HARIJANA MUNISWAMY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Venkateswara Rao, learned Counsel representing the appellants provided by way of legal aid and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellants would submit that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 cannot be believed and hence, the prosecution was unable to establish the guilt of the accused. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on T.P, Razak alias Nagappan Razak v. State of Kerala, 1996 (2) ALT (Crl.) 208 (SC), and would contend that non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter in short referred to 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) would definitely vitiate the proceedings and on that ground also, the appellants/accused are entitled for acquittal.

(3.) Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that, no doubt, the provisions relating to Section 50 of the Act are mandatory, in the present case, there is substantial compliance and hence, the findings are to be confirmed.