Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Veerendran – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. By the Inspector Of Police – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background details of the case and charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. prosecution's overview and defense arguments. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court analysis of evidence presented. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. examination of prosecution's inconsistencies. (Para 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. defense claims of illegal custody and evidence evaluation. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 6. procedural failures and implications on conviction. (Para 36 , 38 , 39) |
| 7. final ruling on acquittal and order. (Para 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
Since the appellants in all the three appeals were arrayed as accused in the same crime number, these appeals are taken up together for hearing and disposed by way of this common judgment.
2.The appellants are the accused in C.C.No. 389 of 2021 on the file of the First Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of NDPS Cases, Madurai They have filed these appeals challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on them for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) r/w 8(c) of the NDPS Act , to undergo 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, in default to undergo 12 months’ rigorous impris
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.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and failures to comply with statutory procedures or provide corroborating evidence undermine convictions.
Strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) and 42(2) of the NDPS Act is required, and the prosecution must establish the accused's conscious possession of the contraband.
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.
The conviction and sentence for illegal possession of narcotics were upheld as the prosecution demonstrated compliance with legal procedures and sufficient evidence of possession.
The court affirmed that possession of 201 kilograms of ganja established under the NDPS Act sufficed for conviction, confirming that procedural safeguards were adhered to despite the absence of indep....
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
