Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 3175
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
Mareeswaran & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by The Inspector of Police, Karimedu Police Station, Madurai - Respondent
Crl.A.(MD). Nos. 492 & 500 of 2022 & 347 & 577 of 2023 & Crl.M.P(MD). Nos. 9389 of 2022 & 6730 of 2023
Decided On : 03-10-2023
The court affirmed that procedural compliance under the NDPS Act is essential, yet lapses may not void convictions if substantial evidence supports the prosecution's case.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)
(C), 25, 29(1) - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 374 - Conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants for possession of 25 kg of Ganja - Conviction upheld despite arguments on non-compliance with procedural requirements and questioning of evidence - Trial Court's findings noted for requiring corroboration, conscious possession established beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 6.1-21.2)
(B) Compliance of NDPS Act Sections 50 and 57 - Procedures for contraband recovery and subsequent processes deemed satisfactory, with significant evidence provided by police officers involved. (Paras 16-21)
(C) Non-examination of independent witnesses - Not deemed fatal to prosecution's case; evidence of police officers considered credible. (Paras 17.1-17.3)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appellants were charged with trafficking a significant quantity of narcotics. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. the court provided a detailed account of the legal proceedings and previous convictions. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments presented by the defense questioned the procedural integrity of the case. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. the evidence presented by the prosecution was considered reliable and credible. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. judgment emphasized that compliance with ndps act provisions was observed. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. conclusions drawn by court supported by substantial and credible evidence. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 7. questions regarding procedural lapses did not undermine prosecution's case. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 8. court upheld sentence on previous culpable involvement of defendants. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 9. final decision dismissed appeals based on lack of merit. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 10. reiterated that all critical points raised were sufficiently addressed. (Para 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT
(Prayers: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , to call for the records relating to the judgment dated 22.07.2022 in C.C.No.267 of 2020 on the file of the learned II-Additional Special Court for EC and NDPS Act cases, Madurai and set aside the same.)
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , to call for the records relating to the judgment dated 22.07.2022 in C.C.No.267 of 2020 on the file of the Learned IIAdditional Special Court for EC and NDPS Act cases, Madurai and set aside the same.
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , to call for the records relating to the judgment and conviction dated 22.07.2022 in C.C.No.267 of 2020 on the file of the Learned II-Additional Special Court for EC and NDPS Act cases, Madurai and set aside the same.
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , to call for the records relating to the judgment and conviction dated 22.07.2022 in C.C.No.267 of 2020 on the file of the Learned II-Additional Special Court for EC and NDPS Act cases, Madurai and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants.)
Common Judgment:
Since these criminal appeals are arising out of the same crime, these appeals are taken up for hearing together and disposed of by way of common judgment.
1. The appellants are said to have committed the offence under Sections 8 (c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act') for the alleged possession of 25 kg of Ganja. The II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai convicted the appellants in Spl.C.C.No.267 of 2020 under Section 8 (c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act by its judgment dated 22.07.2022 and sentenced them to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, in default to undergo 1 year Simple Imprisonment each for the offence under Sections 8 (c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Challenging the same, the appellants filed these criminal appeals.
Crl.A. (MD)No.
C.C.No.
Rank of the accused
Conviction under Section
Sentence
Fine amount with default sentence
499 of 2022
267 of 2020
Accused No-3
8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act
10years Rigorous Imprisonment
Rs.1,00,000/- each, in default to undergo 1 year Simple Imprisonment
347 of 2023
267 of 2020
Accused No-1
8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act
10years Rigorous Imprisonment
Rs1,00,000/- each, in default to undergo 1 year Simple Imprisonment
500 of 2022
267 of 2020
Accused No-6
8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act
10years Rigorous Imprisonment
Rs1,00,000/- each, in default to undergo 1 year Simple Imprisonment
577 of 2023
267 of 2020
Accused Nos-4 & 5
8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act
10years Rigorous Imprisonment
Rs1,00,000/- each, in default to undergo 1 year Simple Imprisonment
Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal, are as follows:
2. According to the prosecution, the appellants have conspired together to procure Ganja from Tenkasi District and transport
