Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 65797
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J
Pandi – Appellant
Versus
State rep by The Inspector of Police, NIB-CID, Dindigul – Respondent
Crl.A.(MD).No.932 of 2023 | C.C.No.76 of2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.C.Jeganathan
For the Respondents: Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor
The prosecution must prove conscious possession of contraband beyond reasonable doubt; failure to meet this burden results in acquittal.
Headnote:(A) NDPS Act, 1985 - Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)
(C) - Appeal against conviction and sentence for possession of contraband - Prosecution failed to prove conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt; failure to establish the foundational facts; unexplained delay in producing the contraband before court - The conviction was overturned due to substantial evidential deficiencies. (Paras 11, 11.1, 17, 25)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Conviction must be supported by strict proof of possession and reliability of witnesses - The prosecution's failure to examine necessary witnesses was fatal. (Paras 11.3, 18)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for possession of 48 kg of Ganja based on police testimony; however, inconsistencies and lack of evidence regarding actual possession led to doubts about the validity of the arrest and seizure processes.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof to demonstrate that the appellant possessed the contraband.
Issues: The key issues were the credibility of witness testimony and whether the prosecution established proof of possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored that possession must be established by credible evidence, emphasizing the prosecution's burden in strict liability offences like under the NDPS Act.
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction based on contraband possession. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. defense argues against possession evidence. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. court assesses evidence reliability. (Para 9 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 21) |
| 4. proof of possession is crucial for conviction. (Para 11) |
| 5. prosecution's failure leads to acquittal. (Para 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT
The accused in C.C.No.76 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, has filed this Criminal Appeal before this Court challenging the conviction and sentence passed against him by the impugned judgment dated 13.09.2023. The conviction and sentence is as follows:
| Conviction for the Offence under Section | Sentence of Imprisonment |
| 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act | 12 years R.I and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default to undergo 24 months S.I |
2. On 09.07.2013 at 10.00 am deceased Murugesan who was working as Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Dindigul NIB Police Unit had received secret information about the illicit transit of huge quantity of “Ganja” from Madurai to Nilakottai. He recorded the said information and reduced in writing under Ex.P.5 and informed to his superior P.W.2 and he along with informant, PW.1 and other Police Officers went to the occurrence place at Nilakottai. Informant identified the Appellant who had been carrying two bags and he was intercepted by the deceased Murugesan, Search Officer and PW.1 and other Police Officers. After complying the formalities prescribed Under Section 50 of NDPS Act, deceased Murugesan, Search Officer had made search and found that the two bags which had been carried by the Appellant contained Ganja. Thereafter, appellant gave confession about the posession of the Ganja and further disclosed that he purchased from A2-(Aandi). Deceased Murugesan, Search Officer, in pursuance of the confession, recovered the contraband in two bags and weighed the contraband and found that each bag contained 24-Kg of Ganga. He took two samples weighing 25-gm from each bag and properly sealed and also properly packed the remaining contraband and sealed the same. Thereafter, the Search Officer arrested the accused and brought him to the Police Station and registered the case in Crime No.47 of 2013 U/s.8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act. Subsequently, he had submitted detailed report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act to PW.2 and remanded the accused on the same day along with remaining contraband, samples and material documents. PW.2 had continued the investigation and arrested A2 and examined number of witnesses and obtained the Chemical Analysis Report and filed final report before the Learned Special Judge NDPS Act, Madurai and same was taken on file in C.C.No.76 of 2016 U/s.8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of NDPS Act r/w 34 IPC Act.
3. After appearance of the accused, copies of records were furnished to them under section 207 Cr.P.C. The Learned trial Judge on perusal of records and on hearing both sides and on being satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the accused/appellant, framed charges under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985, r/w 34 IPC and the same was read over and explained to them and on being questioned, the accused/appellants denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood for trial.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case, had examined 2 witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and exhibited 12 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and marked six material objects M.O.1 to M.O. 6
5. When the accused were examined under Section 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating materials available against them from the evidence of prosecution, they denied the evidence as false and further stated that a false case was foisted against them. The accused neither produced any documents nor examined any witness on their side.
6.The learned Trial Judge, considering the materials and circumstances found that accused No.1 namely Appellant herein in C.C.No.76 of 2016 was guilty U/s.8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act and
