Strict compliance with legal provisions, including the requirement for independent witnesses during search and seizure, and the admissibility of confessional statements, is crucial in establishing guilt under the NDPS Act.

1. The appellant herein is the first accused in C.C.No.207 of 2002, on the file of the learned Principal Special Judge, Special Court under NDPS Act Cases, Chennai, and he stands convicted for the offences under Sections 8(c) read with 21(c) and Section 8 (c) read with 23 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for each offence, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for each offence. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/first accused has preferred this criminal appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

(i) On 21.01.2002 at about 7.00 p.m. P.W.3, Intelligence Officer, N.C.B., Chennai, received an information over telephone that one person by name M.A.Jaffar Ali, was leaving to Colombu by I.C.573 Flight scheduled to departure at 12.40 hours on 21.01.2002 and also carrying heroin weighing about 2.5 kilograms. P.W.3 recorded the said information in Ex.P.11 and informed the Assistant Director and thereafter proceeded along with other officers to Anna International Airport. On verifying the passport of the accused Jaffar Ali, P.W.3 confirmed the first accused as the person who was named in the information. P.W.3 enquired the first accused /appellant as to whether he had any narcotic substance for which the first accused replied that he had no such substance. P.W.8 another Intelligence Officer who had accompanied P.W.3 had issued summons to the first accused under 67 of the NDPS Act. The Airlines authorities handed over the package of the accused with a letter Ex.P.12. The first accused/appellant accompanied P.W.3 and other officers to the NCB Offfice. P.W.3 went to the CBI Office, Chennai and required the Inspector Ramadoss and Sub Inspector Saravanan to be witnesses. P.W.6 Sub Inspector of Police Saravanan and the Inspector of Police Ramadoss appeared in the office of P.W.3 at 3.00 p.m. In their presence P.W.3 explained to the first accused about Section 50 of the N.D.P.S Act and informed the accused that he has got the right to be searched either before the learned Judicial Magistrate or before a Gazetted Officer for which the accused opted to be searched by the Intelligence Officer P.W.3 himself. The first accused also admitted that he concealed the heroin in the falls bottom of two black recksin bags. He opened the falls bottom and produced two polythene bags. Heroin was found inside the polythene bags and one packet contained 1.25 kgs and other pocket contained 1.75 kgs. From each packet two samples of each weighing five grams were taken and those sample packets were sealed. The remaining packets were also sealed. Mahazar Ex.P.13 was prepared for seizure of the contraband. At about 7.30 p.m. P.W.8 recorded the confessional statement of the first accused which is marked as Ex.P.26. The first accused was arrested at 2.00 p.m. on 22.01.2002 and he was produced before the Court for remand.

3. On 08.06.2002, P.W.1 received an information from P.W.9-Inspector of Police Kothwalchavadi police station and then went to the Police Station. On enquiring him, the second accused revealed that he was called as Saleem and he also admitted that he had connection with the first accused in the drug trafficking. P.W.1 served summons to the second accused and brought to the NCB Office. The statement of the second accused was recorded by P.W.2 which is marked as Ex.P.4.

4. The prosecution in order to establish its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 9, marked Exs.P.1 to P.33 and produced material objects M.O.1 to M.O.12. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances available against them, they denied their complicity. The trial Court after analysing the evidence, acquitted the second accused and convicted and sentenced the first accused alone as stated above.

5. Mr.R.John Sathyan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/first accused submitted th