SEENIVASAGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .A. No. 346 of 1995 is preferred by the accused namely., Seenivasagam against the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court in C.C. No. 434 of 1994. C.A. No. 944 of 1995 is preferred by the accused namely., Ravindranath Tagore against the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court in C.C. No. 433 of 94. It is seen that both the accused were alleged to have been in possession of Abin and on the basis of the recovery, two separate cases were filed and tried by the Court. The evidence adduced in both the cases is one and the same.

(2.) THE prosecution has examined P.Ws 1 to 5 in both the cases and marked Exs.P -1 to P -8 and M. Os.1 to 3.

(3.) P .W. 1 was Sub -Inspector attached to NIB, Madurai. P.W.5 was Inspector in the said bureau. He recorded the information furnished by P.W.4 and entered the same in the General Diary. The information is Ex.P -6. Thereafter, he and P.W.1 proceeded to Pilliar temple and when they were surveilling the area, they saw both accused proceeding with a bag in their hands towards north. P.W.5 requested one Muthu and Pandi to be the witnesses for the search, for which they refused. Thereafter, they intercepted the accused and enquired them. P.W.5 also informed the accused that the accused are entitled to be searched in the presence of gazetted officer or a Magistrate and he also served letter Ex. P -1. Thereafter, he conducted search of the bag.