Seiluti @ Teli @ Runrempuii @ Par ... vs State By
2022 Latest Caselaw 11042 Mad

                                                                                         Crl.A.No.201 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED : 24.06.2022

                                                        CORAM :

                      THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
                                                    Crl.A.No.201 of 2022

                Seiluti @ Teli @ Runrempuii @ Par Par                    ... Appellant

                                                          Versus

                State by:
                The Intelligence Officer,
                Narcotics Control Bureau,
                Chennai Zonal Unit,
                Chennai.                                           ... Respondent

                Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., r/w 36-B of
                N.D.P.S Act, 1985 to set aside the conviction of the appellant in C.C.No.8 of
                2012, dated 04.05.2018, by the learned Special Judge, I Additional Special
                Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under N.D.P.S Act, Chennai – 600 104, by
                allowing this appeal.


                                   For Appellant      : Mr.M.S.Charles

                                   For Respondent  : Mr.N.P.Kumar,
                                                  Special Public Prosecutor
                                               (N.C.B Cases)


                                                       JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed against the order of the I Additional Special Court for

Exclusive Trial of Cases under N.D.P.S Act, Chennai, in and by which, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.201 of 2022

appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 8(c) read with Section

29(1), 8(c) r/w Section 21(c), 8(c) r/w Section 23(c) and Section 8(c) r/w

Section 28 of the N.D.P.S Act to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period

of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each in respect of the four counts

and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one

year each.

2. A complaint was filed by the complainant on allegation that one

Srinivasan Krishnasamy, Manager, M/s. Aramex India Pvt. Ltd., informed that

one lady, namely Seiluti of Mizoram, came to their office for one international

consignment having the consignor name as Ms.Seiluti, No.25, G.S.T. Road,

Ambal Nagar, Chennai, which was destined for Josephine Albort, South

Australia, which was declared to have contained sarees, dress materials, lady's

foot wear and one trolley bag weighing about 9.500 kgs and since they had

reasonable suspicion about the contents of the consignment, requested to take

necessary action. Based on the information, the officers of the N.C.B reached

the said M/s. Aramex India Pvt. Ltd., and requested one S.Sathishkumar and

said Srinivasan Krishnasamy to be the witnesses for such proceedings

conducted by them and upon examination of the consignment, they found that

in the empty trolley bag, there was a wooden plank and upon examination of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.201 of 2022

the wooden plank, it was noticed that there are two separate layers of wood

pasted together and on separation of the two wooden planks, it was found that

three brown colour polythene packets were pasted in between the two wooden

planks. When the said packets were examined, it was found that white crystal

powder of similar in nature is there in all the three packets and upon

examination, it answered positive for Cocaine and Methamphetamine, Narcotic

drugs, covered under N.D.P.S Act, weighing 200 gms. Therefore, after

competing further investigation, the complaint was filed. Upon the charges

being framed, the appellant denied the charges and stood trial. The

prosecution, thereafter, examined P.Ws.1 to 17 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-207

and also produced M.Os.1 to 42. Upon being questioned about the evidence on

record and the incriminating circumstances, the appellant denied the same as

false and thereafter, the Trial Court heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor

and the learned Counsel for the appellant and upon appraisal of the entire

evidence on record, found the appellant guilty as mentioned above and

sentenced as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same, the present Appeal is laid

before this Court.

3. Heard Mr.M.S.Charles, learned Counsel for the appellant and

Mr.N.P.Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.201 of 2022

4. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the

appellant submitted that in this case, already, the appellant had undergone and

completed the ten years Rigorous Imprisonment and is presently undergoing

the default sentence for non-payment of fine and therefore, restricted his

arguments only in respect of the default sentence alone. Even otherwise, on a

perusal of the material records of this Case, this Court is of the view that the

appellant has been rightly convicted by the Trial Court. The learned Counsel

would submit that the appellant hails from North-East and has got no other

person to help and she is absolutely in penury and is in jail for more than 10

years and therefore, she has absolutely no way, whatsoever, to pay the amount

of Rs.4,00,000/- and therefore, imposition of fine was way beyond her capacity

and therefore, prays that this Court should consider the default sentence, for

non-payment of fine in view of the fact that she has undergone the substantive

period of sentence.

5. The learned Counsel also relied upon the judgments of this Court in

S.Edmand and Anr. Vs. State rep. By the Intelligence Officer, N.C.B, South

Zonal Unit, Chennai (NCB F.No.48/1/08/2006-NCBMDS) (Crl.A.Nos.161

and 281 of 2014), N.Kandeepan and Anr. Vs. State rep. By the Intelligence https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.201 of 2022

Officer, N.C.B, South Zone, Chennai. (Crl.A.Nos.528 of 2013 and 552 of

2012), T.Udayachandran @ Ramesh Vs. State rep. by the Intelligence

Officer1, V.Vettichelvan Vs. Central rep. By the Senior Intelligence Officer,

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence2, Rajapandi and Anr. Vs. State rep. By

the Inspector of Police, Chennai (Crime No.91/12)3, Shahejadkhan

Mahebubkhan Pathan Vs. State of Gujarat4.

6. Per contra, Mr.N.P.Kumar, the learned Special Public Prosecutor,

would submit that in view of the overwhelming evidence on record, the

appellant has been rightly convicted by the Trial Court. He would further

submit that the fine amount imposed in the case is Rs.1,00,000/- per count,

which is the minimum fine amount and therefore, has been rightly imposed by

the Court. Therefore, once the appellant is unable to pay the fine amount, she

can very well be required to undergo the default sentence and in view of the

nature of the offence involved by the appellant, there is no necessity to modify

the order of default sentence.

1 CDJ 2012 MHC 1209

2 CDJ 2009 MHC 5356

3 CDJ 2021 MHC 5821

4 AIR 2013 SC (Criminal) 61 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.201 of 2022

7. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of either side

and perused the material records of the case and also considered the above

mentioned six judgments produced by the learned Counsel for the appellant.

On a perusal of the said judgments, it would be clear that in respect to the

default sentence, two factors, namely completion of the entire period of

incarceration and the factum about the capacity to pay the fine amount, can be

taken into account and can be appropriately reduced in appropriate cases.

Therefore, considering the nature and circumstances of this case, I am of the

view that since the appellant continued to be under incarceration even after the

completion of 10 years, that would by itself demonstrate that she is unable to

pay the fine amount. Considering the fact that the appellant is lady and that she

is unable to pay the fine amount and that she has already completed 10 years of

Rigorous Imprisonment, I am inclined to modify the default sentence alone

from one year for each count to two months for each count. The appellant,

therefore, shall undergo two months each for each count i.e., four counts

consecutively one after the other.

8. The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed to the above extent, upon

completion of the said period as indicated above, if the appellant is not required

for any other case, the Superintendent, Central Prison, Special Prison for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.201 of 2022

Women, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to release the appellant.

                                                                                    24.06.2022
                Index : yes
                Internet    : yes
                Speaking order
                grs


                To

                1. The Special Judge,

I Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under N.D.P.S Act, Chennai – 600 104.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3. The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai Zonal Unit, Chennai.

4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai.

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

Crl.A.No.201 of 2022

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY. J.,

grs

Crl.A.No.201 of 2022

24.06.2022

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