Madras High Court
Babu vs State Rep. By on 29 September, 2021
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl. A(MD) No. 283 of 2016
1. Babu
2. Sasi
: Appellants/Accused Nos. 1 & 2
Vs.
State rep. by
Inspector of Police,
N.I.B. CID, Theni.
(Crime Nos.129 & 130 of 2003) : Respondent / Complainant
PRAYER: The Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgment dated 23.06.2016 made in
C.C.No.1247 of 2003 passed by the learned II-Additional Session Judge
(Special NDPS Court, Madurai)
For Appellants : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian
For Respondent : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2016
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is directed against the conviction and
sentence, dated 23.06.2016 made in C.C.No.1247 of 2003 on the file of the
II-Additional Special Court (NDPS Cases), Madurai.
2. The appellants 1 & 2 herein are arrayed as accused Nos.1 & 2
in the above referred case. They stood charged for the offences punishable
under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as “NDPS Act”).
3. After full fledged trial, the learned Session Judge II-Additional
Special Court (NDPS Cases), Madurai, came to the conclusion that both the
accused are guilty under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act,
convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years
and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for one year. Dissatisfied with the said findings, both the
accused are before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2016
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-
(i) On 17.06.2003 around 7.30 a.m., one Annadurai (now died),
who was the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Narcotic Intelligence Bureau-
Central Intelligence Department, Theni, received an information from the
informer that there was a transportation of Ganja from Kerala to Tamilnadu.
On receipt of the said information, he recorded the same and produced
before the P.W.4-Ponram with request to grand permission for further
proceedings. The said information recorded by the deceased Annadurai was
marked as Ex.P13.
(ii) After obtaining the permission from P.W.4, the said
Annadurai along with P.W.3-A.Gopalakrishnan and one Head Constable
proceeded to Munthan check post area. While such a time, he requested one
Murugan and Karuppaiah to stand as the witness for the recovery of
contraband but the same was refused by them. Hence, he proceeded to the
occurrence place along with the police constables and around 10.30 a.m., he
found both the accused, who had crossed the Mundhan check-post along
with Jute bags.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2016
(iii) After securing the accused as above, he himself introduced to
them as, he is the police of Narcotic Intelligence Bureau and wanted to
conduct search on them. Further, he informed as above the right having by
them under Section 50(2) of NDPS Act, for which, both the accused gave
consent for conducting search by the said Annadurai itself. The consent
letter given by them were marked as Ex.P9.
(iv) In a search, he found that every bag possessed by the accused
are having 21 kilograms of Ganja and after identifying as above, for the
purpose of chemical examination, he separated two 50 grams of Ganja from
each bag and assigned with serial numbers as S1 to S4. The remaining
contraband was sealed and assigned with serial number as B1 & B2.
(v) In continuous of investigation, the said Annadurai in the
presence of witnesses Nedunjeliyan and Gopalakrishnan, prepared a Seizure
Mahazar and through which, he recovered the contraband from the accused.
(vi)After made recovery as above, he brought the accused along
with contraband and afterwards, registered a case against the accused in
Crime Nos. 129 & 130 of 2003 under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS
Act. The printed First Information Report was marked as Ex.P14.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2016
(vii) After registering the case, he sent a report to the P.W.4 under
Section 57 of NDPS Act (Ex.P15) wherein, he narrated the entire
occurrence. After producing the contraband before the trial Court, he
submitted an application, wherein, he requested to send the sample
contraband for chemical examination.
(viii) In turn, the learned trial Judge issued proceedings for
examination of sample contraband and afterwards, after receipt of the
sample contraband, P.W.1-Hameeda Begum, the training Scientific
Assistant working in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai, examined
two sample contrabands and issued a report under Ex.P3 and Ex.P.6 stating
that the sample contraband are the cannabis. Before the trial Court, the
sample contraband and the remaining contraband were all marked as M.Os.
1 to 6.
(ix) In respect to the Crime No.129 of 2003, a requisition letter
sent by the Investigating Officer to the Sessions Court was marked as Ex.P1
and a letter issued in respect to the said requisition by the said Court was
marked as Ex.P2. Similarly, in respect to the Crime No.130 of 2003,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2016
requisition sent by the Investigating Officer was marked as Ex.P4 and the
letter issued in respect to the said requisition was marked as Ex.P5.
(x) On receipt of the report from the chemical examiner, the said
Annadurai examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. After
concluding the investigation, he came to the positive conclusions that both
the accused are liable to be convicted under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of
NDPS Act. He filed a final report, accordingly.
5. From the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges
against the accused under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act. Both
the accused denied the same and opted for trial. Therefore, both the accused
were put on trial. In order to prove their case on the side of the prosecution,
4 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and 15 documents are
exhibited as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15, besides 6 Material Objects (M.O.1 to M.O.6).
6. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1-Hameeda Begum speaks
about the receipt of sample contraband from the Court and about the
chemical examination made on.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2016
(ii) P.W.2-K.Devika is the head clerk working in the Judicial
Magistrate Court, Virudhunagar spoken about the receipt of contraband
from the police and about the issuance of same to the Forensic Science
Department for chemical examination.
(iii) P.W.3-Gopalakrishnan, who is the then Grade-I constable
working in Narcotic Intelligence Bureau-Central Intelligence Department,
Theni, speaks about the recovery of contraband from the accused.
(iv) P.W.4-Ponram is the Inspector of Police, Narcotic
Intelligence Bureau-Central Intelligence Department, Theni. He gave
evidence in respect to the recovery of contraband and about the
investigation by the deceased Sub-Inspector Annadurai.
7. When the above incriminating materials were put to the
accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.
However, they did not chose to examine any witness or mark any document
on their side.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2016
8. Having considered all the materials placed before him and on
considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing on
the either side, the learned II-Additional Special Judge (NDPS Court),
Madurai, found both accused herein are guilty under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)
(ii)(b) of NDPS Act, convicted and sentenced as stated supra. Aggrieved
over the said conviction and sentence, both the appellants/accused are
before this Court with this appeal.
9. I have heard Mr.J.Jegadeesh Pandian, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants and Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, learned
Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the State. I have also
perused the records carefully.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would
contend that before conducting the search, the Investigating Officer
obtained a consent letter commonly from both the accused which is against
the procedure contemplated under the NDPS Act. The further submission of
the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that during the time of
recovery and when at the time of investigation, the mandatory provisions,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2016
which are required to be followed, has not been followed by the
Investigating Officer and therefore, the accused is entitled to the relief of
acquittal and accordingly, he prayed to set aside the conviction and allow
the appeal.
11. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side)
appearing for the respondent would contend that the evidence given by the
prosecution witnesses is sufficient to hold that the accused are transported
the Ganja and the same is an offence under the NDPS Act. According to
him, the findings arrived at by the trial Court does not require any
interference.
12. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsels appearing on either side.
13. Before the trial Court, the chemical examiner, who examined
the recovered contraband, gave evidence as P.W.1. Now on going through
the said evidence given by her, it would appear that she has been received
the sample contraband only on 15.07.2003. On the other hand, the alleged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2016
contraband has been recovered by the Investigating Officer on 17.06.2003.
Therefore, it is quite clear that the recovered contraband has been sent to the
chemical examiner with the delay of 28 days. In this regard, Clause 13 of
the Standing Instructions No.01/1988 issued by the Narcotics Control
Bureau, New Delhi, wherein, it was stated as follows:-
“13.Mode and Time limit for despatch of sample to
Laboratory;
The samples should be sent either by insured
post or through special messenger duly authorised for
the purpose. Despatch of samples by registered post or
ordinary mail should not be resorted to. Samples must
be despatched to the Laboratory within 72 hours of
seizure to avoid any legal objection.”
So, in this area, the Investigating Agency without following stipulated rules,
forwarded the contraband for chemical examination with unexplained delay.
However, the same cannot be taken into account as the Standing
Instructions given by Narcotics Control Bureau, New Delhi is not a
mandatory one.
14. However, it is the duty vested with the Investigating Officer to
explain under whose custody the recovered contraband was found available
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2016
from the date of recovery to till the date on which the same was sent to the
chemical examiner. In this regard, the evidence given by the police officers
did not disclose the fact that the recovered contraband was found available
in the custody of a particular person. The evidences given by P.W.3 and
P.W.4, who are the police officers, recovered the contraband, are not a
substantial evidence as the recovered contraband was found available in a
proper custody.
15. The specific submission made by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants is that the consent letter obtained from the
accused in respect to conducting the search over them is not within the
ambit of Section 50 of NDPS Act and therefore, the mandatory provisions,
which are required to be followed during the time of conducting search, has
been violated in this case and hence, the prosecution fails to prove their
case.
16. In this regard, now on considering the said submission with
the relevant records before the trial Court, the consent letter given by the
accused was marked as Ex.P9. Now, on going through the said document, it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2016
seems that the same was obtained by the Investigating Officer jointly from
both the accused. It is unknown to this Court that after registering the
separate cases against each of the accused, under what provision the
Investigation Officer has obtained the consent letter jointly from both the
accused.
17. At this juncture, it would relevant to see the judgment of our
Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of State of Rajasthan vs. V.Parmanand and
others reported in (2014) 5 SCC 335, wherein, it was observed as follows:-
“14. In our opinion, a joint communication of the right
available under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act to the
accused would frustrate the very purport of Section 50.
Communication of the said right to the person who is
about to be searched is not an empty formality. It has a
purpose. Most of the offences under the NDPS Act
carry stringent punishment and, therefore, the
prescribed procedure has to be meticulously followed.
These are minimum safeguards available to an accused
against the possibility of false involvement. The
communication of this right has to be clear,
unambiguous and individual. The accused must be
made aware of the existence of such a right. This right
would be of little significance if the beneficiary thereof
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2016
is not able to exercise it for want of knowledge about
its existence. A joint communication of the right may
not be clear or unequivocal. It may create confusion. It
may result in diluting the right. We are, therefore, of
the view that the accused must be individually informed
that under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act, he has a
right to be searched before a nearest gazetted officer
or before a nearest Magistrate. Similar view taken by
the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Paramjit Singh
and the Bombay High Court in Dharamveer Lekhram
Sharma meets with out approval.”
Therefore, applying the ratio laid down in the above referred judgment,
herein it is a case, obtained a joint consent letter from both the accused is
nothing but a violative of mandatory requirements under Section 50(1) of
NDPS Act.
18. In this regard, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side)
appearing for the respondent police relying upon the judgment of State of
Himachal Pradesh vs. Pawan Kumar reported in (2005) 4 SCC 350 would
submit that under Section 50 of NDPS Act would be applicable only in a
case of personal search of the accused and not when it is made in respect of
some baggage like a bag, article, vehicle or container etc.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2016
19. Now, on considering the relevant records, in the consent letter
obtained by the Investigating Officer, it was stated that during the time of
occurrence, he wanted to conduct the personal search over the accused.
Therefore, though in the alleged occurrence the contraband has been
recovered from the bag which is possessed by the accused, the averments
found in the consent letter needed some fact that during the time of search,
the police officers conducted only a personal search. Therefore, the
submission made by the learned Government Advocate is not at all relevant
for this case.
20. The another one aspect which is necessary to clarify in this
case is that in view of the evidence given by P.W.4, while at the time, the
Investigation Officer is going to the occurrence place, he requested two
persons to stand as a surety. On the other hand, it is the evidence given by
P.W.3, who was the person travelled along with the Investigation Officer to
the occurrence place, stated in his evidence as at any point of time nobody
has invited by the Investigating Officer to stand as a witness for the
recovery. So in this aspect, the evidences given by the police officers are
contradictory in nature and created a doubt whether the Investigation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2016
Officer is attempted to secure the contraband in the presence of private
individuals or not.
21. More than that, the alleged contrabands have been recovered
from the area in which, so many Government check-posts are found
available, but none of the persons, who are worked in the said check-post,
are not stand as witness for the recovery. The said circumstances also dilute
the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, after violating all the rules and
regulations, the present case has been investigated by the Investigating
Officer. Being the reason that the NDPS act provided as stringent
punishment. It is necessary for the prosecution to follow the prescribed
procedure without any omission.
22. In the light of the foregoing discussions, I am of the opinion
that the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is liable to be set
aside. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and
sentence imposed on the appellants/accused, by the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge and Principal Special Court for NDPS Act case,
Madurai, dated 23.06.2016 is set and aside and the appellants/accused are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2016
acquitted from all the charges. The fine amount, if any, paid by them, shall
be refunded to them. Bail bond, if any, executed by the appellants shall
stand cancelled.
29.09.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
am
To:-
1. The Inspector of Police,
N.I.B. CID,
Theni.
2.The II-Additional Special NDPS Court District and Session Judge,
Madurai.
3. The Section Officer,
Criminal Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2016
R.PONGIAPPAN,J.
am
Crl. A(MD)No.283 of 2016
29.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
