JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 30.12.2020, in C.C.No.27 of 2019 on the file of the Special Court for EC/NDPS Act Cases, Salem.

2.The case of the prosecution is that, on 26.03.2019 at about 15.00 hours, the appellant/accused was in possession of 1.200 kg of Ganja at Hanumanthapuram graveyard in Karimangalam, Dharmapuri District, valued about Rs.12,000/- and hence, he was arrested by the respondent police and thereafter, he was charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

3.While framing the charges, the accused/appellant pleaded guilty. Based on the same, the trial Court convicted the accused/appellant under Sections 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment.

4.Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal before this Court.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused submitted that the charge framed against the appellant / accused is grave in nature. The trial Court, without any material, used its discretion mechanically. The trial Court ought not to have proceeded to convict the appellant / accused without directing the prosecution to prove all the charges. The learned counsel submitted that the entire process of the trial Court is vitiated in view of the decision of this Court reported in (2016) 4 MLJ (Crl) 378 (in the case of Gopal v. Inspector of Police, Machinakudi Police Station, Koodalur, Nilgiris District) and an unreported judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal (MD) No.171 of 2008, dated 10.03.2015, in the case of Chithira v. Inspector of Police, B-7, Thideer Nagar (L & O) Police Station, Madurai City.

6.Mr.J.C.Durairaj, learned counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Crl. Side), submitted that, considering the gravity of the offence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8.The Division Bench of this Court in (2016) 4 MLJ (Crl) 378 (cited supra) has held as follows:

“14.In the Constitution of India, several provisions have been enshrined for the purpose of ensuring the dignity of the individual and providing for his material, moral and spiritual development. These provisions would be meaningless and ineffectual unless there is rule of law to invest them with life and force. What is the necessary element of the rule of law is that the law must not be arbitrary and irrational and it must satisfy the test of reasons. Article 21 is the heart of all these provisions which guarantees dignified life and personal liberty. It mandates that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to fair, just and reasonable procedure established by law or in its converse positive form, a person may be deprived of his life or personal liberty in accordance with fair, just and reasonable procedure established by a valid law. Unfortunately, the discretion vested in the court under Section 229 of the new Code is in tune with Article 21 of the Constitution of India to ensure a fair trial to an accused. Section 229 of the new Code, of course, makes it mandatory that if the accused pleads guilty, the Court shall record the said plea. If once it is so recorded, the latter part of Section 229 of the new Code makes it undoubtedly clear that in its discretion, the court may convict the accused thereon. How the discretion should be exercised by the court has not been defined or no guidelines have been formulated by the legislature. The exercise of such undefined discretion is always more difficult and uncertain. It is left to the Judge to grope in the dark for himself and in the exercise of his unguided and unfettered discretion decide what reasons may be cons