The court upheld the conviction under the NDPS Act for drug transportation, emphasizing compliance with procedural laws and confirming the recovery evidence as robust.

JUDGMENT :

1. The sole accused in C.C.No.31 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, has filed this Criminal Appeal before this Court challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him in the impugned judgment dated 07.10.2023. The conviction and sentence is as follows:

2. According to the prosecution, on 18.05.2013 at about 03.15 p.m, P.W.2 received the secret information regarding transportation of Ganja by the appellant. He recorded the said information in the General Diary and informed the same to his superior/P.W.3 and obtained the permission and proceeded to the occurrence place along with his team and the informer. The informant identified the accused, who was coming in a black colour Hero Honda Passion two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-60-K-7485. On seeing the police party, the appellant left the scene of occurrence. However, P.W.2 and his team surrounded the appellant and made a search on him under Ex.P1/Search Consent Letter and recovered the contraband of 6 Kgs of Ganja in a white colour plastic gunny bag and took the sample following the procedure stated in the NDPS Act. Then, they arrested the accused and taken him to the Station and registered the case and produced the accused along with the contraband before the learned Judicial Magistrate and the investigation was continued by the Investigating Officer and he filed the final report after obtaining the Chemical Analysis Report and examining the witnesses. The learned trial Judge has taken the same on file in C.C.No.31 of 2016.

3. After appearance of the accused, copies of records were furnished to him under Section 20 7 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Judge, on perusal of records and on hearing both sides and being satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the accused/appellant, framed charges under Sections 8 (c) r/w 20(b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act, and the same was read over and explained to him and on being questioned, the accused/appellant denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood for trial.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined 3 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and exhibited 12 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and marked three material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.3.

5. When the accused was examined under Section 313(1) (b) of Cr.P.C., with regard to incriminating aspects against him, he denied the evidence as false and further stated that a false case was foisted against him. The accused neither produced any documents nor examined any witness on his side.

6. The learned Trial Judge, considering the materials and circumstances found that accused in C.C.No.31 of 2016 was guilty and passed the conviction and sentence against the appellant as stated above.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:-

7.1. There was a huge delay in producing the contraband before the Court below and the same was not properly explained and hence, there is a doubt over the recovery of the contraband.

7.2. He further submitted that there is no compliance of Sections 42 & 50 of NDPS Act, in letter and spirit. Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant is to be set aside.

7.3. Non examination of the independent witnesses is an additional circumstance which creates doubt over the recovery of the contraband as alleged by the prosecution.

7.4. There was no complia