Judgment :- P. Murgesen, J. Challenging the Judgment dated 19.5.2003 of the learned Special district and Sessions Judge for E.C. and N.D.P.S., Act cases, Madurai in C.C.No.471 of 2000, convicting him under Section 8(c) read with 221 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentencing him to undergo rigorus imprisonment for ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three years, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal. 2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, as unfolded by the witnesses is as follows: P.W.2 – Mohamed Khan was working as Grade I Police Constable in NIB, Tuticorin. He was informed by his informant that a person is going to smuggle heroin and he informed the same to P.W.6- Sub-Inspector of Police. He registered it in Exhibit P-12. Then, he sent intimation to the Inspector of Police and left a along with police party with necessary kit. At the scene of occurrence, they requested two persons to be witnesses for the occurrence. On an identification by the informant, they stopped the accused, and expressed their suspicion that he was in illegal possession of contraband, informed about the mandatory provision and given the opportunity of being searched before any Gazetted Officer or before Judicial Magistrate, for which he has stated that they themselves can examine him. The consent letter is Exhibit P-3. On search, he was found in possession of 500 grams of Heroin in a white polythene bag concealed in his hip. P.W.2 had taken two 10 grams for Sample, packed and sealed it in a cover and packed the remaining contraband of 480 grams in another cover. P.W.7 arrested the accused at about 22.05 hrs. He prepared the arrest report Exhibit P-13. Exhibit P-14 is the intimation of arrest. They returned to the station and registered a case in Crime No. 1 of 2000 for the offence under Section 8(c) read with 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to the same as “the Act”). He prepared the First Information Report under Exhibit P-15. He kept the property in the locker. He prepared the intimation as per Section 57 of the Act and sent it to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. He prepared the First Information Report under Exhibit P-15. He kept the property in the locker. He prepared the intimation as per Section 57 of the Act and sent it to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. On 19.1.2000, he visited the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch in the presence of witnesses under Exhibits P-17 and P-18. He sent the accused with the property for judicial remand On 21.1.2000, he filed the report before the Court. P.W.3 – Head clerk of the Court received Exhibits P-5 and P-6 and sent the seised contraband for chemical analysis under Exhibit P-7. Exhibit P-8 is the Chemical Analyst’s Report. After examination of the witnesses and after completion of the investigation, on 5.4.2000 P.W.7 laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 8(c) read with 21 of the Act. 3. The Trial Court framed charges Under Sections under Section. 8(c) read with 21 of the Act against the accused. When the accused was questioned in respect of the incriminating circumstances available against him, he denied the same. Since he pleaded not guilty, he was put on trial. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the Prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined, Exhibits P-1 to 19 were Exhibited and M.Os.1 to 3 were marked. On the side of the accused, no one was examined, however, Exhibits D-1 to D-3 were marked. 4. Having considered the evidence on record both oral and documentary, the learned Special District and Sessions Judge for E.C. and N.D.P.C., Act cases, Madurai found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as referred to above. Hence, this present Criminal Appeal by the appellant. 5. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and also the submissions of the learned Government advocate for the respondent/state. 6. The point for consideration is as to whether the Prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised a doubt about the registration of F.I.R. and the case of the prosecution. According to P.W.2-Grade I Police Constable, he received information from the informant and he conveyed it to the Sub-Inspector of Police P.W.6. He did not take the informant to the Sub-Inspector of Police. 7. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised a doubt about the registration of F.I.R. and the case of the prosecution. According to P.W.2-Grade I Police Constable, he received information from the informant and he conveyed it to the Sub-Inspector of Police P.W.6. He did not take the informant to the Sub-Inspector of Police. However, in his evidence, P.W.6 would submit that the said informant of P.W.2 appeared before him and gave a report under Exhibit P-12. The informant was not under the control of P.W.7. He has not received the information from the informant directly. He would further submit that the informant was available with him at the scene of occurrence. When P.W.2 claimed that they did not take the informant to the higher official, P.W.7 said that the informant was with him. So, there is contradiction regarding the source of information. Both P.Ws.2 and 7 took a different stand. The discrepancies were not explained by the prosecution satisfactorily. So, there arises a doubt regarding the receipt of information, which shakes the foundation itself. 8. Further, P.Ws.1 and 4 turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel further pointed out the corrections regarding the quantity sent to the forensic lab and urged that is a clear case where without any cogent and consistent evidence, the prosecution had come up with a false case. 9. According to the prosecution, 500 grms of hereoin was recovered from the accused. Out of which two 10 gram a were taken for sample and the remaining 480 grams was kept in a sealed cover. I have carefully perused the F.I.R., Exhibits P-4 and 5. The prosecution witnesses viz., P.Ws.2 to 7 would submit that there was a correction regarding the quantity sent to the forensic lab. In the F.I.R., it is seen that “25” grams was struck-off and over written as “10” grams. Even by a careful perusal, we can see the same corrections in Exhibits P-4 and 5 also. However, in Exhibit P-6-Requisition, it is stated that “25” grams of heroin were taken and sealed with N.I.B.C.I.D. seal and report was sent to the Trial Court. The prosecution witnesses have fairly admitted that originally “25” grams was written and subsequently, it was struck off and over written as “10” grams. However, in Exhibit P-6-Requisition, it is stated that “25” grams of heroin were taken and sealed with N.I.B.C.I.D. seal and report was sent to the Trial Court. The prosecution witnesses have fairly admitted that originally “25” grams was written and subsequently, it was struck off and over written as “10” grams. Strangely, in the copies served on the accused viz., in Exhibit D-1, it was stated that two “25” grams were taken for sample. If really the correction is uniform, certainly, it would also have been carried out in uniform in Exhibit D-1 also. Further, surprisingly, in the letter sent by the Trial Court to the Forensic lab also, there was a correction in the quantity. I have carefully perused Exhibit P-7, from which we can see that “25” grams was typed, subsequently, it was struck off and “10” was typed with different ribbon. It would show that the letter sent by the Trial Court was also tampered subsequently, which throws serious doubt about the case of the prosecution. 10. The learned counsel further argued that the materials on record would go to show that what was seized from the accused was not sent to the forensic lab, and there were corrections in the quantity and the material discrepancy regarding the weight of the contraband would create doubt on the genuineness of recovery proceedings and therefore, the conviction cannot be held sustainable. To support his contention, he has relied Upon the decision Emili. V. State represented by the Inspector of Police (2001) 1 M.W.N. (CR) 41. 11. In Emili, v. State represented by the Inspector of Police (supra), weights of contraband received by the chemical examiner do not tally with the weights mentioned in the mahazar prepared by P.W.3. By holding that the prosecution has failed to establish that what was seized from the accused was sent to the chemical examiner, this Court acquitted the accused. In this case also, there was a correction in Exhibits P-4 and 5 and what was seized from the accused was sent to the chemical examinee and even the letter sent by the Court was tampered. All this would go to show that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. 12. In this case also, there was a correction in Exhibits P-4 and 5 and what was seized from the accused was sent to the chemical examinee and even the letter sent by the Court was tampered. All this would go to show that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. 12. Raising doubt about the presence of witnesses in the scene of occurrence, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution evidences are not trust worthy and liable to be rejected. He also relied upon the decision of this Court in Senthil Kumar v. State (2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 153. 13. In Senthil Kumar v. State (supra), the petitioners pointed out number of corrections in F.I.R. and there was discrepancy in the scene of occurrence, which has not been explained by the Investigating Officer. In the said case, doubting about the presence of witness along with the victim in the scene of occurrence, I held that the circumstances evidences were not trustworthy and the same are liable to be rejected, thereby acquitted the accused. 14. In Rekhaparameswari v. Assistant Collector of Customs (2009) 2 MLJ (Crl) 756, my learned Brother T. Sudanthiram, J., discussed about the purity test. In this case also, purity test had not been conducted. 15. On careful analysis of the evidence and the materials available on record and also the rival submissions of the appellant and the learned Government Advocate, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the point is answered in negative. 16. In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the judgment dated 19.5.2003 of the learned Special District and Sessions Judge for E.C. and N.D.P.S. Act cases. Madurai in C.C.No.471 of 2000 is set aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted of the charges leveled against him. The appellant/accused is directed to be released forthwith unless he is required in any other case. The fine amount paid, if any, shall be refunded to the appellant/accused forthwith.