JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the conviction and sentence made by the Principal Sessions Court for NDPS Act, Chennai, made in C.C.No.42 of 2014 by Judgment, dated 26.10.2016. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.02.2014 at about 2 a.m, the Inspector of Police, Chennai Central Railway Police (P.W.2) had received an information that a lady about 45 years travelling in Dhanbad-Allapuzha train is coming with Ganja and on receipt of the said information, the Investigating Officer, i.e., P.W.2 had communicated the same to his higher-up, i.e., Deputy Superintendent of Police (P.W.5). The said P.W.5 immediately had given permission / approval to the Officer (P.W.2) and his team to proceed further to catch the culprit. 3. Accordingly, P.W.2 along with P.W.1, women Sub-Inspector of Police and another Sub-Inspector of Police Tamilselvi and a Woman Constable reached the spot, i.e., Central Railway station platform No.6 and when they were waiting, the train arrived at 3.15 a.m, from where a woman at about the age of 45 years was seen got down and walking in the platform with plastic bag, where it was written as “Big Boss”. The informant who was accompanying the police team since had identified the said lady, she was immediately intercepted and when enquired, the lady revealed that she is one “Pandiammal”, from Usilampatti, Madurai District. At that time, the police team had informed the said accused that they want to search the accused and in this regard, the search memo was prepared through which it had been informed to the accused that as per the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the accused will have a right to be searched in front of Judicial Officer or Magistrate. However, the accused claimed to have replied that the P.W.2, Investigating Officer, in front of P.W.1, women Sub-Inspector can search her. However, the accused claimed to have replied that the P.W.2, Investigating Officer, in front of P.W.1, women Sub-Inspector can search her. Accordingly, on search, it was found that the accused in the said plastic bag was carrying, 6 Kgs of Ganja and after having weighed the same, 100 gms had been made into two bags each of 50 gms marked as S.1 and S.2 for the purpose of chemical examination and the remaining contraband, i.e., 5 Kgs and 900 gms had been packed in the wrapper along with the said plastic cover and thereafter, after informed the neighbour of the accused, arrest memo was prepared and served on them and thereafter at about 4.15 p.m, after having arrested the accused, the police team have brought the accused to the Police Station with contraband, where the FIR was registered. 4. It is the further case of the prosecution that a report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act was prepared and was given to the higher officer, i.e., P.W.5. Who after having enquired the P.W.2 had prepared the remand report and sent the accused along with the contraband to the nearest Magistrate on the same day. Before the learned Magistrate Court, the accused was produced and remanded to judicial custody and the learned Magistrate had directed the prosecution to produce the contraband immediately before the concerned Court, i.e., Special Court for NDPS Act cases and in pursuant to which, on 20.02.2014, the contraband was produced along with Ex.P.10. The Special Court had given the direction letter for chemical analysis (Ex.P.11) and the sample was sent to the chemical analysis and after analysing the same, the chemical analysis report was received in Ex.P.12 and thereafter, after completing the investigation, final charge sheet was laid before the Special Court. 5. The Special Court, after having tried the case has found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Section 8 (c) r/w 20(b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act, and convicted the accused to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of two years and also directed to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default the accused has to undergo two months Rigorous Imprisonment. Against the said conviction and sentence made by the Special Court, the accused has preferred this Criminal Appeal. 6. Before the trial Court on the side of the prosecution, 5 witnesses were examined, i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.5. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 were marked. Against the said conviction and sentence made by the Special Court, the accused has preferred this Criminal Appeal. 6. Before the trial Court on the side of the prosecution, 5 witnesses were examined, i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.5. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 were marked. M.O.1 to M.O.3 also were produced. 7. Heard Mr.M.Anandaraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant / accused and Mr.T.Shanmuga Rajeswaran, learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent / prosecution. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / accused submitted that, lot of contradictions and discrepancies are there in the prosecution case. According to the learned counsel, in Ex.P.6, arrest memo, it has been mentioned that, the accused was arrested on 04.02.2014 at 3.15 a.m, whereas P.W.2, who arrested the accused had deposed before the trial Court that the accused was arrested only at 4.15 a.m. The learned counsel pointed out that even though an independent witness, i.e., P.W.3, claimed to be a taxi driver, was examined on the side of the prosecution, he has deposed before the trial Court that he is an illiterate and he had signed the documents only at the police station. He also deposed that, the accused was arrested only at 4.15 a.m. He further deposed in his chief examination that, when the contraband seized from the accused was weighed, it was found 4 Kgs of contraband. However, according to the prosecution case, 6 Kgs of contraband was seized from the accused and the said P.W.3 had signed the documents at the Central Railway station itself, where the accused was caught and arrested. 9. The learned counsel for the accused would further state that, Section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been properly followed. In this regard, the learned counsel would point out that, even though this aspect has been accepted by the trial Court, stating that, P.W.2, though not deposed before the Court that the right of the accused under Section 50 has been explained to the accused, since the search notice, i.e., Ex.P.1 was marked, based on which the trial Court had come to a conclusion that Section 50 of NDPS Act was complied with. 10. It was also pointed out on the side of the accused that, in the Special report under Section 57 of NDPS Act, it has been specifically stated that the Sub Inspector had arrested the accused. 10. It was also pointed out on the side of the accused that, in the Special report under Section 57 of NDPS Act, it has been specifically stated that the Sub Inspector had arrested the accused. However, the report was prepared and filed by P.W.2, Inspector of Police, as if that he had arrested the accused. Pointing out all these discrepancies and contradictions, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that in view of these contradictions and discrepancies, one can easily come to a conclusion that the documents had been prepared at the police station after enquiring the accused and the witnesses and therefore it is a cooked up case against the accused. Hence, the accused is entitled to get benefit of acquittal. 11. Per contra, Mr.T.Shanmuga Rajeswaran, learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the prosecution would submit that, on receipt of information from the informant at about 2 a.m, on the said date, immediately it had been informed to P.W.5, who in turn permitted P.W.2, Inspector of Police to take the team and proceed further to nab the accused. Thereafter the team immediately reached the Central Railway station, where on arrival of the train at 3.15 a.m, the accused got down and was walking in Platform No.6. On identification through the informant, the accused was intercepted and was found with plastic bag. After having complied with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, when searched, the accused was found with the said contraband, which was weighed and it was 6 Kgs of Ganja. Therefore, samples were taken for the purpose of chemical analysis and thereafter, after issuance of arrest memo, after having informed the next kith and kin / neighbours of the accused, the accused was arrested at 4.15 a.m, and thereafter she was brought to the police station. 12. The learned Government Advocate would further submit that on the said day, FIR was filed based on which special report was submitted and the Investigating Officer had sent the accused for remand to the Magistrate Court, where the contraband had also been sent along with the sample under Form No.95. On receipt of the Form No.95 with contraband, the Magistrate Court had given a direction to the prosecution to produce the same before the Special Court and also had remanded the accused. 13. On receipt of the Form No.95 with contraband, the Magistrate Court had given a direction to the prosecution to produce the same before the Special Court and also had remanded the accused. 13. Therefore the contraband was produced with a requisition for sending it for chemical analysis to the Special Court, who in turn also had given such direction / permission to the prosecution to send it for chemical analysis and after getting the chemical analysis report, investigation was completed and final report was filed. Therefore the learned Government Advocate would submit that, various provisions of the NDPS Act were scrupulously followed in this case and the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, having accepted the same, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused and hence, the learned Government Advocate would submit that, the said conviction and sentence of the trial Court, which is appealed herein needs no interference from this Court. 14. I have heard the submissions made by both sides and have perused the materials carefully. 15. No doubt certain discrepancies have been pointed out by the accused side through the learned counsel appearing for the accused. One of such discrepancy is the evidence of P.W.3. i.e., one Vasu, who was examined as an independent witness by the prosecution. He has stated in his evidence as follows: “TAMIL” 16. In his cross examination, P.W.3 has deposed as follows : “TAMIL” 17. From the perusal of the said deposition both in chief examination as well as in cross-examination of P.W.3, it can be found that he is an illiterate. Therefore whatever statement he has signed on behalf of the prosecution, it should be presumed that those statement had been written by the prosecution and has been explained to P.W.3. In his chief examination, P.W.3 has stated that from Dhanbad train, a lady had come. When she was intercepted and enquired, she said that she was Pandiammal and she was about 45 years old. However, he further deposed that, when she was called by calling her name, she was moving quickly. Therefore two women police, chased her and caught. The statement is certainly a contradictory one. As in the previous line, P.W.3 says that she was caught and enquired and she stated that she was Pandiammal. However, he further deposed that, when she was called by calling her name, she was moving quickly. Therefore two women police, chased her and caught. The statement is certainly a contradictory one. As in the previous line, P.W.3 says that she was caught and enquired and she stated that she was Pandiammal. Once the accused was caught, the question of calling by her name subsequently and therefore she was running would not have arisen at all. 18. Like that in the very same chief examination, P.W.3 has stated that when the shoppers bag, which was in possession of the accused, was opened, it was found 4 Kgs of Ganga in that bag. In the cross examination, he had specifically stated that he signed only at the police station. 19. Since he is the only independent witness other than the prosecution department witnesses and his evidence both in chief as well as in cross examination was not only not clear but also self contradictory, it is pressed by the side of the defence that based on this evidence of P.W.3 claimed to be independent witness, it can be concluded that the prosecution foisted the case and there was no such occurrence taken place. 20. However in respect of the entire episode till filing of the final report, this Court perused all those documents. It was the specific case of the prosecution that on 04.02.2014 at about 2 a.m, information was received about the coming of the accused with contraband in Dhanbad-Allapuzha Express at Chennai Central Railway station. On receipt of such information, the same was reduced into writing, i.e., Ex.P.3. Pursuant to which, permission was given by P.W.5 to P.W.2 and who in turn immediately rushed to the spot with police team, including women Sub-Inspectors and constable. According to the prosecution at about 3.15 a.m, the train arrived from where the accused alighted and was walking through Platform No.6 and on identification of the accused by the informant, the police team inspected her and thereafter after complying Section 50 of the NDPS Act, search was completed and contraband were seized. 21. In this regard, the defence side had raised an issue that Section 50 of NDPS Act was not properly complied with. In Ex.P.1, search notice, the following has been given : “TAMIL” 22. 21. In this regard, the defence side had raised an issue that Section 50 of NDPS Act was not properly complied with. In Ex.P.1, search notice, the following has been given : “TAMIL” 22. From the reading of the said statement given in Ex.P.1, one can find that it has been informed to the accused about the right of the accused to be searched in front of the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. In the very same Ex.P.1, the following statement also has been recorded : “TAMIL” On perusal of the same, we cannot find any deviation from Section 50 in this regard, as the right of the accused has been informed to her. 23. In so far as certain contradictions pointed out in the deposition of P.W.3, independent witness, the trial Court has considered the said aspect also. In this regard the discussion made by the trial Court Judge at paragraph 16 of the impugned Judgment is extracted herein for easy reference : “TAMIL” 24. As regards to the ground raised by the defence side that even though in Form 95 the Magistrate had directed the prosecution to produce the contraband immediately to the Special Court, the same was produced only after three days and the sample was sent for chemical analysis after two weeks, therefore the prosecution since has not given proper reason for such delay, the case of the prosecution is vitiated is concerned, the discussion given by the trial Court at paragraph 23 of the Judgment can be looked into : “TAMIL” 25. Moreover on perusal of the dates, i.e., the date of occurrence was 04.02.2014 and on the same day it was produced before the learned Magistrate under Form-95 and who in turn directed the prosecution to produce it before the Special Court immediately. Thereafter on 07.02.2014, within three days it was produced before the Special Court and the sample was sent for chemical analysis on 20.02.2014. Comparing with the time taken by the prosecution for completing this task from the date of occurrence, this Court feels that it is not a delay to seek for any plausible explanation from by the prosecution. Because, the contraband seized on the date of occurrence had been produced on the same day before the learned Magistrate and on his order, the contraband was produced within three days before the Special Court. Because, the contraband seized on the date of occurrence had been produced on the same day before the learned Magistrate and on his order, the contraband was produced within three days before the Special Court. Hence, this Court finds no force in the said contention of the defence side that there was delay in producing the contraband before the Special Court. 26. Taking into consideration of the over all Judgment, which is impugned herein, this Court finds that the trial Court has given its anxious consideration and has considered the prosecution witness, where the prosecution has not miserably failed in complying with any of the mandatory requirement under the provisions of NDPS Act. Except some minor discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.3, no other notable discrepancy can be found in the entire prosecution case and therefore this Court is of the considered view that the reasoning given and the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is based on the evidence on the side of the prosecution and therefore this Court feels that the impugned Judgment requires no interference. Therefore the conviction given by the trial Court is liable to be upheld. 27. However, the learned counsel appearing for the accused has made a submission that the accused has already been in jail as a pre-trial prisoner for 57 days and thereafter, from the date of judgment, i.e., from 26.10.2016, the appellant / accused had been inside. 28. Even as on today, the appellant has spent about 1 year 10 months both as pre-trial prisoner as well as post trial convict. Therefore, the learned counsel during argument had made fervent appeal that considering that the accused is a lady, some leniency can be shown to her on the quantum of punishment, if this Court comes to the conclusion that the trial Court Judgment is to be confirmed. 29. This Court has considered the said plea made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / accused. Taking into account that the accused is a woman and she has already spent 1 year 10 months in jail and the total sentence itself is for two years, this Court is inclined to make a small modification with regard to the quantum of the sentence alone. 30. Taking into account that the accused is a woman and she has already spent 1 year 10 months in jail and the total sentence itself is for two years, this Court is inclined to make a small modification with regard to the quantum of the sentence alone. 30. Accordingly, the conviction of the trial Court made in C.C.No.42 of 2014 is confirmed, whereas the sentence is hereby modified to the effect that the period spent in jail by the appellant / accused both as pre-trial prisoner as well as the post trial convict shall be the sentence and the appellant be released forthwith, unless her presence is required in connection with any other case. 31. In so far as the fine amount imposed by the trial Court is concerned, the appellant / accused herein has filed Crl.M.P.No.548 of 2018, seeking an order to dispense with the appellant from paying the fine amount of Rs.20,000/-, since she has no means to pay the said fine amount. Considering the facts and circumstances, the fine amount imposed by the trial Court is reduced to Rs.10,000/-, which shall be paid by the appellant / accused within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the appellant / accused shall undergo a period of one month Rigorous Imprisonment. With the above modification, this Criminal Appeal is ordered as indicated above. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.