Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 47273
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
Arunpandi – Appellant
Versus
State, represented by the Inspector of Police, M4, Redhills Police Station, Chennai – Respondent
Crl.A.No.190 of 2023
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act Referred
Headnote
(C), 25, and 29(1) - Conviction of accused for transportation of contraband - Prosecution must prove the chain of custody and the legality of the FIR - Case lacked credible evidence as necessary procedures were flawed. (Paras 4, 5, 7, and 8)
(B) Fair Investigation - Necessity of distinct roles for informant and investigator - Overlap can violate principles of fair trial as it raises concerns of impartiality and evidence integrity. (Paras 6 and 7)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted under NDPS Act for transporting Ganja, however, significant procedural errors were identified, including discrepancies regarding the registration of the FIR that preceded the preparation of vital documentation.
Findings of Court:
The totality of flaws in the prosecution’s case created reasonable doubt leading to the quashing of convictions.
Issues: Whether the prosecution established proof beyond reasonable doubt and maintained procedural integrity in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the prosecution's failure to adequately establish the FIR's validity and the improper investigation compromised the case's integrity warranting acquittal.
Result: Appeal allowed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Karthikeyan for M/s.V.Karnan
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Raja Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction based on evidence of ganja transportation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. conviction overturned due to insufficient evidence. (Para 4) |
| 3. procedural discrepancies questioned the legitimacy of evidence. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. investigation integrity pivotal for a fair trial. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. final decision quashed earlier convictions. (Para 9) |
ORDER
This appeal has been preferred against the order passed in C.C.No. 32 of 2021, dated 13.02.2023, on the file of the Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai. Thereby, the first appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 8 (c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, and 29(1) of the NDPS Act and second appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under (c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 18.08.2020, at around 1:00 a.m., P.W.1 received secret information from an informer that two persons were coming through MA Nagar Toll Plaza and transporting Ganja in a Dost van bearing registration number TN64-P-1042. After submitting the information to the superior officer, P.W.1 obtained permission to proceed to the spot along with the police party, namely P.W.2, at about 1:15 a.m. They intercepted the said vehicle and upon enquiry, found that the second and third accused were in the vehicle and were in possession of 18 plastic gunny bags containing Ganja. Out of these 18 bags, 5 bags weighed 35 kgs each, 3 bags weighed 25 kgs each, 9 bags weighed 21 kgs each, and 1 bag weighed 21 kgs.
3. After following the formalities and taking samples, the entire contraband was seized and their confession statements were recorded. Thereafter, they were arrested and brought to the respondent police station with a special report. Based on the special report, the respondent registered Crime No. 3789 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 8 (c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985. After completion of the investigation, the respondent police filed the final report, and the same was taken into cognizance by the trial Court.
4. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 and marked Ex.P1 to P36. The prosecution also produced Material Objects No. 1 to 54. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no documents were marked before the trial Court to disprove the case of the prosecution. Upon perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellants guilty and sentenced them to undergo 12 years of rigorous imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,20,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, and in default, to undergo 6 months of rigorous imprisonment. Further, they were convicted and sentenced to undergo 5 years of rigorous imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section
8(c) r/w 29(1) of the NDPS Act, and in default, to undergo 6 months of rigorous imprisonment. Further, the first appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo 12 years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,20,000 for the offence under Section 8 (c) r/w 25 of the NDPS Act.
Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that even before the registration of the FIR, the crime number was mentioned in the seizure mahazar, arrest card, arrest memo. According to the prosecution's case, after the search and seizure, and the issuance of the arrest memo, the special report was prepared by P.W.1, and the accused were brought along with the contraband to the respondent police station. Thereafter, the respondent registered the FIR. However, the FIR crime number was mentioned in documents that were allegedly prepared prior to the registration of the FIR. Therefore, the very case of the prosecution itself is doubtful, and the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. The search notices of the
