JUDGMENT: This appeal has been preferred by the accused against the conviction and sentence imposed on her under Sec.21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 imposing a sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment apart from a fine of Rs.1,00,000 and in default to pay the fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of one more year.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 14.10.1995 at 3.30 p.m., P.W.5 received an information from an informant as recorded under Ex.P-3, that after forwarding Ex.P-3 to his immediate superior at Chennai, he along with his assistant and Head Constable went to the Tiruchirapalli Police Station to fetch a lady constable, that thereafter along with P.W.3, P.W.5 met P.W.1 Village Administrative Officer and took both P.W.1 and his Assistant P.W.2 at about 5.15 p.m. to Door No.18 of Ashok Nagar, near Karumandapam, Trichy. It is claimed that the door of the said house was locked inside, that P.W.5 knocked the door, when the appellant opened the door to whom P.W.5 informed about his intention to make a search of her house as well as her person, that P.W.5 offered to the appellant as to whether she would like to get herself examined in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, to which the appellant stated that P.W.5 himself can make the search, that after recording her consent under Ex.P-1, and after obtaining her signature, P.W.5 called some third parties available there to act as independent witnesses to the search and since they refused to act as witnesses, the search of the house was conducted in the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2. It is further claimed that when P.W.5 attempted to make a search of the front left side room, the appellant herself came forward and stated that she is having some heroin and so saying, she went to the eastern corner of the room and produced an yellow colour bag in which there was ever silver (stainless steel) box which contained a parcel covered in mild blue colour polythene cover, that it contained a substance in a white polythene cover and when questioned, the appellant stated that the said packet contained heroin. It is also claimed that according to the appellant, the parcel contained heroin of 200 gms. and was purchased from some unidentified persons with a view to smuggle it away to Ceylon. It is also claimed that thereafter when the appellant was searched by P.W.3 the lady constable in her person, nothing could be traced from her. According to the prosecution when the pocket contained heroin was weighed, the weighment showed a quantity of 200 gms. It is also claimed that on a sample test which was made at the spot, it was ensured that the contents were heroin. Thereafter according to P.W.5, necessary samples were taken and after recovering the materials around 6.00 p.m., the list of materials was prepared in which the signatures of all the persons available including the accused was obtained and a copy of it was handed over to the appellant. Thereafter, after arresting the appellant around 7.00 p.m., based on Ex.P-5 F.I.R., a case was registered in Cr.No.45 of 1995 in the police station. The appellant was produced before the Magistrate on 15.10.1995 and report under Sec.57 was forwarded to the superior of P.W.5 under Ex.P-6 required under law.

3. Based on the above, the case was laid against the appellant before the Special Court and P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined on the side of the appellant. Exs.P-1 to P-7 were marked and four material objects were presented. Based on the above, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the charge against the appellant was proved beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.

4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant when P.W.5 claimed that6 he sent Ex.P-3 information immediately by post and when Ex.P-3 shows that the same was received on 16.10.1995, there is considerable doubt as to whether Ex.P-3 was sent on 14.10.1995 as claimed by P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document