Keeping seized articles in godown of the agency held valid.

The appellant/accused preferred this appeal against the conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in Sessions Case No. 135 of 1987 on 2. 1988.

2. The brief facts of the Prosecution are as follows: On 18. 1987 the accused had a plastic bag in his hand going along Nethaji Subash Chandrabose Road, Madras City. P.W.1 George was the Preventive Officer in the Madras Customs Department. He found the appellant/accused in front of ‘Ninan’s Restaur rant’ in Nethaji Subash Chandrabose Road, Madras, at about 11 a.m. on 18. 1987. P.W.1, George suspected the appellant/ accused and then he took him to the Customs House for interrogation. At the Customs House, he searched the bag of the accused in the presence of P.W.3 Varadhan, Superintendent of Customs at Madras and P.W.4 Krishnadass. Consequent to this search of the bag of the accused, P.W.1 George found inside a polythene bag marked as M.O.1, and the polythene bag contained brown colour powder which was brown sugar and which is a narcotic substance. Thereupon the same was seized by P.W.1 George under the mahazar dated 18. 1987 marked as Ex.P-1, which was written by another Preventive Officer of the Customs House at Madras examined as P.W.6 Sinha, and the said mahazar was attested by P.W.3 Varadhan, Superintendent of Customs at Madras and P.W.4 Krishnadass. P.W.5 Ethirajan was another Preventive Officer of the Customs House at Madras and he recorded the statement of the accused dated 18. 1987 marked as Ex.P-8 in this case. On the next day, i.e., on 18. 1987, the appellant/ accused was arrested under the Arrest Memo marked as Ex.P-2 in this case and the accused was produced before the Magistrate on the same day, i.e., on 18. 1987. Then on 28. 1987, a requisition was made to the Court for drawing the sample from M.O.1 and for sending the same for chemical analysis, and the said requisition of the Prosecution is marked as Ex.P-4 in this case. There upon a sample was taken from M.O.1 in the open Court and the same was sent to the Forensic Laboratory for chemical analysis, along with the letter of the Court dated 9. 1987 marked as Ex.P-6 in this case. P.W.2 Lakshmanaswamy is the Scientific Assistant in Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory. On analysis, P.W.2 Lakshmanaswamy found that the sample contained diacetylmorphine and phenubarbital. Ex.P-7 is the report of the Chemical Examiner dated 29. 1987. Thereupon the Assistant Collector of Customs (Prosecution) Preventive Department, Madras preferred the complaint against the appellant/ accused before the lower court.

3. On the basis of the above materials, the learned Sessions Judge, Madras framed the charge under Sec.8(c) and Sec.21 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and the same was read over to the accused, who pleaded not guilty to the said charge.

4. After the trial was completed, the accused was examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C, with reference to the incriminating circumstances available in the evidence against him. The appellant/ accused at the end stated that one Gunanayagam cheated him with reference to a borrowing from him and he took a bag from his house and came out and he was caught by the Preventive Officer and he gave the statement marked as Ex.P-8 because P.W.5 Ethirajan threatened to break his bones, if he did not give such a statement as dictated by him. The accused has not examined any defence witness.

5. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed before him, the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Madras came to the conclusion that the appellant/ accused is guilty of the offence with which he is charged and in the result he convicted the appellant/ accused under Sec.8(c) and Sec.21 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and the appellant/ accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. Aggrieved agains