Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
Sampath Kumar
Versus
The State represented by The Inspector of Police
Criminal Appeal (MD)No. 294 of 2006
Decided on: 28-01-2015
NDPS Act - Conviction and Sentence - Section 8(c) r/w 18(c) and 21(b) of NDPS Act - Section 25 of NDPS Act - Summary: The court discussed the recovery of contraband, compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and the conscious possession of the appellant. The court found that the contraband was seized from the appellant's possession, and all mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act were complied with. The court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, A.2, was convicted under Section 8(c) r/w 18(c) of NDPS Act. The contraband was seized from the appellant's possession, and the prosecution proved the appellant's conscious possession of the contraband. The appellant filed a Criminal Appeal challenging the conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the contraband was seized from the appellant's possession, and all mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act were complied with. The court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
Issues: The issues involved the recovery of contraband, compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and the conscious possession of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the contraband was seized from the appellant's possession, and all mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act were complied with. The court also emphasized the appellant's conscious possession of the contraband.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The respondent was directed to take necessary steps to arrest the appellant and produce him before the Court to undergo the sentence of imprisonment and default sentence.
1. The appellant is the second accused in C.C.No.518 of 2004 on the file of the Special District and Sessions Court (NDPS Act and EC Act Cases), Madurai. There were totally three accused before the trial Court. A.3 after trial, was acquitted of the charges under Section 8(c) read with Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (in short 'NDPS Act'). A.1 and A.2 stood charged, tried and convicted as follows:
| Accused | Conviction | Sentence |
| A.1 | U/s 8(c) r/w 21(b) of NDPS Act. | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. |
| A.2 | U/s 8(c) r/w 18(c) of NDPS Act. | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. |
2. A.2 aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, vide judgment dated 29.05.2006, in C.C.No.518 of 2004, has filed this Criminal Appeal.
3. It is represented that A.1 has undergone the period of imprisonment and the appellant/A.2, at the time of pronouncement of the judgment by the trial Court, was not present and he continues to be absconded even today.
4. The case of the prosecution as culled out from the materials placed before this Court, is as follows:
4.1. P.W.8 was the Inspector of Police attached to Narcotic Intelligence Bureau, Ramanathapuram and he was also in-charge of the Narcotic Intelligence Bureau, Tuticorin also. On 16.05.2004 at about 04.30 p.m., while he was in the Office of the Narcotic Intelligence Bureau, Tuticorin, he received a telephonic information from the informant and it was entered by him in the General Diary and subsequently, it was reduced into writing and was submitted to his immediate official superior, namely, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narcotic Intelligence Bureau and it was marked as Ex.P.18. The said official has instructed him to edit/get the information and give the details and further, to seize the contraband. P.W.4, who was the Inspector of Police attached to Narcotic Intelligence Bureau, Dindigul, along with his party, came to the Office of P.W.8.
4.2. P.W.8 after informing the contents of Ex.P.18 and requisitioned the services of two independent witnesses, namely, Kallathan (P.W.2) and Ramachandran (P.W.3) and all of them were proceeded to the spot as per the information given by the informant. It is the junction of Tuticorin – Madurai Road and Tuticorin New Harbour Road and they were mounting surveillance. At about 06.30 p.m., on 16.05.2004, a red colour Qualis car (M.O.4) was coming and it was halted. The Registration Number of the said vehicle is TN-37-X- 1156 and it tallied with the description of the vehicle given by the informant. In the vehicle, in the driver seat, one person was driving the vehicle and on the rear side, two persons were sitting.
4.3. P.W.8 has shown his identity card and also introduced the members of the policy party and the occupants of the car were individually examined and they were Rajpaul (A.1) and Sampath Kumar (appellant/A.2) and Selvakumar (A.3). All the occupants of the car were asked to alight from the car and P.W.8 informed that they received the information that narcotic and psychotropic substance, namely, Abin and Heroin are being smuggled and therefore, he wants to search them.
4.4. The above said three persons were also individually informed about their right to be searched in the presence of a Judicial Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer by means of three individual communications, marked as Exs.P.19, P.20 and P.21 respectively and they had told P.W.8 that it is not necessary that they should be searched in the presence of a Judicial Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and P.W.8 himself can search them. The independent witnesses, namely, P.W.2 and P.W.3 had
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
