Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

25.The 6th contention raised on the side of the appellants/ accused is that as per the prosecution case, the seized contraband in the above case is white crystallised substance, branded to be Methamphetamine. But PW1 during his cross examination stated that when the contraband was opened before the Special Court shockingly and surprisingly, it was found to be in “Brown Colour”. The change of colour of the contraband is very vital and the same was not explained by the prosecution and the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the contraband allegedly seized was only produced before the court and since the court found that the contraband, which was opened in the court was brown in colour, a second sample was sent for chemical examination and the Lab Report Ex.P84 dated 18.08.2014 given by CFSL, Hyderabad mentioned that Methamphetamine has been deducted in the contents of Exhibits marked as SP1 and SP2. The 2nd sample report is totally contrary to the 1st sample report given by Customs House Laboratory, which is marked as Ex.P56. In the 1st sample report, it was mentioned by the Chemical Examiner as each of the two https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ samples answers the tests for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride.” It is an admitted fact that Methamphetamine Hydrochloride is altogether different from Methamphetamine. PW11 the Senior Scientific Officer, who examined the 2nd sample sent by the court, in his evidence has categorically admitted that if any of the components of phenylephrine or methenamine group or dimethyl phenethylamine is not found in the alleged substance, then it cannot be Methamphetamine. PW10 the Chemical Examiner, who examined the 1st sample has given evidence that Phenylephrine or Dimethyl Phenethylamine is not found in the sample examined by him. Therefore, the 1st sample sent for chemical examination failed to contain any chemical ingredients of Methamphetamine. It can be very well concluded that the sample received by PW9 and PW10 are not the same substance and they differ from each other. The aforesaid circumstances clearly prove the case of the defence that the prosecution miserably failed in proving the seizure of alleged contraband from the accused in the above case.

26.But on the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that the seizure of Methamphetamine from the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ possession of A1 and A2 has been clearly proved by the evidence of PW1 to PW3, PW6, PW8 and DW4 and the seizure mahazar Ex.P2 is an unshaken evidence to prove the seizure of the contraband. The contention of the appellants/accused about the change in colour of the samples and the discrepancy in weight are untenable. The contraband was seized on 22.03.2013. Admittedly, it is a chemical substance. At the time of seizure, the contraband was white in colour. MO1 was opened in the Court during trial on 24.08.2015 I.e after two years and five months. Since, it is a chemical substance, the while colour turned brown. Such colour change, nearly after two and half years will not disprove the case of the prosecution. Likewise, the minimal and ignorable variation in the weight of the 2nd sample sent for chemical analysis will not affect the prosecution case, when the seals are intact and further, PW10 and PW11 have deposed that the seals of the sample covers were found intact and tallied with the facsimile of the seals given by the Court and such plea of difference in the weight of the sample was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Lan and another Vs. State of H.P (2003)7 SCC 465 and further, the presence of Methamphetamine was also conferred in the chemical analysis reports given by the PW10 and PW11. The evidence of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ PW5 and his chemical analysis report would clearly reveal that the samples tested by him are the raw materials used to prepare Methamphetamine and hence, the presence of Methamphetamine is clearly proved by the prosecution.

28.At this juncture it is necessary to refer the decision reported in 2003(7) SCC 465 (Madan Lan and another Vs. State of H.P), wherein it has been held that the plea of difference in weight of the sample was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On perusal of the chemical reports given by the PW10 and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ PW11, the presence of Methamphetamine was confirmed. Though PW10 deposed that the sample answered for Methamphetamine Chloride and PW11 deposed “Methamphetamine detected”, in both their evidence, the presence of Methamphetamine was clearly spoken. Methamphetamine is a psychotropic substance listed in S.No.159 of the table of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic substance in S.O.1055(E), dated 19.10.2001. As per S.No.239 of the table, any mixture or preparation that of with or without any natural material, of any of the Narcotic or Psychotropic substance is also an offending drug under the Act. As per the amended notification, dated 18.11.2020, the entire mixture or any solution or anyone or more narcotic drugs of psychotropic substance of that particular drug in dosage form or isomers, esters, ethers and salts of the drugs including salts of esters, ethers and isomers has to be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the quantity of the offending drug. PW10 deposed that he confirmed the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride in this samples. He also stated that Methamphetamine is clearly proved by the prosecution. Moreover the evidence of PW5 and his chemical analysis report Ex.P71 would clearly reveal that the samples tested by him are the raw materials/chemicals used to prepare Methamphetamine. On https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ perusal of the evidence of PW5 and the chemical analysis report Ex.P71, it reveals that the samples taken by him are the raw materials used to prepare Methamphetamine. Hence, the argument put forth on the side of the appellants/accused stating that the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of Methamphetamine is not at all acceptable.

29.The next contention put forth on the side of the appellants/accused is that as per the evidence of PW1 and Mahazar (Ex.P2), it is alleged that A1 and A2 jointly handed over one Jute Bag having two plastic pockets, which contained a crystalline substance purported to be Methamphetamine and during his chief examination, PW1 stated that on further questioning, they handed over a Jute Bag having two plastic packets containing crystalline substance and on further enquiry, both Masound and Mahmood handed over one ordinary Jute Carry all bags containing two transparent plastic sachets containing crystalline substance purported to be Methamphetamine. Whereas as per the evidence of PW6/VAO, who was procured as independent witness by the prosecution, in his chief examination has stated that the contraband was produced by A1 alone. Whereas as per the remand report, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ contraband was never recovered from the possession of A1 or A2 and the same was found on thorough search of the room. On perusal of Ex.P14, two Iranians opened the door allowed the team entry inside. A thorough search of the room resulted in the recovery of 5.77 kgs of crystalline substance believed to be Methamphetamine. The above contents of the mahazar was categorically admitted by PW1 himself in his cross examination. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that A1 and A2 were residing in the house of A3 and are manufacturing Methamphetamine. Whereas on the contrary not even a single personal belonging of A1 or A2 were seized or recovered from the house of A3, when 56 material objects were recovered by the prosecution from the place of occurrence and hence, the possession of contraband was not proved on the side of the prosecution.