Prosecution must establish clear evidence of handling and transporting narcotics, including origin and destination, for a valid conviction.

JUDGMENT

Sole accused in C.C.No.119 of 2019 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC & NDPS Act cases, Pudukkottai, has filed this Criminal Appeal before this Court challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the impugned judgment dated 12.01.2022. The conviction and sentence is as follows:

2. According to the prosecution, on 24.04.2019 at about 13.00 hours, P.W.1 received the secret information that the accused was about to travel to Malaysia by Airflight Scheduled to fly at 23.25 hours and he was carrying substantial quantity of cough syrup containing narcotic Drugs. The said information was reduced in writing and informed to his superior and obtained permission and went to Trichy Airport along with his team. The team mounted surveillance near X ray scanner in the check- in area at Trichy Airport. While, P.W.1 was verifying the passport of the passenger, whose luggage was going through the scanner, he identified the accused through his passport and found some suspicious item in his bag. On enquiry, the accused disclosed his name and address and handed over his passport along with Air Ticket. On verification, it was found that two more passengers were travelling with him, namely, Uma and Prakash. They introduced themselves as wife and son of the appellant. Thereafter, P.W.1 made a search in his bag and found 95 bottles of Eskup cough Syrup containing Codeine Phosphate, a manufactured Narcotic Drug under the NDPS Act. P.W.1 recovered the same and took the sample following the procedure as stated in the NDPS Act. The accused voluntarily handed over his belongings in his possession like Aadhar Card, Driving Licence, Pan Card, Bank ATM Cards, one Smart Phone with Sim Card, Indian Currency and European Currency. Thereafter, he arrested the accused and produced him at the NCB Office and registered the case and produced the accused along with the contraband before the learned Judicial Magistrate and the investigation was continued by the investigating officer and he filed the complaint under Section 8(c) r/w 21(c), 23, 28 and 29 of the NDPA Act, 1985 after obtaining the chemical analysis report and also examining number of witnesses. The learned trial Judge has taken the same on file in C.C.No.119 of 2019.

4. After appearance of the accused, copies of records were furnished to him 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), 23, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act 1985 and the same were read over and explained to him and on being questioned, the accused/appellant denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood for trial.

5.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined 5 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.5 and exhibited 35 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.35 and marked ten material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.10.

6.When the accused was examined under Section 313(1) (b) of Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating aspects against him, he denied the evidence as false and further stated that a false case was foisted against him. The accused neither produced any documents nor examined any witness on his side.

7.The learned Trial Judge, considering the materials and circumstances found that the accused in C.C.No.119 of 2019 was guilty and convict