Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 80040
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
Ajah Godwin Chukwu – Appellant
Versus
The State represented by The Inspector of Police, NIBCID, Chennai – Respondent
Crl.A.No.1340 of 2023|C.C.No.59 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.C.S.S.Pillai
For the Respondents: Mr.S.Raja Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
The court emphasized the necessity for fair investigation protocols in drug-related cases, highlighting discrepancies that undermine prosecution credibility.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)
(B), and 21(c) - Criminal Appeal against conviction for drug offenses - Convicted for possessing heroin, cocaine, and ganja to sell - Appeal argued failure to follow procedure, as well as discrepancies regarding arrest and FIR registration timing - Prosecution’s evidence deemed insufficient by the court. (Paras 1-12)
(B) Fair Investigation - General principle that the informant and investigator should not be the same person, ensuring a fair trial - Highlighted difficulties in the prosecution case leading to the appellant's acquittal. (Paras 6-10)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was arrested for possessing narcotics following a police operation that allegedly failed to adhere to necessary procedures.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution could not substantiate its charges against the appellant leading to a conclusion that the conviction was unsustainable.
Issues: Central question was the adherence to legal procedures during the apprehension of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the importance of a fair investigation in upholding justice noting critical procedural failures, resulting in reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case.
Result: Conviction set aside; appellant acquitted from all charges.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of narcotics possession. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding procedural failures. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. exploration of the prosecution's credibility issues. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. court challenges validity of prosecution evidence. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed as against the order passed in C.C.No.59 of 2020 dated 28.04.2023 by the I Additional Special Judge, Special Court under EC and NDPS Act, Chennai 104, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 8 (c) read with 21(c) and Sections
8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.02.2019 at about 10.00 a.m in Kabaleeswarar Nagar Junction, East Coast Road, Neelangarai, Chennai, on interception of the accused who was riding his two wheeler was found in possession of 7 grams of heroin, 103 grams and 27 grams of Cocaine, 1.200 kgs of ganja to sell the same to the third parties. Hence, the complaint.
3. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent registered FIR in Crime No.11 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 8 (c) r/w 21(b), 8(c) r/w 21(c), 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B), 8(c) r/w 25 and 8(c) r/w 28 of the NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court in C.C.No.59 of 2020.
4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution had examined PWs.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P1 to 14. The prosecution had produced material objects which were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.6. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no document was marked. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 8 (c) read with 21(c) and (c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and also imposed fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with Section 21 (c) of the NDPS Act and also sentenced him to five years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under (c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that no procedure as contemplated under the NDPS Act was followed by the respondent. The respondent received a secret information and recorded in the general diary. However, the respondent failed to enter the general diary information in the FIR. Further, the secret information was received at about 08.00 a.m, on 01.02.2019. It was recorded in the general diary and permission was obtained from the superior officer to go to the place of occurrence. At about 09.00 a.m, 01.02.2019, the respondent and his team reached the scene of crime and found the appellant. After issuance of notice, the respondent made a search. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued with arrest intimation on 01.02.2019 at about 10.30 hrs and he was also issued arrest card and it contains Crime No.11 of 2019. It shows the date and time of arrest as 01.02.2019 at about 10.00 hrs. The arrest memo was served on the appellant on 01.02.2019 at about 10.30 hrs and it also contains crime number. The seizure mahazer was recorded at 15.00 hrs on 01.02.2019. Therefore, the case of the prosecution is not believing one and in order to foist a false case as against the appellant, the respondent registered the FIR.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the small discrepancies cannot be fatal to the case of the prosecution. As per the secret information, the accused was found in possession of contraband, which was of commercial quantity. PW.1 categorically deposed about the entire process of arrest and as such, the prosecution had categorically proved the charge. Therefo
