SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 63066

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J
Gopi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.344 of 2020 and 99 of 2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.Jagadeesh Pandian, Mr.P.Balasubramanian
For the Respondents: Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor

Strict compliance with procedural requirements under the NDPS Act is essential for admissibility of evidence; minor discrepancies do not invalidate a conviction when substantial compliance is demonstrated.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)

(C) and Section 34 - Conviction for possession of contraband - The appellants were held guilty for possessing 240 kg of Ganja, sentenced to 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fined Rs.1,00,000/- each - The conviction was contested on grounds of procedural lapses and evidentiary discrepancies including non-compliance with Section 42 and question of ownership of the vehicle - Prosecution provided sufficient evidence regarding the recovery process and dealt with compliance under the NDPS Act - Non-examination of independent witnesses deemed non-fatal to prosecution's case. (Paras 10-12, 19)

(B) Legal Standards - Compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act is essential for lawfulness of arrest and seizure - Evidence must prove conscious possession by the accused - Ownership of the vehicle is not an absolute requirement for conviction under the NDPS Act. (Paras 11, 12, 19).

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for illegally transporting 240 kg of Ganja. The police acted on secret information, conducted a search without violating mandatory legal requirements, and seized the contraband. The vehicle was identified, and the contraband was produced before the court.

Findings of Court:
The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were in conscious possession of the contraband and the legal procedures were largely followed.

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the charge against the appellants under the NDPS Act, particularly concerning procedural compliance and possession of contraband.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court confirmed that even minor procedural discrepancies do not vitiate the conviction if substantial compliance is demonstrated, reaffirming the duty of law enforcement to adhere to statutory mandates while determining the guilt of the accused.

Result: Appeals dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.

Table of Content
1. basis of prosecution under ndps act (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments against compliance with ndps procedures (Para 5 , 6 , 11 , 13 , 15 , 16)
3. court's analysis of compliance issues (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. interpreting section 42 requirements (Para 19)
5. final judgment and dismissal of appeals (Para 20)

COMMON JUDGEMENT

Since these criminal appeals are arising out of the same crime, these appeals are taken up for hearing together and disposed of by way of common judgment.

2.The appellants are said to have committed the offence under Sections 8 (c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act') r/w Section 34 of IPC for the alleged possession of 240 kg of Ganja. The I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai convicted the appellants in Spl.C.C.No.264 of 2018 under Sections8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of NDPS Act, 1985 r/w 34 of IPC by its judgment dated 29.09.2020 and sentencedthem to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and pay afine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, indefault to undergo 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment each. Challenging the same, the appellants have filed these criminal appeals. The conviction and sentence are as follows:

Crl.A. (MD)No.C.C.No.Rank of the accusedConviction under SectionSentenceFine amount with default sentence
344 of 2020264 of 2018Accused No-18(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, 1985 r/w 34 of IPC10 years Rigorous ImprisonmentRs.1,00,000/- in default to undergo 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment
99 of 2021264 of 2018Accused No-28(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, 1985 r/w 34 of IPC10 years Rigorous ImprisonmentRs1,00,000/- in default to undergo 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment

3.Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal, are as follows:

According to the prosecution, the appellants have conspired together and illegaly transported Ganja in a Mahendra Jeep bearing registration No.AP-30-A-2616. On 25.03.2018, the Insepctor of Police/P.W.2 attached to the respondent unit received a secret information from the informant at about 10.00 am., and the same was reduced into writing in the Genral Diary/Ex.P6 and forwarded to the superior officer/P.W.3 and after obtaining necessary permission, she proceeded with her team to the occurrence place after complying the procedure under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. When P.W.2 and her team reached the occurrence place in Government Jeep bearing registration No.TN-22- G-294 at 02.00 pm., a Mahindra Jeep bearing registration No.AP-30- A-2616 heading from East to West direction was identified by the informant. The said Jeep was stopped by the police team and P.W.2 and her team introduced themselves to the appellants, who are the occupants of the said vehicle and about the information received by police. P.W.2 after complying the procedures under Section 50 of the NDPS Act 1985 by obtaining their consent letters under Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, made a search of the vehicle and found 8 white color gunny bags with ganja weighing about 30 kgs each totally 240 Kilograms of Ganja. The confession statement given by A1 was recorded by P.W.2. Thereafter, two samples of 50 grams each were taken, totally 16 samples were seperately collected in a polythene cover and wrapped up with kakki color paper. The said samples were marked as S1 to S16 and remaining contraband of 29.900 kgs of each bag and the said Mahindra jeep bearing registration No.AP-30-A-2616 were seized under Seizure Mahazar Ex.P3 in the presence of official witnesses P.W.1 and Head constrable Raja. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested and brought to the station and he registered the FIR/Ex.P7 in Crime No.45 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 8 (c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, 1985 r/w Section 34 of IPC and submitted a detailed report to P.W.3/Deputy Superintendent of Police under Section 57 of the NDPS Act. Thereafter, P.W.2 completed the investigation and filed the final report before the Special Court. The learned trial Judge had taken

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top