Compliance with procedural safeguards in NDPS Act is pivotal; however, possession of contraband and robust evidence can suffice for conviction regardless of vehicle ownership.

JUDGEMENT

The accused No.1 in C.C.No.95 of 2017 on the file of the learned Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, has filed this appeal, challenging the following conviction and sentence imposed against him on 28.04.2023, under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 of the NDPS Act 1985:

2.On 04.10.2016 at about 10.00 a.m., P.W.2 received secret information regarding the illegal transportation of a large quantity of ganja in a lorry. She recorded the information in the General Diary, reduced it into writing as Ex.P4, and informed the higher officer, P.W.3. Thereafter, she proceeded to the place of occurrence, namely, Cumbum to Cumbum Mettu Road near Elumbu Godown, and kept surveillance on the movement of the vehicle. The informer identified the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-20-AC-1703, which was then intercepted. It was found that two persons, viz., the driver and another occupant were inside the vehicle.

2.1. After complying with the mandate of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, a search of the vehicle was conducted, which led to the recovery of 16 bags of ganja, each weighing 20 kilograms and two bags of ganja each weighing 22 Kgs. Samples were taken from each bag, and both the samples and the remaining ganja were sealed. The accused were arrested and taken to the police station, where a case in Crime No. 163 of 2016 was registered. They were subsequently remanded to judicial custody along with the recovered contraband and other material documents, including the aththatchi.

2.2. Thereafter, P.W.2 submitted a report to the immediate superior under Section 57 of the NDPS Act. The immediate superior, P.W.3, continued the investigation, obtained the chemical analysis report, and, after verifying the ownership of the lorry and other material particulars, filed the final report under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 of the NDPS Act, before the Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, and the same has been taken on file in C.C.95 of 2017. The learned trial Judge issued summons to the accused and on their appearance, served the copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and framed the necessary charges and questioned the accused. All the accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial.

2.3.The prosecution to prove the case have examined P.W.1 to P.W. 3 and exhibited 12 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and produced 55 material objects as P.M.O.1 to P.M.O.55. The leraned trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., proceedings by putting the incriminating material available from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and documents. The accused denied the same as false and the case was posted for examination of the witnesses on the side of the appellant. On the side of the appellant, no witness was examined and no document was marked.

2.4.The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced him to undergo 10 years of Rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, in default to undergo 6 months of Simple Imprisonment each. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant made the following submission:

3.1.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. It was contended that, in the informatio