HIDAYATHKHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise against the judgement of the learned Principal Special Judge, Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai-104, in C.C. No.347 of 2002 dated 31.12.2008. The lower court had convicted the appellants herein and passed sentence against them, as follows:

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that the investigating officer PW-1 received information at 18.00 hours on 17.05.2002 through telephone that first and second accused who are Sri Lankan Nationals were engaged in drug trafficking between Chennai and Sri Lanka and that they were staying at Hotel Regal, Egmore, Chennai and Hotel Indian Palace, Moore Street, Chennai towards procuring 45 kilos of Heroin from the third accused who was from Gujarat and who also was staying at the Hotel Indian Palace and that the accused intended to transport the same to Kanyakumari Coast by using a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.TN 22 P 9597 in the early hours of 18.05.2002, towards export thereof through sea to Sri Lanka, by A-4 who also had arrived and was staying at a lodge in Chennai and that A-1, A-2 & A-4 were likely to travel with A-5 and A-6 both Srilankans to Kanyakumari, in the said Tata Sumo vehicle, with the narcotic substance which would be kept concealed in the vehicle. PW-1 reduced the same into writing, read it over to the informant over telephone and after confirming the correctness thereof, submitted the same to his Superintendent, who endorsed the same. PW-1 had been informed that the Tata Sumo vehicle was likely to cross Maduranthakam area at GST Road at 5.30 a.m on 18.05.2002 and on the instructions of the Superintendent, PW-1 and other officers of NCB Chennai proceeded by their office mini bus to the said spot along with two independent witnesses at about 5.00 a.m on 18.05.2002. As anticipated and after 30 minutes, the Tata Sumo Vehicle bearing registration No.TN 22 P 9597 was spotted and stopped by the officials. The driver reversed the vehicle at great speed and hit a concrete electric pillar causing damage to the rear door of the vehicle and stopped the vehicle. First, second, fourth, fifth and sixth accused were in the vehicle. The officials informed their intent to search the vehicle to the 5 persons and explained their rights under section 50(1) of the NDPS Act, (hereinafter called the Act) and upon the accused not having any objection, conducted search. On enquiry the accused identified themselves and on being asked the first accused informed of the concealment of heroin inside the body and rear door of the Tata Sumo vehicle and thereafter extricated and produced 42 packets of contraband. Use of the Field Test Kit revealed that the substance in the 42 packets was heroin. Requisite samples were taken. The samples and remaining contraband duly were sealed. Materials gathered through personal search of the accused persons were placed in sealed covers. The Tata Sumo vehicle was seized. The process of seizing, sampling, sealing and the formalities connected therewith were effected in the presence of two independent witnesses. PW-3 along with other officials had gone over to the hotel where the third accused was staying, identified themselves to the third accused, informed him of his rights under Section 50 of the Act and searched the room. No contraband was found. That which was recovered from the person of the third accused was placed in a sealed cover. The Maduranthagam police who had visited the place, informed of the report from the Electricity Board about the damage of the pillar, whereupon PW-4 and PW-6 informed them of the incident. Such police accompanied by the NCB officers took the driver, the fourth accused and the Tata Sumo vehicle to the police station. After enquiry the NCB Officers requested the officials of Maduranthagam Police station and brought the fourth accused for further enquiry. Pursuant to summons issued to various accused, under Section 67 of the Act, statements were recorded. The samples of the contraband had been sent for chemical analysis and the chemical analysis report confirming that the substance was heroin, was received. PW-4 had deposited the contraband with NCB godown. After recording the statements, accused were arrested and remanded to custody, by producing them before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate.

(3.) Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 and marked Exhibits P-1 to P-90 and material objects MO Nos.1 to 132. On the side of the defence DW-1 was examined and exhibits D-1 to D-8 were marked. The lower court, on appreciation of evidence, arrived at the conclusion of guilt of the accused and sentenced them as aforestated.