Non-compliance with the mandatory sampling and inventory procedures for seized contraband creates a rebuttable presumption of tampering. Once foundational facts of such lapses are proven, the prosecution must demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence remained untainted, failing which the case must result in acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

1.This criminal appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated18.12.2023 of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the NDPS Act, Chennai in C.C.No.153 of 2019 finding the appellant/accused guilty for the offences and sentencing him as under:

2. Shorn of unnecessary facts, the relevant facts leading to the institution of this criminal appeal are stated as under:

2.1 On 28.03.2019, Rajagopalan (PW1), Sub-Inspector of Police, NIB-CID, Chennai, received information from an informant that MDMA tablet and heroin are being trafficked by the appellant near Apple Palace, Mannadi Street, Chennai and the appellant was likely to sell the same. Rajagopalan (PW1) recorded the said information under Ex.P1 and submitted the same to Amala Rathinam (PW4), Inspector of Police and got permission from her and proceeded to the spot along with the raiding team.

2.2 Manimaran (PW2), Head Constable and Varadharajan (LW3), with necessary equipments, reached the scene of occurrence. While they were mounting surveillance, the informant identified the appellant as the accused person, pursuant to which, the raiding team interrogated him.

2.3 On enquiry, the appellant revealed his name as Yashar Rahuman.Rajagopalan (PW1) informed him (appellant) of the information received by him and explained the rules under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for brevity “the NDPS Act”) to the appellant under the search notice (Ex.P2) and obtained the signature of the appellant in the presence of the police witnesses. On due search, 1.130 gms. of MDMA tablet from the shirt pocket of the appellant and 2 gms. of heroin from the right side pant pocket of the appellant, were recovered.

2.4 Rajagopalan (PW1) packed 1.130 gms. of MDMA tablet in the same zip lock cover, affixed the seal of NIB-CID and marked the same as M.O.1. He (PW1) also packed 2 gms. of heroin in the same zip lock cover, affixed the seal of NIB-CID and marked the same as M.O.2. Later, he (PW1) obtained the signature of the appellant in the presence of police witnesses and affixed the signature.

2.5 Rajagopalan (PW1) seized the MDMA tablet and heroin in the presence of Manimaran (PW2) and Varadharajan (LW3) under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P3) and prepared the arrest report (Ex.P4) and arrest intimation memo (Ex.P7) and later, reached the police station along with the appellant and the seized properties. After reaching the police station, he (PW1) registered the First Information Report (Ex.P6) in Crime No.35 of 2019 under Section 8(c) r/w22(b) of the NDPS Act. Thereafter, he (PW1) sent the appellant for remand and also sent the arrest intimation memo (Ex.P7) and contraband to the jurisdictional Court under Form-91 through Varadharajan (LW3). He (PW1) prepared special report (Ex.P10) under Section 57 of the NDPS Act and handed over the investigation to Amala Rathinam (PW4), who, in turn, recorded the statements of the raiding team under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

2.6 After obtaining permission from the Court, Amala Rathinam (PW4) sent the contraband for chemical analysis to Visalakshi (PW3), Deputy Director of Forensic Science Laboratory who gave chemical analysis report (Ex.P11).

2.7 Amala Rathinam (PW4), after examining the witnesses and collecting evidence, filed a final report for the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 22(b) and 8(c) r/w 21(a) of the NDPS Act before the Principal Special Court constituted exclusively for the trial of cases under the EC and NDPS Act, Chennai, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.153 of 2019.

2.8 On appearanc