The prosecution established the appellant's conscious possession of narcotics, validating the conviction despite procedural non-compliance, as substantial evidence supported the case.

JUDGMENT :

K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

1. The appellant, who is the first accused in C.C.No.63 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Madurai filed this criminal appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him by the Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Madurai. The learned trial Judge has passed the impugned order, dated 23.12.2020 and found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as detailed below:

2. The brief facts of the case:

On 31.08.2016 at about 17.40 hours, on receiving the information by the intelligence Officer/P.W.1, Narcotics Control Bureau, Madurai, the NCB officials along with two independent witnesses namely Mohamed (P.W.3) and One Selvam went to Chittampatti fly over on Trichy-Madurai Highways, where they intercepted the offending car and accused persons. After introduction, the officer seized totally 85 kgs Ganja packed in 34 packets from them. They also drawn two samples 25 gms from each packets. Thereafter, summons was issued under Section 67 of Narcotic Drug Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as “NDPS Act”), to the accused persons and on 01.09.2016, the intelligence officer obtained the voluntary statement from them. Thereafter, the Intelligent Officer arrested the accused persons and sent him for remand. Thereafter, the investigation was taken by the Intelligence Officer and he examined various witnesses and collected documents and necessary FSL report and completed the investigation. After completion of the investigation, the Intelligence Officer has filed a complaint against the appellant and another accused for the alleged offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c), 27(A), 28 and 29 of NDPS Act. Thereafter, the Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, has taken on file in C.C.No.63 of 2017.

3. The learned trial judge after appearance of the accused served the copies under Section 207 of 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.

4. To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 and exhibited 38 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.38 and produced 108 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.108. Thereafter, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating materials and evidence against them and they denied the same as false and thereafter, the case was posted for defence evidence. The accused neither produced any documents nor examined any witnesses on their side.

5. The learned trial Judge, on considering the evidences and witnesses, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as stated supra. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant preferred this appeal.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that P.W.1 received the secret information on 31.08.2016 at about 17.40 hours stating that the appellant and another accused namely, A2 were carrying the substantial quantity of Ganja in the grey colour Tata Indica Car. Thereafter, the said information was reduced in writing and was conveyed to the Superintendent in charge NCB, Madurai Camp at NCB, Cochin, through the telephone. After receipt of the said informa