Judgment :- 1. The Appellant herein is the accused in C.C.No.244 of 2003 on the file of the learned Principal Special Judge/Special Court under EC & NDPS Act Cases, Chennai, and stands convicted for offence under Section 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo 10 years’ R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh, in default to undergo R.I. for six months. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the Accused has preferred this Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 27.5.2003 at about 5 p.m., near Ega Theatre, Chennai, the Accused was intercepted on suspicion by PW.1, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kilpauk, Police Station. The Accused was carrying two bags on his heads, one white polythene gunny bag and another black-white lined polythene gunny bag. Inside the white bag, two packets were found containing a total 19.500 Kg of ganja and inside the black-white lined bag 30 packets containing 10.600 Kg of ganja were found. Two samples were taken from each of the bags under Mahazar-Ex.P6. The Accused was arrested and he was brought to the Police Station along with seized contraband. P.W.1 produced the Accused and materials before the Court and P.W.6 took samples from the ganja and registered a case under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act and prepared First Information Report-Ex.P5. He also recorded statements of witnesses. The samples were sent for chemical analysis and chemical analyst after analyzing the samples, sent a report Ex.P3 stating that samples are found to be ganja. P.W.6 after completing the investigation, laid final report in this case. 3. In order to establish the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 6; marked Exs P.1 to P.11 and produced M.Os 1 to 4. The Accused was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances and he denied the complicity. On behalf of the Accused, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 4. The Trial Court, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, found the Accused guilty and sentenced him as already stated above. 5. Mr. Shunmugavelayutham, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that at the time of seizure of contraband by P.W.21, no independent witness was called. Further, P.W.1 has not prepared any Mahazar for seizure of the contraband and even the Inspector of Police P.W.6 had prepared Mahazar only for drawing samples. 5. Mr. Shunmugavelayutham, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that at the time of seizure of contraband by P.W.21, no independent witness was called. Further, P.W.1 has not prepared any Mahazar for seizure of the contraband and even the Inspector of Police P.W.6 had prepared Mahazar only for drawing samples. Though according to P.W.1, totally 30.100 Kg of ganja was seized, the total ganja has not been produced before the Court and it was not marked during the trial. 6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that P.W.1 had given a Special Report to the Inspector of Police, Ex.P1, in which he had specifically stated that two gunny bags were seized from the Accused and one bag contained 19.500 Kg. of ganja and another bag contained 10.600 Kg. ganja and thereafter the Inspector of Police only registered a case and also he had drawn samples from the seized contraband before the Mahazar Witnesses, but these Mahazar Witnesses were not examined before the Court since they were not available at the time of trial. 7. This Court considered the submissions and perused the records. 8. It is the evidence of PW.1, Sub-Inspector of Police that while he was in vehicle check, he intercepted the Accused, who came with two gunny bags. According to him, in one bag which was black-white colour lined, 30 plastic packets were found and the total weight of ganja is 10.600 Kg and in another bag 2 packets containing 19.500 Kg. of ganja were found. PW.1 had not prepared any Mahazar for seizure of the contraband and even PW.6, Inspector of Police before whom the properties were produced, had not prepared any Seizure Mahazar for total weight of 30.100 Kg. of ganja. The Mahazar-Ex.P6 is only for drawing samples. Even those Mahazor witnesses have not been examined before the Court. The contraband which is said to have been seized by the Police has not been produced before the Court. P.W.6 says that properties have been sent to the Court, but, as per Form-95, properties have not been produced before the Court. Even during the trial, the remaining ganja were not marked. Only M.O.1, white gunny bag and M.O.2 black gunny bag were marked. The place, where PW.1 seized the contraband, is a busy place, but no independent witnesses were called at the time of seizure of the contraband. Even during the trial, the remaining ganja were not marked. Only M.O.1, white gunny bag and M.O.2 black gunny bag were marked. The place, where PW.1 seized the contraband, is a busy place, but no independent witnesses were called at the time of seizure of the contraband. In the absence of the seized contraband being produced before the Court, in the absence of independent witnesses during seizure and in the absence of any Mahazor for seizure of the contraband, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Accused. 9. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant/Accused is set aside. If any fine amount has been paid by the Accused shall be refunded to him.