The strict compliance with statutory provisions in narcotic cases is essential; any violation undermines the prosecution's case and warrants quashing of conviction.

JUDGMENT :

M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

1. The appellant was convicted by the learned Additional District Judge, Special Court under EC Act/NDPS Act, Coimbatore (Trial Court) vide judgment, dated 26.10.2022 in C.C.No.70 of 2018 for offence under Section 8 (c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (In short 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. Challenging the same, the present criminal appeal is filed.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.04.2018, at about 01.45 p.m., the Inspector of Police (PW4) attached to the respondent Police Station received secret information that two persons were peddling Ganja near Zonal Scientific Centre, Kodisiya Road, Coimbatore. The information recorded in Ex.P1 and the same was entered in General Diary, further intimation was sent to higher officials. PW4 along with informer, Head Constable (PW1) and Woman Police Constable (PW2) reached the spot, informer identified two persons. Thereafter, the Police enquired the appellant and her husband Chokkanathan, informed them they got credible information that the appellant and her husband were in possession of Ganja. At about 02.15 p.m., intimation under Section 50 of the Act served, search conducted. On search, Ganja of 1.300 kgs and cash of Rs.3,600/- seized in presence of PW3 and another witness. The Women Police Constable (PW2) searched the appellant, a lady, from her shopper bag (MO3), Ganja found, samples taken, wrapped and sealed. Thereafter, the appellant and her husband Chokkanathan brought to the Police Station, FIR in Crime No.622 of 2018 (Ex.P6) registered and produced them before the Magistrate. PW4 conducted further investigation, recorded the statements of witnesses, sent the samples for chemical examination and received the chemical analysis report. The chemical analysis report (Ex.P9) confirmed the contraband was Ganja. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed before the trial Court and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.70 of 2018.

3. During trial, on the side of the prosecution, four witnesses examined as PW1 to PW4 and nine documents marked as Exs.P1 to P9 and five material objects marked as MO1 to MO5. On the side of the defence, no witness examined and no document marked. A1, the husband of the appellant died on 01.05.2018, hence, the case against him got abated. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted the appellant/A2 as stated above.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case, the Inspector of Police (PW4) received secret information and visited the site along with three Police Constables viz., PW1, PW2 and one Loganathan. PW3, the mahazar witness admits that near the scene of occurrence, there are shops and buildings, but no public examined as witness in this case. He further submitted that in this case, no confession recorded from the accused and statutory violations of Sections 42 (2), 43, 50 and 57 of the Act committed. He further submitted that there are contradictions in the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4 and search, seizure & arrest becomes doubtful. Ex.P2 is projected as search report in compliance to Section 50 of the Act. In this case, option for search given jointly to both the accused (A1 & A2) and not separately which is in clear violation of the statutory provision of Section 50 of the Act. Ex.P1 is projected as report in compliance to Section 42 (2) of the Act, but the same not forwarded to the superior officer. After the arrest of the accused, as per Section 57 , report of arrest and seizure ought to be submitted within 72 hours which is v