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

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Kasi Rajan – Appellant
Versus
The Intelligence Officer – Respondent
CRL MP(MD) 2689/2020



Advocates:
['M/s G Murugendran', '', 'M Ramesh', 'Special Public Prosecutor', '', 'Typed Set of Paper - II filed', 'Objections filed', 'Typed set filed', 'Citations filed']

CRL MP(MD) No.2689 of 2020

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

RESERVED ON

03.08.2022

PRONOUNCED ON

11.10.2022

PRESENT

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice K.MURALI SHANKAR

CRL MP(MD) No.2689 of 2020

IN

CRL A(MD) No.143 of 2020

KASI RAJAN

... PETITIONER/PETITIONER

Vs

STATE REP.BY

THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER

NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU,

MADURAI SUB-ZONE,

MADURAI,

NCB F.NO.48/1/01/2014/NCB/MDU

... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein

and in the petition filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to

release the petitoner on bail by suspending the sentence appealed

against in C.C.No.99 of 2018 on the file of Principal Special for EC

& NDPS Act cases, Madurai pending disposal of the above appeal.

Prayer in CRL A(MD)No.143 of 2020 :

To take this file an appeal call for records relating to

judgment in C.C.No.99/2018 dated on 09.01.2020 on the file of

Principal Special for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Madurai and set aside the

same and acquit the Appellant from all charges framed against the

petitioner.

Order : This petition coming up for orders on this day, upon

perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the

arguments of M/S.G.MURUGENDRAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of

MR.C.ARUL VADIVEL @ SEKAR, Special Public Prosecutor for NCB Cases

on behalf of the Respondent, the court made the following order:-

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to suspend

the sentence passed in C.C.No.99 of 2018, dated 09.01.2020, on the

file of the learned Additional District Judge, Principal Special

Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, till the disposal of this

Criminal Appeal.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 22.10.2017 at about

02.30 hours, on receipt of the secret information, the respondent

police party went to the spot along with the witnesses and arrested

the accused and seized the contraband at Pannikundu, Usilampatti,

Madurai, and on that basis, FIR came to be registered.

1/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL MP(MD) No.2689 of 2020

3.The respondent police, after completing the investigation,

has filed the final report and the case was taken on file in

C.C.No.99 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Special Court for EC

& NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.

4.During the trial, the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses as

P.W.1 to P.W.5, exhibited 32 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.32 and

marked 11 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.11. The defence have

adduced neither oral nor documentary evidence.

5.The learned Additional District Judge, upon considering the

evidence adduced and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, has

passed the impugned judgment dated 09.01.2020 convicting the

petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)

(C) of NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo ten years Rigorous

Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to

undergo six months Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said

judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred

the present Criminal Appeal along with the above miscellaneous

petition for suspension of sentence.

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

P.W.1 admitted that he met P.W.2 at Chellampatti and the same was

corroborated by P.W.2 but the Ex.P.2 mahazar was prepared at

04.30 p.m., on the spot and it is impossible to reach the spot at

04.30 p.m., as there was a distance of 20 kms between Chellampatti

and Pannikundu and that therefore the recovery itself is doubtful

and false.

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit

that though Ex.P.2 comes within the jurisdiction of the Judicial

Magistrate, Thirumangalam, the accused and the property were not

produced before the concerned Court on 22.10.2017, but the accused

was produced on the

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top