The prosecution must establish seizure beyond reasonable doubt and comply with mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act. Non-compliance and self-contradictory evidence can lead to the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused.

1. All the appeals are preferred by the accused against the Judgment of conviction, dated 30.09.2004 made in C.C.No.829 of 2001 on the file of the Special District and Sessions Judge for E.C.Act and N.D.P.S Act Cases, Madurai

2. Crl.A.No.126 of 2004 is preferred by the appellant / A3 against the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.829 of 2001 by Judgment, dated 30.09.2004 under Section 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (New Section 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (B)) of NDPS Act, whereby the appellant / A3 was convicted and sentenced to undergo 18 months R.I and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-with default sentence of one month R.I.

3. C.A.No.170 of 2004 is preferred by the appellant / A1 in the aforesaid case, who was similarly convicted and sentenced as that of the co-accused / A3. C.A.No.276 of 2004 is preferred by the appellant / A2 against the aforesaid Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.829 of 2001, by Judgment, dated 30.09.2004 and she was also similarly convicted and sentenced as that of the co-accused.

4. The short prosecution case is as follows :

On 29.05.2001 at about 8.00 a.m, on information, the Inspector of Police, NIB CID, Madurai along with his party went to Sellur Bridge Station Road, near Thevar Rickshaw Stand, Madurai, the informer was present and identified the accused, after following the mandatory procedure under Section 50 of NDPS Act, after getting the consent for search, being conducted with the help of one Pandiammal, 7 kgs of Ganja was seized by the respondent police under mahazar in the presence of two witnesses. Thereafter, two samples, each containing 50 gms were prepared, as per procedure in the presence of witnesses, then the appellants / accused were arrested by the Inspector and taken to NIB CID office, Madurai and the case was registered. It is seen that charges were framed under Section 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (i) (New Section 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (B)) of NDPS Act against the appellants / accused.

5. As per the Judgment and the available records, it is seen that copies of documents relied on by the prosecution were furnished to the appellants / accused, as per Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While framing of charge, the appellants / accused were questioned and they pleaded not guilty, hence, the case was posted for trial.

6. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined. Exs.P.1 to P.19 and M.Os.1 to 9 were marked and no witness was examined, no exhibits and material objects was marked on the side of the appellants / accused. After the trial, the appellants / A1 to A3 were found guilty and convicted by the Court below under Section 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (i) (New Section 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (B)) of NDPS Act. Each one of the accused was sentenced to undergo 18 months R.I and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further one month R.I. The period of sentence already undergone was ordered to be set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below, all these three appeals have been preferred by the aforesaid accused.

7. Mr. M.M.E.Philip, learned counsel for the appellants, who has been appointed as Legal Aid Counsel, submitted that the prosecution has not established the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act have not been complied with, however, the Court below has convicted the appellants / accused and pleaded for allowing the appeals and to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below.

8. It is seen that as per the impugned Judgment, 3 out of 5 witnesses examined by the prosecution do not know as to how the contraband was seized from the appellants / accused. P.W.1 is only Chemical Examiner of the Forensic Department, who conducted chemical analysis. She has deposed in her evidence that she analysed the sample sent through the Court below and found that the samples contained cannabinoid