JUDGMENT :

SUNDER MOHAN, J. 

The Criminal Appeal challenges the Judgement dated 02.02.2023 passed in C.C.No.132 of 2021 by the learned Principal Special Judge, EC and NDPS Act cases, 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 on 26.11.2020 at about 1.00 p.m., PW1 attached to the respondent police station received a secret information, that the appellants were smuggling Ganja from Andhra Pradesh in a Bolero pick up van and would reach Madavaram Rountana at about 2.00 p.m.; that PW1 thereafter recorded the information [Ex.P1] and went to the place of occurrence along with PW2 and one Sudhakar (not examined); that they intercepted the vehicle bearing Regn.No.KA51-A-1482 which was identified by the secret informer; that after introducing themselves to the appellants and since no independent witnesses were willing to offer themselves as witnesses, PW1 and his team conducted search of the car; that they had also issued a communication under Section 50 of the NDPS Act appraising the appellants of their right to be searched by a gazetted officer or a Magistrate; that the appellants permitted them to search; that thereafter the car was searched in which 8 white-coloured polythene sacks were found; that each of the sacks contained 20 kgs of Ganja; and that samples were drawn, the appellants were arrested and FIR [Ex.P9] was registered in Cr.No.33 of 2020 for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act.

(b) Thereafter, PW1 recorded the voluntary confession of A1, examined witnesses and handed over the investigation to PW4. PW4 conducted the investigation and filed the final report against the appellants for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act, before the learned Principal Special Judge, EC and NDPS Act cases, Chennai.

(c) 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.132 of 2021 by the learned Principal Special Judge, EC and NDPS Act cases, Chennai, for trial. The Trial Court had framed charges against the accused for the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act and when questioned, the accused pleaded 'not guilty'.

(d) To prove its case, the prosecution had examined 4 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and marked 17 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P17, besides 24 material object as M.O.1 to M.O.24. When the accused were questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same. Though none was examined on the side of the accused, two documents viz., Photograph of accused in Dinamalar Newspaper and Map of Madavaram Roundtana, were marked as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2, respectively.

(e) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused not guilty of offence under Section 25 of the NDPS Act and convicted and sentenced the accused 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 there are several infirmities in the prosecution case; that the appellants were actually brought from Andhra Pradesh only for the purpose of foisting the case; that they were made to stay at a hotel at Egmore; that on 26.11.2020 at about 3.30pm, they were made to vacate the room and this case has been foisted; that the mandatory provision under Section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been complied with since a joint communication was given to both the appellants; that the samples were neither drawn in the presence of a learned Magistrate nor the inventory was certified by the learned Magistrate in violation of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act; and that the contraband was not sent to the Court immediately and there is no evidence to show that they we