JEYAPAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this appeal stands convicted in C.C.No.27 of 1994 on the file of the Special Court for NDPS cases, Thanjavur for an offence punishable under section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs 3000 carrying a default sentence. THE correctness of that judgment is questioned in this appeal before this Court. Heard Mr.A. PAckiaraj learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr.R. Karthikeyan learned Government Advocate appearing on the criminal side for the respondent/State.

(2.) P.W.1 is the Village Administrative Officer. P.W.3 is the Inspector of Police and he is the Investigating Officer as well. P.W.2 is the court clerk, who speaks about the receipt of the case property and forwarding the same to the laboratory for test. The evidence of P.Ws.l and 3 would show that P.W.3 was on a routine prohibition raid on 11.11.93 at about 4.00 p.m., they saw the accused coming with a head load at Kammankoyil Street, Padhirikuppam within the jurisdiction of the Investigating Police Officer on suspicion, he was questioned and he admitted that he was in possession of ganja immediately the head load of sack was brought down and on examination, it was found to contain ganja leaves and flowers, the weighment of which was 16 Kgs M.O.1 is the gunny bag M.O.2 is the sample taken and M.O.3 is the balance of the drug after taking sample.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate would contend that, though in the two judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court of India brought to the notice of this court by the learned counsel for the appellant and referred to supra it is held that the requirement of section 57 of the N.D.P.S.Act is mandatory and any infraction of the same would vitiate the trial itself, for which proposition those two judgments rely upon an earlier judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India itself in the case reported in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1872, yet, factually the judgment reported in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1872 dose not lay down the law as decided in the latter two judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court of India referred to supra. However in view of my conclusion that in the present case the Investigating Agency had complied with the requirement of section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act, I am of the opinion that the contention raised on behalf of the appellant relying upon the two judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court of India as well as the contention of the learned Government Advocate based on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case reported in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, A.I.R.1994 S.C. 1872, do not really arise for consideration in this appeal.