Judgment :- 1. The Appellant herein is the accused in C.C. No.45 of 2003, on the file of the Special Judge, Special Court under NDPS Act, Chennai, and he stands convicted for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w. Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo ten months’ Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine amount of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo one month’s Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the Appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: P.W.2, Sub-Inspector of Police, G-2, Police Station received an information on 29.10.2001, regarding the possession of brown sugar by the accused in front of d. No.18, Naval Hospital Road. P. W.2 recorded the information Ex.P.3 and submitted to the Inspector of Police. Then P.W.2 accompanied by P.W.3, Head Constable and other police personnel went to the scene of occurrence. At about 12.30 p.m., the accused who was standing at the place was identified by the informant. Then P.W.2 intercepted him and also informed him that he is to be searched and he has a right to be searched before a learned Magistrate or before a Gazetted Officer and the accused replied it was not necessary and he could be searched by P.W.2 himself and gave his consent letter-Ex.P.6. Though P.W.2 called some independent witnesses, they have not come forward to stand as witnesses P.W.2 searched the accused in the presence of the P.W.3 and another constable. The accused was having a polythene cover in his shirt pocket which contained 9.440 grams of brown sugar known as heroin. The pocket was sealed and mahazar-Ex.P.7 was prepared. The accused was also arrested and the properties were brought to the Police Station and P.W.2 registered a case in Crime No.2180/01 under Section 8(c) r/w 21 of NDPS Act and registered the First Information Report-Ex.P.10 and he prepared Ex.P.11-report and forwarded to the Superior Officer, P.W.4. 3. P.W.4, Inspector of Police took up investigation in this matter and sent the property to the Court and also gave requisition for sending the properties for chemical analysis. P.W.1, Chemical Analyst on analysing the contraband-M.O.1, gave a report-Ex.P.2 stating that the contraband was weighing 7.32 grams and it was Di-Acetyl-Morphine (heroine). P.W.4 after completing the investigation laid the final report under Section 8© r/w 21 of NDPS Act. 4. P.W.1, Chemical Analyst on analysing the contraband-M.O.1, gave a report-Ex.P.2 stating that the contraband was weighing 7.32 grams and it was Di-Acetyl-Morphine (heroine). P.W.4 after completing the investigation laid the final report under Section 8© r/w 21 of NDPS Act. 4. The prosecution in order to establish the case, examined P.Ws.1 to 4, marked Exs.P.1 to P.13 and produced Material Object M.O.1. When the accused was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances available against him, he denied his complicity. The Trial Court after analyzing the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. 5. Mr. Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the weight of the contraband alleged to have been seized differs and though according to P.W.2, the contraband was weighing 9.440 grams, as per the analyst report, the contraband was weighing only 7.32 grams. The learned counsel for the Appellant further submitted that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove the alleged seizure of the contraband from the accused and also submitted that a case has been foisted against the appellant/accused. 6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that P.W.2, Sub-Inspector of Police made an attempt to call the independent witnesses, but as they refused to stand as witnesses, the mahazar was prepared in the presence of P.W.3 and another constable. 7. This Court considered the submissions made by the parties and perused the records. According to P.W.2, Sub-Inspector of Police, he went to the scene of occurrence on prior information. But he had not gone to the scene of occurrence with any witness. Though according to P.W.2, some persons were present at the scene of occurrence and they were called to stand as witnesses and they refused, but the said fact has not been mentioned in Ex.P.7-mahazar. Further P.W.2 and P.W.3 have not given any details about the persons who were called as witnesses and P.W.2 also has not taken any action against the persons who refused to stand as witnesses as per Section 100 (8), Cr.P.C. which is as follows: “100. Further P.W.2 and P.W.3 have not given any details about the persons who were called as witnesses and P.W.2 also has not taken any action against the persons who refused to stand as witnesses as per Section 100 (8), Cr.P.C. which is as follows: “100. Persons in charge of closed place to allow search.- .(1) to (7) …… (8) Any person who, without reasonable cause, refuses or neglects to attend