JUDGMENT :

SUNDER MOHAN, J. 

These Criminal Appeals challenge the Judgement dated 21.02.2023 passed in C.C.No.188 of 2019 by the learned Principal Special Judge, Principal Special Court under EC and NDPS Act, Chennai convicting the appellants for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii)(C) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act and sentencing them as follows:

2.(a) It is the case of the prosecution that PW1, the Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police had received a secret information on 17.07.2019, stating that two females and one male were smuggling ganja from Andhra Pradesh in Alapuzha Express, which was scheduled to arrive at Chennai Central Station at 1.30 a.m., on 18.07.2019; that PW1 after making entries in the general diary at 22.30 p.m., on 17.07.2019 had reported the information received to his superior; that at about 22.40 hours, the Inspector of Police [PW6] had granted permission to conduct search and seizure; that at about 12.30 a.m., on 18.07.2019, PW1 along with his team went to the Central Railway station; that on that particular day the train arrived late at 3.30 a.m.; that at about 4.00 a.m., the appellants were found in the car park at the Central Railway Station with polythene bags; that they had issued a communication to the appellants to conduct a search and on their agreeing to be searched by PW1, they were searched and A1 was found in possession of two bags, each containing 20Kgs of ganja (totalling 40Kgs); that A2 was found in possession of two bags, each containing 20Kgs of ganja (totalling 40Kgs); that A3 was found in possession of one bag containing 21Kgs of ganja; and that samples were drawn and after arresting the appellants, preparing the seizure mahazars and after submitting report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act, an FIR was registered by PW6 under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii)(C) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act. PW6 thereafter conducted the investigation, examined the witnesses and handed over the investigation to PW7, who filed the final report against the appellants for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii)(C) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act before the learned Principal Special Judge, EC and NDPS Act cases, Chennai.

(b) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with and the case was taken on file as C.C.No.188 of 2019 by the learned Principal Special Judge, EC and NDPS Act cases, Chennai, for trial. The trial Court had framed two charges against the appellants. The first charge was under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii)(C) and the second charge was under Section 8(c) r/w 29(1) of the NDPS Act and when questioned, the accused pleaded 'not guilty'.

(c) To prove its case, the prosecution had examined 7 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and marked 18 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P18, besides 10 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.10. When the accused were questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same. The accused neither examined any witness nor marked any document on their side.

(d) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellants guilty of both the charges and sentenced the appellants as stated above. Hence, the accused have preferred the instant appeal challenging the said conviction and sentence.

3. (i) The learned counsels for the appellants would submit that the seizure could not have been made in the manner alleged by the prosecution; that no independent witnesses were examined although the seizure is said to have been made at the Central Railway Station, where several independent witnesses would have been available at 6.00 a.m.; that it is not the case of the prosecution that they were carrying the sacks and unless it is proved that the appellants have brought the sacks, which has not been done so in this case, the conviction cannot be sustained; that since two of the appellants were ladies, a lady officer ought to have conducted the search; that the presence