The court affirmed that compliance with procedural requirements under the NDPS Act is crucial, and the absence of independent witnesses does not invalidate the prosecution's case if official witness testimony is credible.

JUDGMENT

The accused No.2 in C.C.No.245 of 2022 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, has filed this Criminal Appeal before this Court challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him in the impugned judgment dated 05.05.2023. The conviction and sentence is as follows:

2. On 02.04.2022 at about 15 hours, P.W.8 received the secret information about the illegal transportation of 1.030 Kgs of Hashish oil. Thereafter, he reduced the same in writing and sent the same to his superior under Ex.P.7 in compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act. After getting permission, he along with his team, namely, P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to the scene of the occurrence. The informer identified the accused Nos.1 and 2 and on seeing the team, the appellant and the other accused, Mohammed Javid Rahman were trying to escape from the scene of occurrence along with the contraband. At that time, the appellant alone was nabbed by P.W.8 and other accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. P.W.8 has informed about his right to be searched in the presence of the learned Judicial Magistrate or the gazetted officer as per Section 50 of the NDPS Act. He had no objection to be searched by the police officers themselves. Hence, they prepared the seizure Mahazar and also on search, they found that the accused No.2 was in possession of yellow-coloured plastic bag with Hashish oil. Hence, after ascertaining that the said contraband was hashish oil, P.W.8 arrested the accused at 6.30 pm and recorded his confession statement. After that, they recovered the hashish oil and weighed it and found it was 1.030 kilograms of hashish oil, and they took the samples as S1 and S2 and obtained the signature and completed the process. The independent witnesses did not come forward to be witnesses and the same was recorded in the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and another witness, Anbarasan, namely, Grade 1 Constable of the Department. P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 were independent witnesses for observation mahazar and the rough sketch for which they subscribed their signature in the observation mahazar and the sketch. Thereafter, P.W.8 came to the police station and registered the case in Crime No.72 of 2022 and also handed over all the materials along with the accused. The accused was brought to the police station and he was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate along with contraband. Further, the absconding accused was arrested in another case in Kerala and the same came to the knowledge of P.W.8 and on 15.05.2002, he was arrested and some recoveries were made. Thereafter, investigation was completed and the final report was filed upon receipt of the chemical analysis report to prove the content of the Hashish oil and the final report was taken on file in CC.No.245 of 2020.

3. After appearance of the accused, copies of records were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C . The learned Trial Judge, on perusal of records and on hearing both sides and being satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the accused/appellant, framed charges under Sections 8(c) r/w 21(c) of the NDPS Act 1985 and the same was read over and explained to him and on being questioned, the accused/appellant denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood for trial.

4.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined 8 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.8 and exhibited 20 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P. 20 and marked six material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.6.

4.1. M.O.1 and M.O.2 are the sample Hashish oil and M.O.3 is the remaining contraband.

5.When the accused was examined unde