The mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act must be strictly complied with, and failure to do so will vitiate the entire proceedings.

The Order of the Court is as follows :-

Appellants are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C. No. 22 of 1996 on the file of the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Chennai and they were found guilty under Section 8(c) read with 21 of N.D.P.S. Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1, 00, 000/- each in default to undergo R.I. for two years each. The sentence already undergone is set off under Section 428 Cr. P.C. The second accused has preferred C.A. No. 314 of 1997, the third accused has preferred C.A. No. 288 of 1997 and the first and the fourth accused have preferred C.A. No. 526 of 1997, aggrieved against the same judgment of conviction dated 31-5-1997.

2. The case in brief is as follows : -

The Inspector of Police, N.I.B. C.I.D., Chennai has laid the charge sheet against these accused stating that on 3-11-1995 at 16.30 hours near the main entrance of Thiruvalluvar Bus Transport Corporation bus stand, Parrys, Chennai, A1 was found in possession of 2 kgs. of heroin and the other accused were each found in possession of 1 kg. of heroin without any valid licence or permit and committed an offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with 21 of N.D.P.S. Act. P.W. 5 Baskaran was working as Inspector of Police, N.I.B. C.I.D., Chennai. On 3-11-1995, he received an information Ex. P4 from the Superintendent of Police and according to the information he went along with P.W. 3, the Sub-Inspector of Police and P.W. 4, the Head Constable and his police party went to the main gate of Thiruvalluvar bus stand and watched the accused. He intercepted the accused. In the presence of P.W. 1 and one Srinivasan. He informed them about the right to be searched before the nearest Judicial Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. AI knew only Telegu and as such P.W. 4 Muthu narrated the information in telegu and got the answer. Ex. P5 to P8 were the notices given to all the accused. He also searched the first accused and found him in possession of heroin in a polythene cover put in a cloth bag kept into a suit case. Similarly the other accused were found in possession of 1 kg. of heroin each. He took ten samples of heroin in each one kg. bundle. The samples and the contraband were seized under a cover of mahazar Ex. P9. He arrested all the accused and recorded their statements. They were brought along with the contraband to the station and a case was also registered against them. Ex. P10 is the First Information Report. He examined all the accused and recorded their statements. They were brought along with the contraband to the station and a case was also registered against them. Ex. P10 is the First Information Report . He examined all the witnesses and sent a report to the Superior Officer under Section 57 of N.D.P.S. Act.

3. P.W. 2 Thiru Sankar has received a requisition letter Ex. P2 from the Court along with five samples and on analysis, it was found that it contained Dy-Acetyle Norphine. Ex. P3 is the report sent by him, after completing investigation, Thiru Hanif, Inspector of Police, laid the charge sheet against all the accused. M.Os. 7, 8, 11, 13 were the bags carried by the four accused. P.W. 1 did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile.

4. On behalf of the prosectuion, P.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined and Ex. P1 to P11 were marked. M.Os. 1 to 14 series were produced. Accused were also examined under section 313 Cr.P.C and they denied the offence. No witness was examined on the side of the accused. Learned Judge on the basis of the material and after hearing both sides, gave a finding that the accused are guilty under Section 8(c) read with 21 of N.D.P.S. Act, convicted and sentence them as aforesaid. Aggrieved against this, these three appeals are filed. Since all these appeals arise out of one judgment, a common judgment is pronounced in these appeals. The parties, heareinafter referred to as they are described in the Trial Court.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that evidence on record