Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
Nagammal – Appellant
Versus
State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Karimedu Police Station, Madurai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Since these two appeals are arising out of the same occurrence and filed against the order of conviction made in C.C.No.16 of 2021 on the file of the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, these two appeals are taken up together for hearing and disposed of by way of this common judgment.
2. The appellants/A2 & A1 in C.C.No.16 of 2021 on the file of the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, have filed these Criminal Appeals before this Court challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against them in the impugned judgment dated 28.03.2023. The conviction and sentence is as follows:
| Appellants Rank | Conviction for the Offence under Section | Sentence of Imprisonment |
| A2 & A1 | 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act | 5 years R.I each and to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/- each in default to undergo 6 months S.I each |
3. According to the prosecution, on 05.10.2020 at about 11.00 a.m, P.W.3, Sub Inspector of Police, Karimedu Police Station, received the secret information regarding the smuggling of Ganja by the appellants. He recorded the said information in the General Diary/Ex.P.4 and informed the same to his superior/P.W.4 and obtained permission. Thereaft
The court confirmed the conviction under the NDPS Act, emphasizing proper procedural adherence, while mitigating the sentence due to the appellants' age and family responsibilities.
The conviction under the NDPS Act was upheld as the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, and procedural compliance was established.
The court upheld the conviction under the NDPS Act for drug transportation, emphasizing compliance with procedural laws and confirming the recovery evidence as robust.
The court confirmed the conviction under the NDPS Act, ruling that compliance with statutory provisions was sufficient, and reduced the sentence due to the appellant's age and health conditions.
Narcotics, Intoxicate and Liquor - Search and seizure – Investigation by Police officer - There is no legal proposition that evidence of police officials unless supported by independent evidence is u....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of complying with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly in relation to search, seizure, and sampling procedure....
The prosecution's failure to prove presence and possession of contraband due to inconsistencies and non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements under the NDPS Act led to acquittal.
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
