SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 2140

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. VELMURUGAN, J.
K. Bala & Others - Appellant
Versus
State represented by The Intelligence Officer, Chennai - Respondent
Crl.A. Nos. 18 & 245 of 2019
Decided On : 28-06-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:B. Kumar, Senior Counsel & R. Vijayakumar, G. Murugendran, Advocates. For the Respondent: N.P. Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor.

Compliance with mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act, sufficiency of evidence, and re-appreciation of evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:

NDPS Act - Conviction under Sections 8(c) r/w 29, 22(c) and 28 - Summary of Acts and Sections: NDPS Act, 1985 - The court discussed the compliance of mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act, admissibility of statements recorded under Section 67, and the sufficiency of evidence to prove guilt. Key legal provisions such as Section 50 of the NDPS Act were interpreted to establish compliance and absence of violations. The court's decision was influenced by the re-appreciation of evidence, finding guilt based on documentary evidence, and confirming the conviction and sentence.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the seizure of Methamphetamine from the accused A1, A2, A3, and A4 based on information received by the Intelligence Officer. The prosecution presented witnesses, documents, and material objects to prove the case. The appellants denied the charges, and no defense evidence was presented.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the appellants guilty based on the re-appreciation of evidence, compliance with mandatory provisions, and sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt. The court dismissed the appeals and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence.

Issues: The issues revolved around violations of mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act, admissibility of statements recorded under Section 67, contradictions in evidence, and sufficiency of proof for the charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the compliance of mandatory provisions, sufficiency of evidence, and re-appreciation of the entire material to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Final Decision: The criminal appeals were dismissed, and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court was confirmed. The appellants were directed to undergo the remaining period of imprisonment, if any.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: These Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned I Additional Special Judge for NDPS Act, Chennai, in C.C.No.28 of 2016 dated 06.12.2018.)

Common Judgment:

1. These criminal appeals have been filed against the judgment of conviction passed by the learned I Additional Special Judge for NDPS Act, Chennai, in C.C.No.28 of 2016 dated 06.12.2018.

2. The respondent police registered a case against all the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 29, 8(c) r/w 22(c) & 8(c) r/w 28 and against the accused 2 to 4 for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 27(A) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter, referred to as ”NDPS ACT”). The learned Special Judge taken cognizance of the complaint in C.C.No.28 of 2016 and after completing formalities, since found prima facie case against the appellants, framed charges for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 29, 22(c) and 28 of NDPS Act, 1985, against A1 and Section 8(c) r/w 29, 22(c), 27A and 28 of NDPS Act, against A2 to A4.

3. Before the trial Court, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, as many as 8 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.8, 69 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P69, besides 8 material objects were exhibited as M.O.1 to M.O.8. After completing examination of prosecution witnesses, when incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses were put before the accused by questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C, they denied the same as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was let in.

4. After completion of trial, hearing arguments advanced on either side and after perusal of the records, the trial Court found A1 guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w Section 29(1), 22(c) and 28 of NDPS Act, 1985 and found A2 to A4 guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 29(1) and 28 of NDPS Act. Therefore, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced all the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each for each of the offences, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year for each default.

5. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the appellants have preferred these criminal appeals before this Court.

6. Case of the prosecution is that when Jayamaran, Intelligence Officer, who was examined as P.W.1, was on duty in NCB, Chennai, on 21.12.2015 at about 19.20 hours, received information that one Jeevan of Nellore, who makes Methamphetamine, has already supplied around 5 Kgs of Methamphetamine to his counterparts namely Thameem Anwar and Mohammed Zahir (Oomakka Zahir @ Zahir) in Chennai, who are indulging in trafficking of Methamphetamine between Chennai and Tuticorin along with their carrier K.Bala, who is the resident of Ennore, and the Bala has collected the Methamphetamine and is about to leave for Tuticorin around 20.30 hours tonight through Vivegam Travels bus from Koyambedu Omni Bus stand and if surveillance is mounted at Koyambedu omni bus stand, the above said persons may be identified and the contraband may be seized.

6.1. Based on the information and after discussion with the Superintendent, NCB, Chennai, constituted a team with the officers of NCB, led by P.W.1 and the team reached at Vivegam Travels Office. P.W.1 introduced himself and the team members to the staff of Vivegam Travels and revealed the information received by him and requested them to stand as witness for the search and seizure, for which they also accepted. P.W.1 and the team along with the witnesses, were watching the platform, where the bus to Tuticorin was parked and after a few minutes a person matching the description of A1 carrying blue and black backpack came for boarding the bus.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top