achieved the witnesses to the transaction in question should specifically certify the identity of the person . in the dock as the person available at the scene of occurre