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) 2567

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Mohammed Imran Mansoori & Others - Appellant
Versus
State by, The Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Chennai Zonal Unit - Respondent
Crl.A.Nos. 831, 900 & 909 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.No. 8458 of 2020 & Crl.M.P.No. 12973 of 2021
Decided On : 17-08-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:R.C. Paul Kangaraj, Charles, Advocates. For the Respondent: N.P.Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor (NDPS Act).

Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, admissibility of accused statements, and applicability of Section 50 of the Act.

Headnote:

Criminal Appeals - NDPS Act - Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, r/w Section 36-B of NDPS Act, 1985 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 8(c) r/w Section 21(c), Section 8(c) r/w Section 23, Section 8(c) r/w Section 25, Section 8(c) r/w Section 29, Section 8(c) r/w Section 27(A), Section 8(c) r/w Section 28 - The court discussed the compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the delay in sending the samples to the court, and the admissibility of accused statements. The court also considered the evidence of personal search, seizure, and the applicability of Section 50 of the Act. The court confirmed the conviction and sentence for most charges but set aside the charge under Section 8(c) read with 28 of the NPDS Act.

Fact of the Case:

The Narcotic Control Bureau received information about trafficking of Heroin. The accused were found in possession of Heroin and were charged under various sections of the NDPS Act. The Trial Court found all accused guilty and imposed rigorous imprisonment and fines.

Finding of the Court:

The court found compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act not applicable due to the seizure of contraband from a bag and personal search. The court also found no undue delay in sending the samples to the court. The court confirmed most of the convictions and sentences but set aside one charge.

Issues: Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, delay in sending samples to the court, admissibility of accused statements, applicability of Section 50 of the Act, and the evidence of personal search and seizure.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 50 of the Act was not applicable due to the nature of the seizure and personal search. The court also found no undue delay in sending the samples to the court. The court confirmed most of the convictions and sentences but set aside one charge.

Final Decision: The court partly allowed the Criminal Appeals, setting aside one charge and confirming the conviction and sentence for other charges. The court also modified the default sentence for non-payment of fine.

Judgement Key Points

Court Observations on Key Issues

1. Applicability and Compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act

The court observed that Section 50 was not applicable because the contraband (Heroin) was seized from a gray-colored airbag handed over by the accused, which was kept in the cupboard of Room No.104, and thus not recovered from the "person" of the accused. Although a personal search of each accused was conducted (recovering items like mobile phones, driving licenses, PAN cards, etc.), the mandate of Section 50 does not extend to such recoveries from bags or non-personal sources. The court noted that even if rights under Section 50 were informed, the seizure's nature rendered compliance unnecessary. Submissions on lack of individual appraisal in the known language or absence of written waivers were rejected as meritless. [21001454440012]

2. Delay in Sending Samples/Contraband to Court and Chain of Custody

No undue delay was found. The seized contraband was produced before the Judicial Magistrate at the time of remand, but the Magistrate refused custody due to lack of facilities and directed production before the Special Court. It was stored in a godown (entry on 27.03.2014 at 7:30 hours per Ex.P-8) and produced before the Special Court on 01.04.2014 (Ex.P-46). Evidence from PW.5, PW.7, and PW.8 confirmed safe custody, with no suspicion on identity of samples or contraband. At the time, no specific procedural directions (e.g., immediate production under Form 95) existed, so no prejudice to defense was caused. [21001454440013][21001454440014]

3. Admissibility of Accused Statements

Statements recorded by PW.5 were not relied upon for proving certain charges (e.g., under Section 8(c) r/w 28 for export to Maldives), as they were deemed inadmissible. Only secret information and accused conduct supported other charges. [21001454440017]

4. Proof of Seizure, Conspiracy, and Other Charges

  • Seizure: Proved via PW.2 (seizing officer), independent witnesses (PW.6, PW.7), field test confirming Heroin, and forensic analysis (PW.9). Minor contradictions (e.g., bag color) did not vitiate proceedings.
  • Conspiracy (Section 8(c) r/w 29): Proved by accused being together in the room, admitting possession, procuring Heroin from Rajasthan, and presence of Rs.3 lakhs cash for purchase—no need for call logs.
  • Section 8(c) r/w 21(c): Proved by commercial quantity of Heroin seized.
  • Section 8(c) r/w 25 (A3): Proved by hotel register (Ex.P-43) showing A3 booked the room for contraband storage.
  • Section 8(c) r/w 27A: Trial court acquitted; upheld.
  • Section 8(c) r/w 28 (A3-A5): Not proved (relied solely on inadmissible statements). [21001454440015][21001454440016][21001454440017]

5. Sentence and Default Fine

Minimum sentence of 10 years RI + Rs.1 lakh fine per count (concurrent) confirmed as appropriate for commercial quantity offenses. Set-off under Section 428 CrPC allowed. Default sentence modified to 1 month RI consecutively per count (instead of 1 year), considering 8 years' incarceration and inability to pay fine. [21001454440018][21001454440019]

6. Final Outcome

Appeals partly allowed: Conviction under Section 8(c) r/w 28 set aside; others confirmed with modified default sentence. No procedural lapses caused prejudice; prosecution discharged burden. [21001454440020] (!) (!) (!)


JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer : Criminal Appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, r/w Section 36-B of NDPS Act, 1985, prayed to set aside the conviction of the appellants in C.C.No.40 of 2014, dated 11.10.2019 by the Learned Special Court, under EC Act/NDPS Act, Coimbatore by allowing this appeal.)

Common Judgment:

On 24.03.2014, at about 23.00 hours, P.W.8/Mr.Saravanan, the Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau (in short NCB), Chennai Zonal Unit, received information in the office of NCB, phone number viz., 044-26821481 that two individuals by name Bright Fernando and D.Pio of Tuticorin were engaged in trafficking of Heroin with the assistance of Nanda @ Nandakumar of Thiruchendur. The said Nanda had arranged the Heroin from the duo of Rajasthan namely Mohammed Imran (A1) and Akil Ahammed (A2). They brought approximately one kilogram of Heroin to the M.P.Lodge, in Room No.104 in Udumalpet, Tiruppur District at 08.00 hours on 25.03.2014. From there, Bright Fernando and Pio are further trafficking to Maldives through one Francis of Tuticorin. P.W.8, reduced the said information into writing vide Ex.P2 and submitted the same to the PW- 4, the Superintendent of NCB, Chennai.

2. Thereupon, P.W.4/Santhanu Aich, Superintendent of NCB, Chennai, directed P.W.2/Mr.Aravind, Intelligence Officer, NCB, Chennai to take necessary action. P.W.2, upon receiving the entire information over phone at 23.30 hours on 24.03.2014 and upon receipt of the information in Ex.P-2 by email, took the printout of Ex.P-2 and signed over the same. On 25.03.2014, P.W.2 along with the Team of NCB Officers proceeded to search at M.P.Lodge, in Udumalpet at 08.15 hours. He then contacted P.W.6/Balamurgan, P.W.7/Thiyagarajan, who were present at the reception of the hotel and they agreed to be independent witnesses. Thereafter, he verified with the Receptionist that Room No.104 was booked in the name of Nandakumar, and they went to the said Room and pressed the calling bell. The persons inside the Room, opened the door and upon confirmation whether they are in possession of Heroin, all the five accused persons in the Room, admitted to possessing one kilogram of Heroin as two slabs kept in an Air Bag in the Room. Thereafter, P.W.2 explained to each one of them their rights, under the NDPS Act, and they have the right to be searched before the Learned Judicial Magistrate or Gazatted Officer. He conveyed the said information in Tamil and Hindi, with the help of fellow officers. The accused offered themselves to be searched by the NCB Officers. Thereafter, all the five accused gave a gray colour Airbag, stating that Heroin was in it. P.W.2 upon receiving the Airbag found two black colour covered packets. After opening the polythene packings, he found brown colour powder, which was tested using a field detection kit and it answered positively for Heroin Narcotic Drug. On the reason of believing that brown colour powder was Heroin, P.W.2 had seized the entire brown powder and one sample each was drawn from both the bulk quantity of contraband and they were sealed and packed. P.W.2 also conducted a search in Room No.104 and recovered cash of Rs.3 Lakhs, which was the money brought to buy the Heroin, and that was also seized, and placed in paper covers according to the denominations. Thereafter, a personal search was made in respect of each of the accused and Mobile phone, Driving license, Pan Card, Bank debit cards, Ticket for travel, etc., were seized from the accused. All the seizures were made by preparation of due Mahazar and he also gave a detailed report to P.W.4/Santhanu Aich, Superintendent of NCB, as per Section 57 of the NDPS Act.

3. P.W.5/Rajan Kumar, the Intelligence Officer, NCB, reported the voluntary statements given by each of the five accused and they were arrested and sent for Judicial custody. P.W.5 was handed over all the relevant documents by the Seizing Officer. Thereupon, the Investigation was completed and the complain

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