Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.3.2000 at 9.30 a.m., P.W.4, H.C.505 of NIB CID, Nagapattinam having received information regarding the illicit trafficking of the Narcotic substances, recorded the same in writing and submitting the same to the Inspector, reached the Thiruvarur-Nagapattinam Road, Kivalur Arasanikulam Bus Stop at 11 .00 a.m. with his party and since nobody came forward to stand as witnesses, the accused was searched in the presence of P.W.1-M.Paul Raj, Grade-I P.C.408 and one A.S.Subramanian, Grade-I P.C.2092, after informing the accused of his right to be searched before either a Judicial Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer; that during the course of search, the accused was found in possession of a polythene bag containing Diazepam weighing 250 gms. and drawing two samples of 5 gms. each Diazepam, rest of the contraband was seized under a cover of mahazar signed by P.Ws.1,4 and the said A.S.Subrasmanian and complying with all other formalities as directed by the Hosnourable Supreme Court, they arrested the accused and hence the charge.

5. The case of the prosecution as put up before the trial Court is that on 23.03.2000 at about 9.30 a.m. at the Keevalur Arasanikulam bus stop in Tanjure - Nagapattinam road, the accused was found in possession of 250 gms. of Diazepam kept in a polythene bag, which is a Narcotic substance, without any valid permit or licence and thus he committed an offence punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and hence the charge.

6. P.W.1, the first grade constable attached to Nagapattinam NIB CID unit would depose to the effect that on reliable information given on 23.03.2000 at about 9.00 a.m, when he was in the Head Quarters that the appellant/accused was in possession of a psychotropic substance called Diazepam and was standing in the bus stop, this witness accompanied by another first grade constable Subramaniam started at 10.00 a.m that day and reached the bus stop at 11.00 a.m and at about 11.45 a.m, the Head Constable pointed the appellant and surrounding him, they identified themselves to the appellant and expressed their desire to conduct a body search and asked whether he was willing for the body search to be done in the presence of either a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and the appellant giving his consent for the body search by the Police themselves and since no individual witness came forward to witness the occurrence, with the Police witnesses, they started searching the appellant/accused and the Head Constable found the polythene bag which was kept in the left hand of the appellant; that on verification, the polythene bag found to contain a powder in a light sandalwood colour and the accused himself informed them that it was Diazepam meant for diluting toddy and the same was weighing 250 grams and having taken for sample 5 grams each in two packets and the rest of 240 grams was kept in the same polythene bag with NIB Seal affixing a slip containing the details signed by the accused and the Head Constable and all the events that took place having got reduced into a mahazar, they arrested the accused. The search notice would be marked as Ex.P.1, the seizure mahazar would be marked as Ex.P.2 and contraband seized would be marked as M.O.2 through this witness. This witness would also depose that when he questioned the accused, he informed that he did not possess either any licence or permit for being in possession of the Diazepam that was seized from him that day at 3.30 p.m and they have caused his arrest under Ex.P.3, Arrest Nama attested by the witnesses and they went back to their office.

7. P.W.2 who is the Chemical Analyst would depose that on 03.04.200 0, he received a letter No.74 of 2000 from the Court through Constable Rajendran, P.C.406, dated 31.03.2000 and the sample in a paper packet concerned with NIB CID Crime No.10 of 2000; that he chemically analysed the said article and found that it was diazepam; that thereafter he sent the analyst report to the Court and the report would be marked as Ex.P.4 and the remaining contraband after analysis would be marked as M.O.3. This witness would also opine that diazepam is a psychotropic substance. P.W.3 is the Police constable who would carry the contraband to the Court on 23.03.2000, and again on 29.03.2000 and then to the Chemical analyst on 04.04.2000. The requisition sent to the Court would be marked as Ex.P.5 and form-95 in which entry has been put up which would be marked as Ex.P.6 through this witness.

8. P.W.4 is the Head Constable attached to NIB CID and he would depose that on 23.03.2000 at about 9.00 a.m, he received information over phone to the effect that the appellant/accused coming to the bus stop with the contraband used for mixing with toddy which is a psychotropic substance; that submitting information with the Inspector of Police at 9.45 a.m and getting the authorisation from him and keeping surveillance at the bus stop at 11.45 a.m. that day, they surrounded the accused and found that he was in possession of the diazepam powder and after finding out whether he was willing to be searched in the presence of the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate and with his consent, they themselves made a search and found that he was in possession of 250 grams of Diazepam keeping it in a polythene bag in his left hand and taking a sample of 5 grams each in two packets in the presence of the witnesses attested by them and signed by the accused and the witnesses, they affixed the NIB Seal and the rest of 240 grams of Diazepam was put in the same packet in the NIB Seal and signed by the witnesses; that they came to know from the accused that he had no licence or permit to be in possession of the said contraband and with all the facts, he prepared the mahazar which would be attested by the accused and the witnesses; that he was arrested and dropped to the station along with the contraband and the case under Crime No.10 of 2000 under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act,1985 was registered and the FIR would be prepared which would be marked as Ex.P.8 and then this witness would also prepare a detailed report under Section 57 which would be submitted at 4.00 p.m that day to the Inspector of Police.