ORDER

This Criminal Appeal is directed as against the judgment passed in C.C.No.85 of 2017 dated 25.11.2019 on the file of the I Additional Special Judge for exclusive trial of cases under NDPS Act, Chennai, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 21(c) of NDPS Act

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.05.2017 at about 17.35 hours, based on a secret information, the respondent obtained permission to proceed further on that information, and formed a team and went to the Domestic Terminal of Chennai Airport at around 5.00 p.m. They mounted surveillance at the exit gate of Domestic Terminal and on noticing the information displayed in the board that a Flight from Kolkata to Chennai AI 765 had landed at Chennai Airport, started verifying the passengers, who came out of the exit gate. It was found that the passenger who had travelled in seat No.31C is Abdul Adam Samsu and conducted enquiry on him. After enquiry they confirmed his identity and at the time of enquiry the accused carried Black colour back pack and one Flight way brand Trolley bag. Though, the said person denied the possession of Narcotic drug, on search, he was found in possession of parcel from the trolley bag. On examination, it was found that it is a parcel containing light brown colour powdery substance in a polythene cover.

When the same was tested with Field Test Kit, it tested positive for Narcotic drug (Heroin) and the said substance was seized after taking three samples. After completion of all the formalities as contemplated under the NDPS Act, he was arrested. Hence the complaint. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court in C.C.No.85 of 2017.

3. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution had examined PWs1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to 45 and also produced M.Os1 to 5 and on the side of the appellant no one was examined and no document was marked. 4. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offence under section 8(c) r/w 21(c) of NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed fine of Rs.1 lakh in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.

Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution failed to examine any independent witness to prove its case. The person who received information, recorded the information and obtained permission were not examined by the prosecution and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. He would further submit that the officer, who registered FIR was also under the team of seizure. The documents marked by the prosecution did not contain any date and under the NDPS Act, there is no provision to issue summons. However, PW2 issued summons and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The contraband seized from the accused did not contain any quantitative analysis of the sample determined for want of facilities therefore, the contraband is not coming under the commercial quantity. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any doubt and he prayed for acquittal of the accused.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that in order to bring home the charges PWs1 to 5 were examined. PW1 deposed that the manner in which the search was directed and the contraband was seized from the accused. The prosecution also followed all the procedures contemplated under the NDPS Act. The information received was marked as Ex.P1, on the said information, the accused was found in possession of the contraband and after taking samples as P1S1, P1S2 and P1S3 the remaining Heroin was marked as Ex.P1. The trolley bag was marked as Ex.P2. All the said articles were seized under Ex.P2, Mahazar. PW2, the Intelligence Officer, who had participated in the search proceedings issued summons under Section 67 of NDPS Act to the ac