Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 2340
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Shamsiyya Mohammed - Appellant
Versus
The Union Rep. by The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai - Respondent
Crl.A.No.1273 of 2023
Decided On : 02-01-2025
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr. P.G. Perumal Pandian.
For the Respondent : Mr. N.P. Kumar Special Public Prosecutor.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.P.G.Perumal Pandian
For the Respondent: Mr.N.P.Kumar Special Public Prosecutor.
The conviction under the NDPS Act was upheld, but the sentence was modified to time already served, emphasizing compliance with procedural safeguards during searches.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)
(B), 8(c) r/w 28 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 50 - Conviction under NDPS Act for possession of Hasish Oil - Appellant challenged conviction and sentence imposed for smuggling - Prosecution established case beyond reasonable doubt - Violation of Section 50(4) claimed but found unsubstantiated - Sentence modified to period already undergone with reduced default sentence. (Paras 2-11)
(B) Criminal Appeal - Scope of appellate review - Appellate court must reassess evidence but should not interfere with conviction unless trial court's findings are perverse or illegal. (Paras 10-11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, along with another, was intercepted at the airport with 970 gms of Hasish Oil concealed in shampoo bottles while attempting to smuggle it to Maldives. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the evidence presented.
Findings of Court:
The conviction was upheld, but the sentence was modified to the time already served, with a reduced default sentence for non-payment of fines.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the search under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the sufficiency of evidence to support the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found no violation of mandatory provisions during the search and confirmed the trial court's findings, emphasizing that minor contradictions do not undermine the prosecution's case.
Result: Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by A2 challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon her vide judgment dated 05.09.2023 in C.C.No.141 of 2019, on the file of the learned II Additional Special Judge (FAC), II Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under NDPS Act , Chennai.
2(i) It is the case of the prosecution that when PW1 the intelligence officer attached to the respondent was in his office on 13.07.2019 at about 21.30 hours, he received a secret information that two Maldivan nationals viz., the appellant/A2 and one Abdulla Aalim/A1 were indulging in smuggling of Hasish Oil; that they were carrying 1 Kg of Hasish Oil concealed in Shampoo bottles to Maldives; that they were leaving for Maldives in Srilankan Airlines flight UL 122 departing from Chennai on 14.07.2019 at about 10.00 a.m; that PW1 reduced the said information into writing marked as Ex.P1 and submitted the same to PW2; that PW1 along with the other member of the police party reached the Airport and intercepted the appellant/A2 and A1; that they found that two of them were proceeding to Maldives in the Srilankan Airlines; that PW1 explained the right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act , to the appellant/A2 and A1 and on the consent given by the accused, a search was conducted and the respondent found shampoo bottles in the suitcase of the appellant and inside the shampoo bottles, they found a silver coloured foil containing thick concentrated oil; that after test they found that the oil was Hasish Oil; that the appellant/A2 and A1 were in possession of 970 gms of Hasish Oil and after complying with the other formalities, registered the FIR and on investigation a final report was filed against the appellant/A1 and A2 for the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 29(1), 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B), 8(c) r/w 28 and 8(c) r/w 23 (b) of the NDPS Act , before the learned Principal Special Judge, NDPS Court, Chennai and was taken on file as C.C.No.141 of 2019.
(ii) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. . , were complied with and the case was made over to the learned II Additional Special Judge (FAC), II Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under NDPS Act , Chennai, for trial. The trial Court framed charges for the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 29(1), 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B), 8(c) r/w 28 and 8(c) r/w 23 (b) of the NDPS Act against the accused, and when questioned, the accused pleaded 'not guilty'.
(iii) To prove the case, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.6, marked 59 documents as Exs.P1 to P59 and marked 8 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.8. When the accused were questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C. . , on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the same. On the side of defence, no oral or documentary evidence was let in.
(iv) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt and held the appellant/A2 guilty of offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (B) and 8(c) r/w 28 of NDPS Act and sentenced her as follows:
| Offence under Section | Sentence imposed |
| 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (B) of NDPS Act | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs.80,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. |
| 8(c) r/w 28 of NDPS Act | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs.80,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. |
| The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. | |
The trial Court found A2 not guilty of the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 29(1) and 8(c) r/w 23(b) of the NDPS Act and acquitted her of the said offence. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, A2 has filed the instant appeal.
3. Heard, Mr.P.G.Perumal Pandian, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/A2, and Mr.N.P.Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent.
4. Mr.P.G.Perumal Pandian, the learned couns
