The central legal point established in the judgment is the possession of contraband and the compliance with legal provisions under the N.D.P.S. Act.

T. SUDANTHIRAM, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment passed by the learned Special District and Sessions Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Madurai in C.C. No. 469 of 1997, dated 31.5.1999.

2. The appellant herein is the Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, who filed a complaint against the respondents/Al and A2 herein. The respondents/A1 and A2 were acquitted by the learned Special District and Sessions Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Madurai in C.C. No. 469 of 1997 from the charges under Section 8 (a) read with 29 and 8(c) read with 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Against the said acquittal, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that one Mohan, Superintendent of Narcotics Control Bureau received an intimation on 9.6.1997 at about 3.00 p.m. that one Baskaran is to come near the Hotel Park Plaza and Hotel Supreme in the night at about 11.00 p.m. and he would bring 5 kgs, of heroin along with him, being accompanied by some other persons. The said information was recorded by P.W.1 and he has also informed to the Assistant Director. As directed by the Assistant Director, the officers of Narcotics Control Bureau, South Zonal Unit, Chennai (Camp at Madurai) along with the Officers of Central Excise, Madurai Commissionerate went to the West Perumal Maistry Street, Madurai and they were keeping surveillance near Hotel Park Plaza and Hotel Supreme. At about 11 p.m., both the accused Nos. 1 and 2 by name Baskaran and Richard Jeevakumar @ Jeeva came in a Bajaj M-80 Moped bearing Reg. No. TN-69-A-7171. They were intercepted by the Intelligence Officer-P.W.1 and others. Both the accused revealed their names. The officers explained about the Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act and enquired them whether they require to be searched in the presence of the Gazetted Officer or before any Judicial Magistrate. The accused stated that it was not necessary and the search could be made by those officers themselves. The first accused viz., Baskaran handed over a white colour cloth bag to the officers and while the bag was searched, it contained four polythene packets. On opening the packets, in each packet heroin was found containing 1.375, 1.430, 1.510, 1.660 kgs. From each packet, two samples of each 5 grams were taken and that was sealed. The packets with remaining contraband were also sealed. A mahazar-Exhibit P-2 was also prepared for search and seizure in which, P.W.12 and another one Raju also signed as witnesses and the copy of the mahazar was also served to the accused. Both the accused were summoned by P.W.1 to appear before the Officer of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai. In the Office, both of them gave voluntary confession statements, which were recorded by P.W.11. Exhibits P-66 and P-68 are the statements given by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. Both the accused were arrested on 10.6.1997 at 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. respectively and they were remanded to judicial custody on 11.6.1997.

4. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined 12 witnesses, marked 73 exhibits and produced 14 materials objects.

5. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating Materials adduced by the prosecution against them, the accused denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded innocence. The second accused filed a written statement.

6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence, acquitted both the accused from all the charges.

7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that the trial Court had acquitted the accused on flimsy grounds and though the prosecution established the case without any shadow of doubt that the accused were in possession of the contraband of heroin, both of them were acquitted.

8. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that the reasons for acquittal given by the trial Court are as follows:

(i) The i