The conviction under the NDPS Act was upheld as the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, and procedural compliance was established.

JUDGMENT :

K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

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:

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. Thereafter, at 11.30 p.m, he proceeded to the occurrence place along with his team and the informer. At 12.30 p.m, they found five persons, who were coming in 3 two wheelers bearing Reg.Nos.TN-58-BC-9390, TN-58-AP-6669 and TN-58-AC-4767 and the informer identified them. On seeing them, P.W.3 surrounded the appellants and other three persons and made a search on them under Ex.P1/Search Consent Letter and recovered 22 Kgs of Ganja ( A1 & A2 -11 kg, A3 & A5 - 11 kg) from the accused in two white colour plastic gunny bags and sale consideration of Rs.7,300/- and took samples from each bag by following the procedure stated in the NDPS Act. Then, they arrested the accused and taken them to the Station and registered the case in Crime No.1466 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 8 (c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act under Ex.P.7 and produced the accused along with the contraband before the learned Judicial Magistrate and the investigation was continued by the Investigating Officer/P.W.4 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.16 of 2021.

4. After appearance of the accused, copies of records were furnished to them 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/appellants, framed charges under Sections 8 (c) r/w 20(b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act 1985, and the same was read over and explained to them and on being questioned, the accused/appellants denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood for trial.

5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined 4 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and exhibited 15 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 and marked 6 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.6.

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

7. The learned Trial Judge, considering the materials and circumstances found that the accused Nos.3 to 5 in C.C.No.16 of 2021 were not guilty, and acquitted