Confession statements of co-accused and the admissibility of CDR records in criminal trials.

Crl.A.(MD).No.308 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated :21.12.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

Crl.A.(MD).No.308 of 2021

and

Crl.M.P.(MD).No.8478 of 2022

Ronald Sateesdh @ Anand

... Petitioner

Vs.

State Rep by

The Intelligence Officer

Narcotics Control Bureau,

Regional Intelligence Unit,

Trivandrum.

(NCB, O.R.No.1/08/NCB/RIUY/TVM)

... Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to call for the

records in C.C.No.128 of 2010, on the file of the learned II Additional Special

Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai and set aside the Judgment dated

08.07.2021.

For Appellant

:Mr.M.Jegadhees Pandian

For Respondent

:Mr.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar Senior Counsel for

:Special Public Prosecutor for NCB

1/12

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

Crl.A.(MD).No.308 of 2021

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction

and sentence imposed on the appellant for the alleged offences punishable under

Sections 8(c) r/w 21(c) of the NDPS Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10

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

imprisonment for one year vide Judgment in C.C.No.128 of 2010 dated

08.07.2021 by the learned II Additional Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases,

Madurai.

2. Brief Facts of the Case:

On 06.08.2008, one Mr.Gunabalan, Superintendent, NCB, South Zonal

Unit, Chennai had received a secret information that one Umar Gul, a Srilankan

National is indulging in Drug Trafficking between India and Srilanga with the

help of one Dayaram resident of Mandasur, Madhya Pradesh and he carried 1 Kg

of Heroin and he travelled from Chennai to Kanyakumari by bus. Based on that,

the respondent NCB team, after following the procedure prescribed in the NDPS

Act, nabbed the said Dayaram at Kanyakumari bus stand at 18.45 hours along

with 1 Kg of Heroin. The said Dayaram's mobile phone was seized and his

statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, was recorded and he disclosed that

2/12

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

Crl.A.(MD).No.308 of 2021

he purchased the contraband from A2 and A3. On the basis of his confession, the

respondent found out the mobile number of the A2 and A3 and collected the

CDR report under Ex.P24 and Ex.P29 respectively and filed a complaint after

completing the investigation by showing A2 and A3 as absconding accused. The

learned trial Judge took the case on file in C.C.No.196 of 2009. In view of the

abscondence of A2 and A3, the case was split up as Spl.S.C.No.228 of 2010

against accused Nos.2 and 3 namely the appellant and the third accused. The

learned Special Judge conducted the trial against A1 and convicted him in

C.C.No.196 of 2009. Thereafter, the appellant was secured and the learned

Special Judge conducted the trial against this appellant in Spl.C.C.No.128 of

2010. The learned trial Judge framed the charge under Section 8(c) r/w 21(c) of

the NDPS Act and also Section 28, 29 of the NDPS Act.

3. To prove the case against the appellant, the prosecution examined only

one witness namely P.W.1 and exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P44 and marked M.O.1 to

M.O.13. The learned trial Judge convicted the appellant under Section 8(c) r/w

21(c) and acquitted Sections 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act and imposed the

sentence as stated above by the impugned judgment dated

08.07.2021.Challenging the same, the appellant filed this appeal before this

3/12

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

Crl.A.(MD).No.308 of 2021

Court.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial

Judge convicted the appellant without any concrete evidence against the

appellant to convict him under Section 8(c) r/w 21(c) of the NDPS Act. The

conviction under Section 8(c) r/w 21(c) is not maintainable on the ground that

the contraband was never recovered from the appellant. According to the

pro