The Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai, has filed this appeal challenging the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chengleput, acquitting the accused in respect of the offence under Sec.8(c) read with 21 and 23 read with 28 of the N.D.P.S. Act, for having been in possession of 5, 940 grams of heroin worth about Rs. 3, 05, 640 concealed in the bottom of the suitcase and for having attempted to transport the same from International Airport, Chennai to Singapore.

2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:

“(a) P.W. 1 is the Senior Intelligence Officer attached to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. On information, on 4.1.1987 at about 10.30 p.m., accosted the respondent/ accused after he had crossed the Customs Check, while proceeding to the Security Check and asked to identify his package. At that time, the accused was having a suitcase and a Rexin bag. When he was asked whether he was carrying any contraband goods or narcotic substance, the accused replied in negative. He was asked to open the suitcase. Accordingly, he opened it with his key. When the package was searched, it was found to have false bottom and false top. In both these places, the Officers found four polythene bags kept concealed.

(b) Then, the accused admitted that the polythene bags contained heroin. They found that the polythene bags were weighing about 5, 940 grams. Along with the suitcase, the other belongings of the accused, namely Passport, U.S. Dollars, Traveler's Cheque, etc. were recovered. Mahazar Ex.P-1 was prepared and the same was signed by the witness P.W. 1 and the accused.

(c) On 5.1.1987 morning, the accused gave a confession Ex.P-19 to P.W. 1. The accused and seized articles were handed over to P.W. 3, another Officer, who was entrusted with the investigation relating to narcotic drugs. Accordingly, P.W. 3 arrested the accused and sent for remand along with the remand report. Through the Court, a request was made for analysing the suspected heroin. P.W. 4 Analyst gave the report stating that the contraband is heroin. After investigation, a complaint was filed against the accused under Sec. 8(c) read with 21 and 23 read with 28 of the N.D.P.S. Act.”

3. In the course of trial, P.W. 1, the seizing officer, P.W. 2, the mahazar witness, P.W. 3, the investigating officer and P.W. 4, the Chemical Analyst were examined and through those witnesses, Exs.P-1 to P-27 were filed and M.Os. 1 to 20 were marked on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the defence, Exs.D-1 and D-2 were marked. When the accused was questioned under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C., he simply denied his complicity.

4. The trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that various mandatory provisions have not been complied with. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed by the complainant, namely the Assistant Director, D.R.I., Chennai.

5. I have heard Mr.P.N. Prakash, the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant as well as Mr.R. Shanmugasundaram, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.

6. Initially, the respondent/accused was not represented. Therefore, this Court appointed Mr.C.R. Malarvannan, as Amicus Curiae to appear on behalf of the accused. At the end, even during the pendency of the appeal before this Court, Mr. Shanmughasundaram, the learned senior counsel through the counsel on record Mr. Kamalanathan, entered appearance on behalf of the respondent/accused.

7. Mr.P.N. Prakash, appearing for the complainant/appellant would elaborately argue contending that the reasonings of the trial Court for acquittal are wrong and the same are liable to be set aside.

8. With equal vehemence, the learned senior counsel as well as the amicus curiae appearing for the respondent would contend that though some of the grounds of acquittal could not be sustained, most of the other grounds, namely violation of the mandatory provisions would sustain the acquittal.

9. I have carefully considered the submission