JOHNSON Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in S.C. No. 41 of 1991 on the file of the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Madras is the Appellant. He was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter called the Act, for allegedly being in possession of 2 gms. of brown sugar on 5.10.1990 at about 4:15 p.m. on information received from the Assistant Commissioner P.W.I Inspector of Police along with his party and informant were waiting at the Bus stop at Anna Salai near Guindy at 4:15 p.m. on 5.10.1990 and that the informant giving the identity of the accused, the latter was intercepted and he was found in possession of a pocket containing about 2 gms. of Heroin. After he was arrested, the packet was sent to the learned Magistrate only on 11.10.90 for opinion of the Chemical Analyst. Ex.P.6 is the written instruction sent to P.W.4 and on that instruction only P.W.4 along with his party and informant went to the place on 5.10.1990 for apprehending the accused.

(2.) P .Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked. P.W.1 is the Head Constable and P.W.2 is the Chemical Analyst P.W.3 is the Court clerk and P.W.4 is the Inspector of Police, who apprehended the accused along with P.W.I and P.W.5 is the Inspector of Police who continued the investigation and filed the charge sheet as against the accused.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellant Mr. T.V Ganesh contended that several provisions of the Act, namely, Sections 55 and 57 have not been followed by the prosecution and that the violation of the same is detrimental to the case of the prosecution. He also contended that there is a delay of nearly six days in producing the Heroin before the trial Court. The Prosecution has not offered any valid explanation for the delay. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that there is no cross examination even on the part of the accused as to why such delay had occurred in producing the contraband before the Lower Court. It is the duty of the prosecution to establish that there was a delay, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the case has been foisted against the accused, cannot be brushed aside easily. The other contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the provision under Section 55 of the Act has not been followed. Section. 55 of the Act reads as follows: