IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

Shajakhan ... Appellant/Sole Accused

Vs.

State Represented by

The Inspector of Police,

NIB, C.I.D Police Station,

Coimbatore.

(Crime No.275 of 2017) ... Respondent/Complainant

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to call for the records and to set aside the judgment and sentence dated 20.12.2022 imposed in C.C.No.102 of 2020 passed by the

learned Special Court under EC Act / NDPS Act, Coimbatore.

For Appellant : Mr.R.Vivekananthan

For Respondent : Mr.S.Raja Kumar,

Additional Public Prosecutor

JUDGMENT

The Appeal challenges the judgment of conviction and sentence

imposed by the learned Additional District Judge and Presiding Officer, Special Court under E.C Act / NDPS Act, Coimbatore in C.C.No.102 of

2020. By the impugned Judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) and sentenced to undergo ten years R.I. And to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for two years R.I.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the P.W1 received a secret information on 14.02.2017, at about 9.00 a.m., that a person is likely to be found at Gandhipuram Bus Stand with ganja; that on receiving the said information, P.W1 along with P.W2 and one Karnan (not examined) went to Gandhipuram Bus Stand. The informant identified the appellant at Gandhipuram Bus Stand at about 10.00 a.m. The appellant was searched and was found in possession of 16 kgs of ganja in a white plastic bag and thus committed the aforesaid offences.

3. Mr.R.Vivekananthan, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned prosecution is false; that it has been instituted because, in an earlier prosecution, the appellant was acquitted; that only to wreak vengeance, the respondent had filed the F.I.R and sought to prosecute the appellant; that all the witnesses admitted that even before they searched the appellant, the answer to the questions under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was also typed; that the prosecution could have never anticipated the response of the appellant; that in the seizure mahazar, which was already typed, it was stated that the contraband was brought in a plastic cover and only the colour of the cover was filled in; that even according to the respondent, the secret informant had not specifically stated that the appellant was carrying contraband in a cover; that the appellant was earlier prosecuted in C.C.No.7 of 2018 and thereafter, the respondent has filed this case only because the appellant was acquitted in that case. P.W2, who was examined in C.C.No.7 of 2018, had denied having deposed in the said case; P.W3 however contradicted the statement and would state that P.W2 was one of the witness in C.C.No.7 of 2018 and that therefore, the impugned prosecution is false and the judgment of the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, per contra would submit that compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not mandatory in this case, as the contraband was found only in a plastic cover, which was carried by the appellant; that the appellant had not established that the case was foisted against him; that merely because the printed formats were used, it would not be fatal to the prosecution case and that there is no infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court.

5. As stated earlier, it is the case of prosecution, the appellant was found in possession of of 16 kgs of ganja. The prosecution had examined three witnesses. P.W1 and P.W2 on receiving the secret information, intercepted the appellant at the bus stand and found that the appellant was in possession of 16 kgs of ganja. In their depositions, they have stated that they had complied with the mandatory provisions under NDPS Act, that samples were taken and the s