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) 3563

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
Vasu Deva Vimal KaliPerumal - Appellant
Versus
The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai Zonal Unit, Chennai - Respondent
Crl.A.No. 719 of 2022 & Crl.M.P.No. 9362 of 2022
Decided On : 02-09-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:R.C. Paul Kanagaraj, Advocate. For the Respondent: N.P. Kumar, Special Public Prosecutor for NCB Cases.

The evidentiary value of oral testimony and circumstantial evidence in establishing guilt under the NDPS Act.

Headnote:

NDPS Act - Conviction under Section 8(c) r/w. 22(b) and Section 8(c) r/w. 28 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the prosecution's failure to establish the appellant's connection to the first consignment and found him guilty for the second consignment. The judgment referenced the NDPS Act, specifically Section 8(c) r/w. 22(b) and Section 8(c) r/w. 28, and highlighted the evidentiary value of oral testimony and the significance of the consignment address in establishing guilt.

Fact of the Case:

The prosecution failed to establish the appellant's connection to the first consignment but found him guilty for the second consignment. The appellant's plea for leniency in sentencing due to his imprisonment period and financial constraints was considered by the court.

Finding of the Court:

The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's connection to the first consignment, leading to his acquittal for that offense. However, the appellant was found guilty for the second consignment and sentenced accordingly.

Issues: The key issue was the prosecution's failure to establish the appellant's connection to the first consignment and the subsequent conviction for the second consignment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of establishing foundational facts and the evidentiary value of oral testimony and circumstantial evidence in drug-related cases.

Final Decision: The appellant's conviction for the first consignment was set aside, and he was found guilty for the second consignment. The substantive sentence was modified to the period already undergone, and the default sentence for non-payment of fine was imposed.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records and set aside the conviction of the appellant in C.C.No.39 of 2014, dated 28.06.2022, by the Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai, by allowing this appeal.)

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 28.06.2022, passed by the learned Principal Special Judge, Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai, in C.C.No.39 of 2014.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 22.12.2013, Mr.Sathish Kumar (P.W.8) received an information from M/s.Aramex India Private Limited, Ekkaduthangal, Chennai, that there were two consignments booked in respect of the same address in Malaysia, one in the name of Mr.Suresh, another in the name of one Mohammed Bin Hakim, both being booked by two different persons. The said information was reduced into writing by P.W.1/The Intelligence Officer, NCB, Chennai Zonal Unit, and after duly informing the superior officials, P.W.1, on being directed to take necessary action, reached the office of the informant, namely, M/s.Aramex India Private Limited, at around 01.30 p.m., and in the presence of independent witnesses, examined the parcels and he found concealed inside the heel of the shoes, white colour crystal powder duly packed, and upon testing the same with the Drug Detection Kit, it answered positive for Amphetamine. The first parcel weighed 38 grams. After drawing two samples of 5 grams each, the remaining 28 grams of the white colour crystal powder was sealed with NCB Seal No.11 and marked as P1.

3. Thereafter, P.W.1 proceeded to examine the second parcel, and in a similar manner, recovered white colour crystal powder from the cavity of the sole of both the shoes, weighing 44 grams, and again taking out two samples of 5 grams each and marking it as S1 and S2, the balance was sealed with NCB Seal No.11 and marked as P1.

4. In respect of both the parcels, the incriminating materials such as Airways Bills, Invoices and Visa in the name of the appellant/accused and the copy of the Driving Licence in the name of one Sabifullah, S/o.Shawkkath Ali, No.6, Pallivasal Kadu First Street, Eluppur, Kulathur, Jayankondam, Perambalur, were also seized. Thereafter, a LOC, dated 22.12.2013, in respect of the appellant/accused was issued to the Bureau of Immigration in New Delhi on the basis of the seized copy of the Visa. On the basis of the information, on 09.01.2014, the appellant/accused was detained by the Bureau of Immigration, Bengaluru. Thereupon, summons under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act” for brevity) was issued to the appellant/accused and he is said to have given voluntary statement, admitting the conscious possession and booking of the above said parcels. Upon issue of summons and examination of the said Sabifulla, he had given a statement that he had only booked consignments of wedding invitation, earlier in the year 2013, and at that time, he had handed over the photocopy of his Driving Licence. After further investigation in this case, it was concluded that the appellant/accused somehow got the copy of the said Driving Licence and misused the same for booking the first consignment. P.W.12 completed the investigation and filed a complaint before the Special Court/Principal Special Judge under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai, which was taken on file as C.C.No.39 of 2014.

5. Thereupon, on the basis of the materials on record, the trial Court framed four charges under Section 8(c) r/w. 22(c) of the NDPS Act, Section 8(c) r/w. 23(c) of the NDPS Act, Section 8(c) r/w. 28 of the NDPS Act and Section 8(c) r/w. 29 of the NDPS Act. The accused denied the charges and stood trial. So as to bring home the charges, P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined on the side of the prosecution and Exs.P1 to P81 were marked. The prosecution also produced M.O.s.1 to 10. Upon being questioned about the material e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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