Monday, 11, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Thanalakshmi vs The State Rep. By
2023 Latest Caselaw 13478 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 13478 Mad
Judgement Date : 4 October, 2023

Madras High Court
Thanalakshmi vs The State Rep. By on 4 October, 2023
                                                                      Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16684 of 2023

                                   BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                              (Criminal Jurisdiction)

                                                    Dated: 04/10/2023

                                        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN

                                            Crl.OP(MD)No.16684 of 2023

                     1.Thanalakshmi
                     2.Rasathi
                     3.Nagapandi                                  : Petitioners/A3 to A5

                                                Vs.
                     The State rep. by
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     Pattiveeranpatti Police Station,
                     Dindigul District.
                     (Crime No.3 of 2023)             : Respondent/Complainant
                                  For Petitioners           : Mr.R.Anand

                                  For Respondent            : Mr.S.Ravi
                                                             Additional Public Prosecutor


PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.

PRAYER:- For Bail in Crime No.3 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER: The Court made the following order:-

The petitioners/A3 to A5 were arrested and remanded

to judicial custody, on 03/01/2023 for the offences

punishable under sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 29(1)

and 25 of NDPS Act, in Crime No.3 of 2023 on the file of

the respondent police, seek bail.

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16684 of 2023

2.The case of the prosecution is that on secrete

information from the police informer, the de-facto

complainant along with the police team went to

Pattiveeranpatti to Ayyankottai road, near a grocery

shop, they found a Car bearing registration No.TN-68-

X-999 and a Two Wheeler bearing registration No.TN-57-

BX-7294 along with some packages. On seeing the police

team, all the persons tried to escape from that place.

They were surrounded and enquired. At the time of

enquiry, Thasildar, Nilakkotai and Village Assistant were

available. With the consent of the accused, they made

search and found 40 kgs of Ganja. Samplings were taken as

per the procedure in the presence of the revenue

officials. On enquiry, they disclosed their name as

Sakthivel, Thanalakshmi, Rajathi and Nagapandi.

Similarly, search was made in the two wheeler and 20 kgs

of Ganja was also recovered from the above said two

wheeler. They also disclosed their name as Sakthivel and

another escaped from that place. The accused were

arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

3.Seeking bail, this petition has been filed by the

petitioners, who are arrayed as A3 to A5.

4.Heard both sides.

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16684 of 2023

5.Section 52-A(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, reads as follows:-

“52-A.Disposal of seized narcotic

drugs and psychotropic substances-(1)

The Central Government may, having

regard to the hazardous nature,

vulnerability to theft, substitution,

constraint of proper storage space or

any other relevant consideration, in

respect of any narcotic drugs,

psychotropic substances, controlled

substances or conveyances, by

notification in the Official Gazette,

specify such narcotic drugs,

psychotropic substances, controlled

substances or conveyance or class of

narcotic drugs, class of psychotropic

substances, class of controlled

substances or conveyances, which shall,

as soon as may be after their seizure,

be disposed of by such officer and in

such manner as that Government may, from

time to time, determine after following

the procedure hereinafter specified.

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16684 of 2023

(2)Where any narcotic drugs,

psychotropic substances, controlled

substances or conveyances has been

seized and forwarded to the officer-in-

charge of the nearest police station or

to the officer empowered under section

53, the officer referred to in sub-

section (1) shall prepare an inventory

of such narcotic drugs, psychotropic

substances, controlled substances or

conveyances containing such details

relating to their description, quality,

quantity, mode of packing, marks,

numbers or such other identifying

particulars of the narcotic drugs,

psychotropic substances, controlled

substances or conveyances or the packing

in which they are packed, country of

origin and other particulars as the

officer referred to in sub-section (1)

may consider relevant to the identity of

the narcotic drugs, psychotropic

substances, controlled substances or

conveyances in any proceedings under

this Act and make an application, to any https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16684 of 2023

Magistrate for the purpose of--

(a)certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or

(b)taking, in the presence of such magistrate, photographs of such drugs, substances or conveyances and certifying such photographs as true; or

(c)allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of such magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

by heavily relying upon the above said provision would

submit that no proper sampling was undertaken soon after

the arrest made; Even the certificate that has been

issued by the concerned Presiding Officer appears to be

not legal, since no material is available to show that

proper application was filed by the Investigating Officer

to take up the sample.

7.For that purpose, entire records have been called

for from the trial court and certificate has also been

issued by the competent trial Judge. This fact was also

elaborated by me in the earlier order.

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16684 of 2023

8.Now the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners entertained doubt about the very genuineness

of the certificate and the manner in which, the above

said samplings were drawn. But absolutely, I find no

substance in the argument, when official documents are

available, unless the valid ground is available to the

petitioners, they cannot dispute the same.

9.It is the general presumption that every officer

act is performed correctly in the course of business.

Absolutely, I find no reason entertain any doubt with

regard to the genuineness of the document.

10.The contention that no such copy was made

available, cannot be a matter for consideration. If the

petitioners wants copy of the application or certificate,

they can very well approach the concerned trial court and

get the certified copy. So, I find absolutely no reason

to entertain this argument.

11.The next ground is that sampling was not

undertaken as per the above said provisions, since only

the assistance of the revenue officials were sought and

in their presence, search was made.

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16684 of 2023

12.But the learned Additional Public Prosecutor

would submit that section 52-A(2) of the Act does not

deal about the sampling taken soon after the arrest.

Section 52-A(2) deals about the disposal of the

properties and sending the same for chemical analysis.

13.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

would further submit that since the property was not

produced before the concerned Presiding Officer soon

after the seizure, there is a violation of section 52A(2)

of the Act. He would also rely upon the judgments

reported in the case of Mangilal Vs. The State of Madhya

Pradesh (2023 Livelaw SC 549) and 2023 SCC OnLine SC 906

(Simarnjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab).

14.But here, Form-95 has been prepared soon after

the seizure. It was also produced before the competent

Presiding Officer. Sampling was also taken as per the

provisions of section 52A(2) of the Act. So, the

contention on the part of the petitioners that the

property was not produced before the Presiding Officer

soon after the recovery is not also correct on record.

15.Except the above said grounds, no other ground

worth considering has been made by the petitioners, since

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16684 of 2023

this ground is not sufficient enough to satisfy the

requirement of section 37 of the NDPS Act.

16.For the reasons stated above, I find no merit to

entertain this petition.

17.In the result, this criminal original petition is

dismissed.

04/10/2023

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No er

To,

1.The Principal Special Court for Trial of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act cases, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Pattiveeranpatti Police Station, Dindigul District.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16684 of 2023

G.ILANGOVAN, J

er

Crl.OP(MD)No.16684 of 2023

04/10/2023

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

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16684 of 2023

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

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter