The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, including compliance with procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06.06.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.A.No.135 of 2023

1. Mukundhan

2. Manu @ Mannaar ... Appellants Vs State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Thudiyalur Police Station, Coimbatore District.

(Crime No.1542 of 2020) ...Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order passed in CC.107 of 2020 dated 28.12.2022 on the file of the Special Court under EC Act / NDPS Act Coimbatore district.

For Appellants : Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondent : Mr.S.Raja Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed as against the order passed in CC.107 of 2020 dated 28.12.2022 on the file of the Special Court under EC Act / NDPS Act Coimbatore district, thereby convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(b) and Section 29 (1) of NDPS Act .

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.06.2020, on receipt of secret information, the respondent went to the scene of crime and conducted a search. At that time, the accused were found in possession of ganja weighing 1.5 Kgs and the same was seized from the first accused and money to the sum Rs.720/- was also seized from the second accused. Hence, the complaint.

3. After registration of FIR in Crime No.1542 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(b) and Section 29 (1) of NDPS Act . They were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in C.C.No.107 of 2020.

4. The prosecution had examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P1 to P3 and produced M.Os.1 to 2. On perusal of oral and documentary evidences, the Trial Court found both the appellants guilty for the above said offences and sentenced them to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo further period of two years rigorous imprisonment.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that though the scene of crime was at public place surrounded by a large number of general public, the respondent failed to examine any independent witness to support the case of the prosecution. That apart, the respondent failed to follow the mandatory procedures as contemplated under Section 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act . No independent witness was examined in order to bring the charges to home. Even in the mahazer, no independent witness had attested the same to lend credibility to the prosecution case.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution had categorically proved the case and the Trial Court had rightly convicted the appellants for the offences under Sections 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(b) and Section 29 (1) of NDPS Act . Both the appellants were in conscious possession of contraband weighing 1.5 kgs and the money was also seized from the second accused. The appellants had voluntarily came forward to accept for search to be made by the respondent. Therefore, there is no violation of Section 50 of NDPS Act . Insofar as other procedures are concerned, it was duly followed by the respondent before subjecting the appellants for trial.

7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

8. There are totally two accused, in which the appellants are arrayed as A1 and A2. According to the case of the prosecution, on secret information, the respondent and its team went to the scene of crime and found that the appellants were in possessi