ANNALINGAM RAJAN Vs. CENTRAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the accused convicted and sentenced by the Special Court for N. D. P. S. Act Cases, Chennai under Section 8 (c) r/w. 21 of the N. D. P. S. Act to undergo R. I. for 10 years and also to pay a fine of rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo R. I. for one year.

(2.) HEARD Mr. Shanmugavelayutham, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Dhanapal Raj, Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

(3.) THE sheet anchor of the defence put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the delay in despatching the property to the Chemical Examiner is fatal to the prosecution case. Similarly, the sample recovered at the time of seizure of the contraband is not the same as the one tested by the Chemical Examiner. In this context, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 8, the Officers from the directorate of Revenue Intelligence. While P. W. 1 has contended that immediately after seizure of the contraband on 15. 5. 2001 from the car searched by him and other Officers, two samples of 5 grams each had been taken, packed and sealed separately and the rest of the contraband had been kept intact and sealed separately in the presence of witnesses under cover of mazhar Ex. P-2, P. W. 8 has contended that the said samples as well as the remaining contraband were kept under his custody till the same had been produced before the Special Court for n. D. P. S. Act Cases. Hence, on the basis of such evidence, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that till the material recovered had been produced before the Special Court on 23. 5. 2001, the said Officer was in custody of the same and that therefore there is no explanation offered on the part of the prosecution as to the custody of the property for more than 5 days without producing the same before the concerned Court.