ANANTHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant in this appeal is the accused in C.C.No.285 of 1996 on the file of Special Judge for cases under N.D.P.S. Act, Pudukottai. She was tried for an offence punishable under Sec.8(c) read with Sec.21 of N.D.P.S. Act. On being found guilty, she stands sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment together with a fine of Rs.1 lakh carrying a default sentence of three years. She is therefore before this Court in this appeal. Heard Mr.S.Shanmuga Velayutham learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.R.Karthikeyan learned Government Advocate appearing on the criminal side for the State.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in short, is as follows: At 7.15 a.m. on 13.7.1996, P.W.5 the Inspector of Police of Narcotic Intelligence Bureau, C.I.D., Tiruchirappalli was in his office. At that time his informant passed on an information before him, which was reduced into writing by him. He sent a copy of the same to his higher official, namely, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madras by Courier. Ex.P-3 is the said document. As the information disclosed that the offender is a lady, P.W.5 decided to have a lady constable during investigation, search and seizure. Pursuant to that secret information, he, in the company of Sub-Inspector of Police, Head Constable and P.W.4, went to All Women Police Station, Trichy at 8.30 a.m., where he gave a requisition to depute a lady constable. Accordingly, P.W.3, a lady constable by name Fathima, was deputed. P.W.5 proceeded further in the company of the persons above mentioned in the police van and reached the office of the Village Administrative Officer at Puthur at about 8.45 a.m. THEre he gave a requisition requesting for the presence of the Village Administrative Officer and his assistant during search and seizure. Accordingly the Village Administrative Officer/ P.W.1 and his Assistant/P.W.3 accompanied P.W.5 in the same van. All the prosecution witnesses reached Kumaran Bus Stop at Valayur Road at 9.15 a.m. THE vehicle was parked in the extension road in an unnoticeable manner and all of them waited there along with the informant. At 10.30 a.m. opposite to the bus stand, the accused in this case, namely, Anandhi appeared there with yellow colour cloth bag in her right hand. She was identified by the informant.

(3.) GOING to the last question namely whether the prosecution had established beyond doubt that the property that was seized on 13.7.1996 alone was sent to the laboratory and examined, I applied my mind to the oral evidence of the respective witnesses. P.W.5 is the empowered officer, who searched and seized the contraband. His evidence is as follows: Evidence in chief:-He had taken two samples weighing five grams each; one sample was meant for safe custody and the other sample was meant for being sent to the laboratory; each sample was put in a white polythene cover; packed and it was stapled; it was wrapped up in a khaki paper; it was secured by twining it with the thread; the seal of N.I.B. was put on the top of it; therefore a slip of paper was pasted around the same in which besides, P.W.5, the accused and the witnesses have signed." Evidence in cross:-On the date of the arrest itself the accused was sent for judicial remand along with case properties and Form 95; after surrendering the case properties in Court, it was taken back and a police constable brought it back; when P.W.6 took up investigation he handed over the case properties to him." P.W.6 is the Investigating Officer in this case. His evidence is as follows: Evidence in chief:-On reaching the police station, he verified Form 95 with the case properties; accused was sent for judicial remand; he also verified Form 95 and the case properties received back from the Court; on 18.7.1996 he produced the case property before the Special Court with a requisition to send the same to the laboratory; on 21.7.1996 Police Constable 647 filed the report before him that the case property was produced at the laboratory." Evidence in cross:-To verify that the specimen seal of N.I.B. affixed on the sample is the seal found on the sample when received at the laboratory, the specimen seal of the office had been sent to the laboratory; the laboratory report do not indicate that the specimen seal and the seal found on the sample were verified and found to be correct." P.W.7 is the Scientific Assistant in the laboratory. His evidence shows the following: Evidence in chief:-On 19.7.1996 along with Court's requisition the case property was received at the laboratory through police constable 647; the Court's seal in the requisition letter of the Court was compared along with the seal found on the sample packet; under the supervision of the Assistant Director, the sample packet was opened; on the sample packet N.I.B. seal was there." Evidence in cross:-Before taking the sample packet for examination, the seal found on the sample would be thoroughly examined; the report/Ex.P-8 do not show the presence of any signature on the sample packet; the importance of verifying the seal on the sample packet as well as the sample seal is only to ensure identity of the property; in Ex.P-8 report, it is not stated that the seal found on the sample packet as well as the sample seal were verified; Ex.P-8 is the printed form; the printed form contains a recital (as the printed material) that "along with the requisition, a secured and sealed sample was received". Ex.P-8 does not also show that the seal of N.I.B. is found on the sample packet."