Compliance with procedural requirements under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, including search procedures, mental capacity of the accused, and quantity discrepancies, is essential in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Sections 374 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.417 of 2006 relating to the judgment dated 08.11.2016 passed by the IInd Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai and to set aside the judgment of the conviction on the appellant/accused.)

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant to set aside the judgment and conviction passed in C.C.No.417 of 2006 dated 08.11.2016, on the file of the II Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.

2. The prosecution case is that on 02.12.2005, at about 07.00 a.m., under information, NIB, CID, Selvaraj received secret information and the same was recorded and informed to the Inspector of Police over phone. Under the direction of the Inspector of Police, the Head Constable along with others went to Madurai Bye Pass, near Guru theatre and caught the accused with a bag containing 3kgs of kanja. The said kanja was seized through Mahazer and then two samples each containing 50 gms were taken for chemical analysis. Thereafter, FIR has been registered in Crime No.124 of 2005 under Sections 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act and the same was placed before the Inspector of Police along with report. Then one Thambidurai, P.W.4 had taken investigation and examined the witnesses and send the case properties for chemical analysis and after the examination of witnesses, a final report was filed and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.417 of 2006 by the IInd Special Court for Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act Cases, Madurai. After filing the final report, the copies of records relied on by the prosecution were furnished to the accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing accused and the prosecution, the trial Court had framed charges under Sections 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act. After framing charges, the charges were read over and explained to the accused but the accused denied the charges.

3. The prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.9 and marked M.Os.1 to 3. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no document was marked. After examination of prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., and he denied the evidences.

4. Upon perusing the oral and documentary evidences, the trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act and sentenced him to undergo 1½ year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment and also ordered to set off the period of custody already undergone by the accused as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and conviction, the appellant has preferred this present appeal on the following grounds:-

As per the prosecution case, the information has been received by the Head Constable but the information was not disclosed by him to the immediate superior. Moreover the Section 42(2) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act has not been followed by the respondent. As per the Section 42(2) the information should have forwarded to the immediate superior of who conducted the ride. The Court below erred to consider that the samples were taken by the respondent at the place of occurrence and the respondent affixed the seal of the respondent on the spot itself. But the respondent did not send the seal along with the sample pockets to the chemical laboratories. The Court below has not been considered that the delay of 11 days to produce the contraband to the lower Court. There is no explanation for the delay. Moreover the Section 55 has not been complied by the respondent. The lower Court has not considered the Section 57 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act. As per the provision the respondent police should have reported to the immediate superior of th