BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. PONGIAPPAN, J.
Lakshmanan, S/o. Ammavasai & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Kambam Police Station, Theni - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 33 of 2016
Decided On : 23-08-2021
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 8(c) r/w. Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and Section 8(c) r/w. Section 25, 50(1), 57, 50 - Criminal Procedural Code, 1973 - Section 313 – Criminal Appeal - Appellants 1 to 4 are arrayed as A1 to A4 in above referred case - They stood charged for offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w. Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and Section 8(c) r/w. Section 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Whether recovered contraband alone has been produced before Court – Held, ruling is made clear that because of reason that Informant had conducted investigation alone is not sufficient to acquit accused from charge - Herein, it is a case, there was no case on side of accused that Investigation Officer and accused are having previous enmity or some other disputes - So, without any motive, it is not necessary for Investigation Officer to foist a false case against accused, particularly, after recovering 100 Kgs. of Ganja - So, in all aspects, submissions made by appellants' counsel not at all having much force to disbelieve entire case of prosecution - However, it is case of prosecution that after securing alleged Innova vehicle during time when P.W.1 and P.W.7 attempted to search the vehicle, A2 and A3 were ran away from scene of occurrence. On other hand, in Mahazar prepared by P.W.7, i.e., intimation given to accused under Section 50 of NDPS Act, A2 and A3 have not signed as parties. They are implicated in this case only upon confession given by them before Police Officers. It is settled law that confession to a Police Officer is not a relevant factor to accept the entire prosecution case. In absence of recovery from A2 and A4, entire evidence put forth by prosecution is not establishing the fact that A2 to A4 are having the nexus with alleged crime - Therefore, in absence of nexus with crime, Court cannot hold that they are liable to be convicted under provisions of NDPS Act - Trial Court without considering same in proper perspective, concluded the trial and found A2 to A4 guilty under Section 8(c) r/w. Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and Section 8(c) r/w. Section 25 of NDPS Act and therefore, the said finding is liable to be reversed - Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence dated 14.12.2015, made in C.C.No.200 of 2014, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Principal Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai.
2. The appellants 1 to 4 are arrayed as A1 to A4 in the above referred case. They stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w. Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and Section 8(c) r/w. Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act [hereinafter referred to as ''the NDPS Act'']. After full-fledged trial, the learned trial Judge found the appellants/accused guilty under Section 8(c) r/w. Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and Section 8(c) r/w. Section 25 of the NDPS Act. Ultimately, all the accused were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w. Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Further, they were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w. Section 25 of the NDPS Act.
3. Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, all the accused are before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.
4. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 – Jeganathan is the Special Sub-Inspector of Police in Cumbum North Police Station and P.W.7 – Kumaresan was working as Inspector of Police in the same Police Station. On 18.05.2014 around 08.00 a.m., while P.W.7 was in the Police Station, an Informant appeared before him and informed about the transportation of Ganja. After getting the said information, P.W.7 recorded the same in the General Diary and through one Chandran, Head Constable, he informed the said information to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and obtained permission for conducting raid. On the same day, around 06.45 a.m., along with P.W.1 – Jeganathan and the Informant, P.W.7 reached Mandaiamman Kovil Water Tank in Cumbum City and around 07.00 a.m., when they were in the said area, a Car bearing Registration No.TN-59-AH-9394 came from east to west and the same was identified by the Informant. After identifying the Car, the Informant went away and thereafter, around 07.15 a.m., both P.W.7 and P.W.1 waylaid the said Car and while at the time of search, they found Accused Nos.1 to 3 are inside the Car. During enquiry, all the accused had given their respective addresses. On the same day, around 07.30 a.m., P.W.7 informed to A1 to A3 as there was a suspicion about transportation of Ganja in the said Car. In this regard, he informed the rights having by the accused to them that the search may be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or the learned Judicial Magistrate. In respect of the said information, all the accused replied to P.W.7 that they are not willing to go before any Officer. Further, they permitted P.W.7 for conducting search. The notice given by P.W.1 to the accused in respect of the rights having by them in terms of Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act, was reduced into writing, in which, the first accused has signed and the same was marked as Ex.P.1. Further, the permission given by the first accused for doing search was also reduced into writing and the same was marked as Ex.P.2.
4.1. During the time of search, since Accused Nos.2 and 3 ran away from the place of occurrence, the signature of the respective accused was not obtained in Exs.P.1 and P.2. In continuation of investigation, on the same day around 07.45 a.m., the first accused Lakhmanan voluntarily gave the confession statement, wherein P.W.1 and one another Police person had signed as witnesses. During the time of search, the first accused had produced 50 Bags of Ganja, weighing 2 Kgs. each. P.W.7 after seeing the same, collected 50 Gms. each from 50 Pockets and after sealing the same, assigned with serial numbers a
Arif Khan Vs. State of Uttarakhand
Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Pawan Kumar
State of Haryana Vs. Ranbir Alias Rana
Gurbax Singh Vs. State of Haryana
Mohan Lal vs. The State of Punjab
Varinder Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Mukesh Singh Vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi)
Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.