IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-01-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Francis S/o. Mr. Gnanamanikam, No.14, Anthoniyar Koil Street, Melaouthurai, Neravi, Karaikal.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Kalapet Police Station, Puducherry.

Crime No.166 of 2011.

..Respondent(s)

PRAYER Criminal Revision Case filed under Sec.438 and 442 of B.N.S.S., 2023, to call for the records in Crl.A.No.38 of 2023 on the file of the Honble III Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry and set aside the same and allow this revision petition considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

For Petitioner(s): Mr. V.S.Senthil Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.M.V.Ramachandra Murthy Public Prosecutor, Govt. of Puducherry

ORDER

The revision challenges the judgment dated 21.02.2025 passed in Crl.A.No. 38 of 2023 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry, confirming the judgment passed in S.T.C.No. 2574 of 2012, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Puducherry, dated 25.04.2023 convicting the petitioner for the offence under Sec.20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 20.10.2011 at about 16.45 hours, at the main gate of Central Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry, the petitioner, a Jail Warder was found carrying ganja leaves weighing about 5.34 grams in his motorcycle in contravention of the provisions of the Act; that based on the complaint given by the Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Kalapet, P.W.3, the F.I.R. was registered on 21.10.2011 marked as Ex.P1 in Crime No.166 of 2011 for the offence under Sec.27 of NDPS Act and subsequently altered into Sec.20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act; that the contraband, which was taken by P.W.1 was seized by the Investigating Officer, P.W.8 on 22.10.2011 by Ex.P2 mahazar; that the sample was sent for analysis; that P.W.6, had sent a report marked as Ex.P3 stating that leaves contained ganja; and that thereafter, the Investigating Officer, on conclusion of investigation, filed a final report for the aforesaid offence.

3. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses to prove its case and marked documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. The trial court after considering the evidence on record, convicted the petitioner as aforesaid, which was confirmed by the appellate court in Crl.A.No. 38 of 2023.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the judgments of the courts below are liable to be set aside; that though it is P.W.1’s version that he found the petitioner had ganja in his vehicle on 20.10.2011, the complaint was lodged only on 21.10.2011; that the seizure was not made from the petitioner; that the seizure by the police was made from P.W.3, who allegedly had taken the contraband from the petitioner and kept it in his possession; that the sample was sent for chemical analysis two months after the alleged occurrence; and that the vehicle, from which the alleged contraband was said to have been taken by P.W.1 has not been identified and seized by the respondent and that considering all the infirmities, the judgments are liable to be set aside.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor [Puducherry], per contra, would submit that the complaint was lodged by the Superintendent of Jail; that there is no reason to suspect the veracity of the said complaint; that leaves in possession of the petitioner were found to contain ganja; and that considering the nature of offence and the fact that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgments, this Criminal Revision Case may be dismissed.

6. The prosecution as stated earlier had examined 8 witnesses. P.W.1, is the Jail Warder, who first found that the petitioner was in possession of the said contraband in his vehicle; P.W.2, was working as a Constable and had handed over a cover sent by PW3 to the investigating officer; P.W.3, was working as Superintendent of Jail. He had lodged the compl