(1.) CRIMINAL Appeal No.643 of 1997 has been preferred by A-1 and A-2, CRIMINAL Appeal No.644 of 1997 has been preferred by A-5 and A-6, while CRIMINAL Appeal No.890 of 1997 has been preferred by A-3 and A-4.
(2.) THE above appeals have been preferred against the common judgment of the Special Court under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act hereinafter called as "the Act", Madras in C.C.No.186 of 1994 dated 31.7.1997 convicting A-1 and A-2 under Sec.8(c) read with Sec.21 of the Act and A-2 to A-6 under Sec.8(c) read with Sec.21 and also under Sec.29 of the Act and sentenced them to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment apart from imposing a fine of Rs.1,00,000 and in default of payment of fine to under rigorous imprisonment for further period of one more year.
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants in C.A.No.643 of 1997, namely the accused 1 and 2, after pointing out certain discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and certain other exhibits, contended that in the case on hand, the prosecution has failed to follow the various procedures prescribed under the Act. THE learned counsel would contend that the case of the prosecution should fail for the following lacunas, viz., (i)"that there was non-compliance of Sec.52(A) of the Act; (ii) that there was violation of the provisions contained under Sec.55 of the Act; (iii)"that in the matter of handling the seized goods, there was a serious flaw and it is not known how the seized contraband was dealt with between 3.9.1994 and 28.9.1994; (iv)"that there was violation in respect of compliance of Sec.42 of the Act; (v)"that the statements of the accused cannot be relied upon inasmuch as the accused were illegally kept in the office of the respondent, and (vi)"that there was violation of Sec.50 of the Act.