JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: These Criminal Appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. to call for the records in C.C.No.155 of 2020 dated 29.08.2022 on the file of the learned I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai and set aside the same.)

Common Judgment

1. These appeals have been filed to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the 1st Additional Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai, in C.C.No.155 of 2020 dated 29.08.2022.

2. Since the appellants in all the appeals were arrayed as accused No. 2 to 4 in the same crime number, these appeals are taken up together for hearing and disposed by way of this common judgment.

3. The appellants and other two accused are said to have committed offence under Sections 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c), of Narcotic Drug Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as “NDPS Act”). On 15.02.2020, at 05.00 a.m., when the appellants and other accused illegally transported 168 Kg., of Ganja in the car bearing registration No.TN-09-BW-5591, they were intercepted by the respondent police and made a search in the car. After the search, the said larger quantity of ganja was recovered as per the procedure stated in the NDPS Act. Thereafter, FIR was registered for the above alleged offence. Thereafter, they were produced before the Court along with the contraband and they were remanded to juridical custody. After completion of investigation, they filed final report in Crime No.13 of 2020 against the appellants and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (c), 27 A, 29(1) and 25 of NDPS Act. After receipt of the final report, the learned trial Judge had taken cognizance in C.C.No. 115 of 2020, on the file of the 1st Additional Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai.

4. The learned trial Judge after appearance of the accused served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Then, he framed necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood for trial.

5. To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 and exhibited 22 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22 and produced 34 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.34. During the recording of the evidence, the fifth accused namely Ramesh absconded and hence, the case as against him was split up in C.C.No.161 of 2021. Thereafter, all the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C proceedings for disclosing the incriminating evidence against them and they denied the same as false and thereafter, the case was posted for defence evidence. Neither the defence witness was examined nor documents were marked on the side of the appellants and other accused.

6. After considering the material adduced by the prosecution and also hearing the argument of the appellants and other accused, the trial Court acquitted A6 and convicted the appellants and other accused guilty for the offence under Sections 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act and sentenced them to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, in default to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment each. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals have been filed.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/A4 in Crl.A.(MD).No.733 of 2022 made the following submissions:

7.1. The learned trial Court failed to consider that there is no strict compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act. The Exhibits Proved the compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act, is not true and the same was fabricated one. The learned trial Judge failed to consider that there was a discrepancy between the evidence of the P.W.1, 2 and 4 relating to the recovery of the contraband. P.W.2 specifically stated that after receipt of the secret information, he recorded and sent the same to one Gurusamy, Head constable attached to the Jurisdictional DSP namely P.W.4. The said Gurusamy was not examined. Exs.P1 to P7 were belatedly produced. The case of the prosecut