Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 3922
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
Manikandan
Versus
The State rep by the Inspector of Police
Criminal Appeal No.935 of 2002 and Crl.M.P.No.5880 of 2002
Decided On : 30-10-2008
For the Appellant :S.V. Srinivasan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:J.C. Durairaj, Government Advocate(Crl).
The possession of ganja and compliance with the provisions of the NDPS Act were crucial in establishing the guilt of the accused and determining the appropriate sentence.
Headnote:
NDPS Act - Possession of Ganja - The court confirmed the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act against the appellant and modified the sentence to the period already undergone.
Fact of the Case:
The Inspector of Police, Narcotic Bureau, Coimbatore found ganja in the possession of the accused during a routine search. The accused were arrested and a charge sheet was filed under the NDPS Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty based on documentary and oral evidence, as well as the analyst's report, and convicted and sentenced them under Section 20(b)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, but the sentence was modified to the period already undergone.
Issues: Possession of ganja, compliance with Section 50 of NDPS Act, evidence evaluation, and sentencing considerations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the documentary and oral evidence, as well as the analyst's report, to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 20(b)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act. The court also considered the period already undergone by the appellant in modifying the sentence.
Final Decision: The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act was confirmed. The sentence was modified to the period already undergone, and the fine amount imposed by the trial Judge was confirmed.
This appeal has been directed against the Judgment in C.C.No.449 of 2001 on the file of Special Court of E.C and NDPS Act Cases, Coimbatore.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 211. 2001 at about 10.00 a.m, when the Inspector of Police, Narcotic Bureau, Coimbatore was on his routine rounds, on suspicion, he stopped a Jeep bearing Registration No.K.L.10E,9382 and on search found 7,900 kg ganja in one bag and another 5.800 kg of ganja in another plastic bag in the possession of the 2nd accused and the said jeep was driven by the 1st accused. After seizing the Narcotic drugs, the said Inspector of Police had arrested both the accused under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(i) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985(Hereinafter referred to as "NDPS Act") and filed charge sheet against them under the above provision of law.
3. On production of the accused, the learned trial Judge had furnished copies of the document under Section 207 Cr.P.C and framed charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act and when questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty.
4. On the side of the Prosecution, P.Ws 1 to 5 were examined. Exs P1 to P14 were exhibited and M.Os 1 to 13 were marked.
5. According to P.W.1, the Sub Inspector of Narcotic Bureau on information received from his informant on 211. 2001 at about 7.00 a.m., proceeded to the place of occurrence and stopped the suspected vehicle bearing Registration No. KL-10E,9382 which was driven by the first accused and on search of the jeep found two plastic bags containing 13.700 kg of ganja (In one bag 7.900 kg nd another bag 5.800 kg) in the possession of second accused and that before conducting the search, he followed the provisions contemplated under Section 50 of NDPS Act and after arresting the accused, brought the accused along with the properties seized under Mahazar Ex P5.
5a) P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer who had investigated the case and send the seized contraband for chemical analysis and after the receipt of the chemical analysts report filed charge sheet against the accused.
5b) P.W.3 is the Chemical analyst who had analysed the contraband connected with this case gave Ex P11 report.
5c) P.W.2 is the Mahazar witness under Ex P5. The seized contrabands have been marked as M.Os.2 to 5. M.Os 6 to 9 are the samples of the ganja after sending the seized contraband to the forensic science expert for analysis. M.Os 10 to 13 are the samples received from the Forensic Science laboratory after analysis.
6. So on the basis of the documentary and oral evidence and also on the basis of the analysts report and the evidence of the analyst, the learned trial Judge has come to a conclusion that an offence under Section 20(b) (ii) (b) of NDPS Act has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt against A1 and A2 had convicted and sentenced them each to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each with default sentence. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, this appeal has been preferred by the first accused.
7. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would represent that the co accused had already served the sentence without applying for bail.
8. When the appeal was taken up, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would represent that after the arrest, the appellant/first accused was in jail for nearly three months and during the trial, the appellant/first accused was in jail for nearly 1½ months and that no case of similar nature is pending against the appellant and he is a first offender and some leniency may be given on the appellant in sentence alone. For modifying the sentence, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) has no serious objection.
9. In fine, the appeal is dismissed while confirming the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii) (b) of NDPS Act against appellant made by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for E.C. and NDPS Act Cases, Coimbatore in C.C.No.449 of 2001, the sentence alone is
