The court clarified the applicability of NDPS Act provisions and the rationalization of punishment based on the quantity of contraband.

1. The sole accused in C.C.No.11 of 1995 on the file of the Additional Special Judge for NDPS Act, Chennai who stood charged and found guilty as per the charge for an offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act, 1985 and was awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with a default sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment by the said judge, vide judgment dated 03.05.2002, has come forward with this appeal challenging the conviction recorded against him and the sentence imposed on him.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, can be stated as follows:-

a) P.W.4 – Thiru.Packiaraj, the then Sub-inspector of police, NIB-CID, Chennai received a secret information from an informant from Choolaimedu, Chennai at 7.30 p.m on 02.07.1994 to the effect that a person named Shanmugam, residing at No.59, 14th West cross street, Mahakavi Bharathiyar Nagar, Chennai (the appellant/accused) was proceeding towards his residence after purchasing 2 Kgm of Opium from an unidentified person at Vadapalani, Chennai.

b) Immediately thereafter P.W.4 prepared Ex.P5 - Intimation and sent it to the Inspector of Police, NIB-CID, Chennai and proceeded towards 14th West cross street, Mahakavi Bharathiyar Nagar, Chennai along with his police party and was waiting there for the arrival of the accused. He had also taken along with him an independent witness, namely P.W.2 to the said place to be a witness for arrest, if any and for attesting the documents that might be prepared. While, P.W.4 was waiting at the 14th West cross street, Mahakavi Bharathiyar Nagar, Chennai along with the police party and the above said witness, at 9.00 p.m on the said date, namely 02.07.2004, the accused Shanmugam came there carrying a gunny bag in his hand inscribed with letters in Hindi language in green ink on either side. P.W.4 and the police party which included P.W.2 -Subbiah, the then Head constable, stopped the accused and informed him that they wanted to effect a search for Narcotic drugs and that if he wished he would be taken to the place of a Gazetted officer or a Magistrate in whose presence the search would be made and that he had as he had a right to make such a demand. However, the accused informed the police party that search could be made at the place of occurrence itself and there was no need to take him to a Gazetted officer or a Magistrate. Consequently,

P.W.4 got the gunny bag and inspected the same and he found two parcels bundled in an English newspaper using a thread. On examination of those packets in the presence of P.W.2 and 3, P.W.4 found them to contain opium in conformity with the secret information received by him. He weighed it with the help of instruments he had taken along with him and found the weight of opium contained in each packet to be 1 Kgm. At the rate of two samples from each one of the packets, totally four samples were drawn, bundled and sealed separately in the presence of P.W.2 and 3 under Ex.P3 - Mahazar.

P.W.2 and 3 attested the said Mahazar. The samples were drawn by ensuring each sample weighed 10 grams.

c) Thereafter, P.W.4 came back to NIB police station at about 10.30 p.m, prepared Ex.P6 - First Information Report and registered a case against the appellant/accused for an offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act, 1985 in crime No.35 of 1994 in the said police station. Pursuant to the registration of the said case he prepared a Special Report -Ex.P7 and submitted the same along with the First Information Report to P.W.5 -Jayaraman, the then Inspector of Police, NIB-CID, Chennai-600 017 for investigation.

d) P.W.5 during the course of examination submitted the samples to the court along with a requisition - Ex.P8 to send two samples to the Forensic Lab, Mylapore for examination and to retain the other two samples in the court. Two of the sa