Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
K. Jagmal - Appellant
Versus
State by Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 630 of 2018
Decided On : 12-07-2022
NDPS Act - Conviction under Section 8(c) r/w Section 18(b) - Summary of Acts and Sections: NDPS Act, 1985 - Section 8(c), Section 18(b), Section 28, Section 29 - The court discussed the violation of Section 42, Section 50, Section 52, and Section 55 of the NDPS Act and their interpretations. The court also referred to various judgments to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of A-1 under Section 8(c) r/w Section 18(b) of the NDPS Act for possession of 5.5kg of opium. A-2 was acquitted. The evidence presented included the informant's tip, surveillance, search, and seizure of contraband from A-1, as well as the confession of A-2.
Finding of the Court:
The court found A-1 guilty of possession of a commercial quantity of opium and upheld the conviction. The court also modified the default sentence for non-payment of the fine from one year RI to three months RI.
Issues: The issues included the alleged violation of Section 42, Section 50, Section 52, and Section 55 of the NDPS Act, as well as the plea for reduction of the default sentence due to poverty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted and applied the provisions of the NDPS Act, considered the sequence of events, and evaluated the chain of custody of the seized contraband. The court also referred to relevant judgments to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, confirming the conviction and substantial sentence while modifying the default sentence for non-payment of the fine.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the judgment of the learned Principal Special Judge, Principal Special Court under NDPS Act cases made in C.C.No.2/2014, dated 27.03.2018.)
1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Court of NDPS Act Cases at Chennai in C.C.No: 2 of 2014, dated 27/03/2018.
2. Based on the complaint filed by the respondent against two persons viz K.Jagmal (A-1) and Shravan Kumar (A-2), Charges under Section 8(c) r/w 29 and Section 18(b) and Section 28 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(in short “NDPS Act”) against A-1 and Section 8(c) r/w 29, Section 18 (b) and Section 28 of the NDPS Act against A-2 were framed by the Special Court for NDPS Act cases in Chennai. After considering the evidence let in on behalf of the complainant, the Court held A-1 K.Jagmal guilty of offences under Section 8(c) r/w Section 18 (b) of NDPS Act and sentenced A-1 to undergo 10 years RI and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default, one year RI. A-2(Shravan Kumar) found not guilty and acquitted from all charges.
3. The case of the complainant as spoken by the witnesses:- PW-2–Thiru.Sharvanraj, Intelligence Officer, NCB, Chennai Zone Unit, while at his office at about 10.40 hrs on 03/07/2013, his informant told about illegal trafficking of opium from Jodhpur, Rajasthan to Chennai by one Jagmal aged about 35 years in Train No:16126 JU MS Express, which will reach Chennai at 16.55 hours. He after alighting the train at Chennai Egmore Station will go to Vasanth Bhavan opposite to Egmore Railway Station. On receipt of this information over phone, PW-2 typed the information (Ex.P-4) in his computer and submitted it to his immediate superior officer Mr.Santanu Aich, Superintendent. He, on receiving the information, instructed Mr.Sathish Kumar (PW-3) to take necessary action.
4. Accordingly, PW-3 along with a team left NCB office and reached Chennai Egmore railway Station at about 16.00 hrs. He went to GRP office, told about the information and requested K.Jagan and Kathiravan to be witnesses for the search proceedings. PW-3 and his team along with the witnesses and the informant kept survelliance near the exit gate of the Egmore Railway Station. At about 6.55 hrs, as the train arrived and passengers exiting out, the informant identified Jagmal. Then, PW-2 and his team intercepted Jagmal. Introduced themself and interrogated him about any possession of opium. The said Jagmal admitted possession of 5.5 kgs of opium. The search of the bag held by Jagmal, led to recovery of 5.5 kgs of opium from the trolly bag of Jagmal kept in 3 packets. Samples were drawn from each tested and confimed to opium. Before conducting the personal search of Jagmal, he was informed about his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the option of being searched before a gazetted officer or a Judicial Magistrate, Jagmal declined to exercise the option.
5. Jagmal voluntarily handed over the following articles:-
1. A samsung touch screen dual sim mobile with two SIM card and battery bearing IMEI No.35935104388143/601 & No.35935604388143/501.
2. Indian Currency of Rs.3100/- (Rupees Three Thousand and one hundred only)
3. One coin (inscribed 5 grams fine silver 999 on it) and one golden colouring as stated to be gold).
4. One identity card issued by Election Commission of Indian bearing No.RJ/24/185/192437 in the name of Jagmal.K., S/o Kesaram.
5. One PAN Card bearing No.AODPJ2232E issued by Income Tax Department in the name of Jagmal.K., S/o Kesaram.
6. One India Driving Licence (Tamil Nadu) DL No.TN/02 20110000758 in the name of Jagmal.K, S/o Kesaram.
7. One International Debit Card of Axis Bank bearing number 4688 0590 0153 5753, valid from 10/09 to 10/19 in the name of Jagmal.K., S/o Kesaram.
6. On weighing the parcels, one parcel was 3.5 kgs. The rest of the two packets were one kilogram each. Two sample
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the NDPS Act, including the requirements for search operations, personal search, and chain ....
Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, admissibility of accused statements, and applicability of Section 50 of the Act.
Non-compliance with the procedural requirements under Section 50 of NDPS Act is not applicable when contraband is recovered from a bag rather than a personal search.
The recovery from the accused's possession was valid, the testimonies of official witnesses were credible, and non-compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act did not affect the recovery from the accu....
Point of Law : Contrary to normal rule of criminal jurisprudence for presumption of innocence unless proved guilty - Rule shall not dispense with the requirement of the prosecution to having first es....
Seizure of Opium – Trivial discrepancies cannot demolish well-established prosecution case, in which recovery of substance from accused has been proved.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
