Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 1305
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
A Abdul Rahim & Another – Appellant
Vs.
State represented by The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (MD)No. 256 of 2013
Decided On : 11-03-2015
For the Appellants:M. Ramu for B. Pandiarajan, Advocates.
For the Respondent: C. Arul Vadivel @ Sekar, Special Public Prosecutor.
Headnote:
NDPS Act - Conviction and Sentencing - 8(c) r/w 29, 8(c) r/w 21(C), 8(c) r/w 28 r/w 23(c) - The judgment discusses the procedures under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the seizure and recovery of contraband, compliance with Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, and the admissibility of evidence under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The court also considers the belated furnishing of a chemical analysis report and the quantification test results. The trial court's analysis of the oral and documentary evidence led to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were charged with drug trafficking under the NDPS Act based on specific information received by the Narcotic Control Bureau. The officers conducted a search and found contraband in the possession of the accused. The accused were convicted based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the seizure and recovery of contraband, chemical analysis reports, and compliance with procedural requirements under the NDPS Act.
Issues: The issues included compliance with procedural requirements under the NDPS Act, admissibility of evidence, and the sufficiency of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented, including the seizure and recovery of contraband, compliance with procedural requirements, and admissibility of evidence.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment of the trial court. The default sentence was reduced from rigorous imprisonment for one year to two months based on a previous unreported judgment.
1. The appellants are the accused in C.C.No.523 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge for Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai and they stood charged, tried, convicted and sentenced, vide judgment dated 27.04.2013, thus:
Accused Conviction Sentence
U/s 8(c) r/w 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (in short 'NDPS Act'). To undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
A-1 & A-2 U/s 8(c) r/w 21(C) of the NDPS Act. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
U/s 8(c) r/w 28 r/w 23(c) of the NDPS Act. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
The trial Court has ordered the sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently and the trial Court has also ordered set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
2. The facts briefly narrated necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Appeal, are as follows:
2.1. Ex.P.33 is the complaint filed by P.W.6 for the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 21, 28 and 29 punishable under Sections 21(c), 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The contents of the complaint read that the Narcotic Control Bureau (in short 'NCB'), South Zonal Unit, Chennai has received a specific information on 22.02.2006 that "one Farook Mohideen Sameer @ Camli Singhe @ Sameer @ Sami @ Smir Srilankan is indulging in drug trafficking between India and Srilanka through Pudumadam coast of Ramnad District, Tamil Nadu with the assistance of one Kuripatti Muniswamy of Rameswaram who is also involved in the recent seizure of 17 Kgs of Heroin by NCB, Chennai at Ramnad District; the said Samir has engaged one Abdul Rahim, a Chennai based film side actor to collect the Heroin from one Ashim @ Ashiq of Mumbai; the said Abdul Rahim has gone to Mumbai with one Sheik Babu @ S.K.Babu and procured about 1.5 Kgs of Heroin concealed in a water can and is bringing the same to Madurai by bus via Bangalore and expected to reach Madurai in the night of 22/23.02.2006 and will hand over the stuff to the said Muniswamy for smuggling out to Samir of Srilanka; the said Abdul Rahim is a film side actor who acted in the film Tirupachi and will be stout with belly, broad forehead and long hair in punk style".
2.2. Mr.K.Raghavan, Assistant Director of NCB, has conveyed the said information to P.W.1 - Shri N.S.Dev, Superintendent RIU, Trivandrum camping at Madurai over phone. A team of Officers of the NCB, based on the said information, under the leadership of P.W.1 along with two independent witnesses (P.W.4 and another), went to Arapalayam Bus Stand, at Madurai and the team headed by P.W.1 mounted surveillance in that place from 22.00 hours on 22.02.2006 and at about 03.15 hours on 23.02.2006, a public Transport Bus belonging to Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation plying between Bangalore and Nagercoil reached Arapalayam Bus Stand and one person, having appearance similar to that of the information received, accompanied by another person alighted from the said bus and they were in possession of baggage.
2.3. The Officers of the team identified themselves and disclosed the information and the purpose for which, they were present and commenced enquiry. The said two persons who had alighted from the said bus, disclosed their names as Abdul Rahim (A-1) and Sheik Babu @ Babu (A-2). The Officers expressed their intention to check the baggage brought by them under the provisions of NDPS Act and also explained to them their rights under Section 50 of NDPS Act by stating that if they wish, the search to be conducted in the presence of a Judicial Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, they can do so. However, both the accused declined to do so and informed them that they themselves can search them. The Officers also told them
