MURUGAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is challenged herein is the judgment of the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Salem made in C.C.No.242/99 wherein the appellant/accused stood charged, tried and found guilty under Sec.8(c) read with 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1.00 lakh in default to undergo 2 years R.I.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: On 30.8.1999, P.W.1 Veerannan Sub Inspector of Police, NIB CID and P.W.4 Velliangari and teammates were on regular supervision. On information from an informer, they reached Thathakapatti gate. The accused was pointed to P.W.1 by the informer. P.W.1 introduced himself and questioned the accused. He asked the accused whether he was carrying contraband. He informed the accused that he wanted to effect a search. The right of the accused under the Act to be searched before a gazetted Officer or a Magistrate was also informed to him. The accused replied that he could be searched by P.W.1. P.W.1 arrested the accused in front of Ganesan. Inspector of Police, Anadhanapatti Police Station, Venkatesan, Head Constable and Krishnan, Head Constable. The accused was enquired in front of P.W.2 Elango and P.W.5 Rajendran. The consent given by the accused was reduced in writing by the Head Constable as dictated by P.W.1 and it was duly signed by the accused, marked as Ex.P1. On one side of the yellow colour bag marked as M.O.1, held by the accused, there was an advertisement by Prabu Jewellery, 150 Main Road, Salem. The polythene bag which was inside the yellow colour bag contained brown colour material weighing 100 grams. P.W.1 put a hole in the polythene bag and took 1 gram of powder for sample and came to know that it was brown sugar. Two samples weighing 5 grams each were taken for chemical analysis, and the balance weighing 89 grams was tied separately under M.O.3. Ex.P3 is the seizure mahazar. The accused was arrested, and he gave a confessional statement under Ex.P2. A case in Crime No.68 of 1999 was registered under Ss 8C and 21 of the NDPS Act. Ex.P4 printed FIR was sent to the concerned Court, and the documents were forwarded to the higher officials. Ex.P5 express report was forwarded to the Inspector of Police. The accused and the contraband were produced before the Court under Form 95. The Court sample is marked as M.O.2. The bag containing the contraband received from the Forensic Lab is marked as M.O.4. P.W.6 Sankarapandiyan, Inspector of Police on receipt of the documents from P.W.1 on 30.8.99 at about 1.50 P.M., enquired the accused and recorded his statement. The statement of the accused was forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Salem. P.W.6 along with his teammates searched the house of the accused in front of the witnesses and found no incriminating materials. The search report is marked as Ex.P8. He prepared Ex.P9 sketch in the place of occurrence. The accused was remanded to judicial custody. He recorded statements from the witnesses. The material objects were sent to Forensic Lab through Court. P.W.3 Ezhilarasi, an Officer in the Forensic Lab received the sample on 6.9.1999 and tested the same. P.W.3 gave a report under Ex.P6 opining that the said sample contained Di Acetyle Morphine (Heroin). P.W.6 received Ex.P6 report. He examined P.W.3 and recorded her statement. On completion of the investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused under Ss 8C and 21 of NDPS Act.

(3.) In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses and marked 9 exhibits and 4 material objects. After the evidence of the prosecution was over, the appellant/accused was questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. Neither any exhibit nor any material object was marked on the side of the defence. On consideration of the rival submissions and scrutiny of the materials, the trial Court found him guilty under S.8C read with 21 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment, as stated supra. Hence, this appeal.