Madras High Court

Mokkaiah vs The Inspector Of Police on 18 November, 2024

                                                                              CRL.A(MD).No.50 of 2023


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                 Dated:18.11.2024

                                                          CORAM

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

                                              CRL.A(MD).No.50 of 2023

                    Mokkaiah                                             ...Appellant

                                                           Vs.

                    The Inspector of Police,
                    Palani Taluk Police Station,
                    Dindigul District.                                  ... Respondent
                    In Crime No.100 of 2015

                    Prayer : This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (3) of Cr.P.C., to
                    call for the records in C.C.No.259 of 2017 relating to the judgment dated
                    14.11.2022 passed by the Principal Special Court for EC and NDPS Act
                    Cases, Madurai and to set aside the judgment of the conviction on the
                    appellant/accused.
                                          For Appellant     : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian
                                          For Respondent    : Mr.Meenakshi Sundaram
                                                            Additional Public Prosecutor

                                                       JUDGMENT

The appellant, who is the sole accused in C.C.No.259 of 2017 on the

file of the Principal Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai,

filed this criminal appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed

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

against him by the Principal Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases,

Madurai. The learned trial Judge has passed the impugned order, dated

14.11.2022 and found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as

detailed below:-

                           Accused     Convicted under           Sentence of
                                          Section         Imprisonment/fine imposed
                              Sole     Section 8(c) r/w    Rigorous Imprisonment for
                            accused     20(b)(ii)(B) of    two years and to pay fine of
                                        Narcotic Drug       Rs.10,000/-, in default to
                                         Psychotropic     undergo simple imprisonment
                                       Substances Act,           for six months.




                    2.The brief facts of the case:

On 16.02.2015 at 08.15 a.m., P.W.2/Sub Inspector of Police

attached with the respondent Police received the secret information about

illegal transportation of the Ganja by the appellant near Thangam Kalyana

Mandapam, Pappampatti, Palani Taluk. After obtaining permission from

P.W.3 as per Section 42 of Narcotic Drug Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985, (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as “NDPS Act”), P.W.

1 and P.W.2 went to the occurrence place. The informer identified the

appellant. P.W.1 and P.W.2 intercepted the appellant with the white colour

bag containing the contraband. After nabbing the appellant, P.W.2

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

informed his right to be searched in the presence of the learned Judicial

Magistrate or the Gazetted officer as per the Section 50 of NDPS Act and

the appellant stated that P.W.2 himself could search him. Thereafter, search

was made and the contraband of Ganja weighting 5.100 k.gms was

recovered and the sample S1 and S2 were taken and the remaining

contraband were packed and the proper seal was affixed. Thereafter, the

confession of the accused was recorded and the Athatchi was prepared and

then, he came to the station and registered the FIR under Ex.P.3 and

submitted a detailed report under Section 57 of NDPS Act vide Ex.P.4. .

P.W.3, on receipt of the said report under Section 57 of NDPS Act,

conducted the investigation and filed the final report before the Special

Court, after obtaining the scientific expert's report. The same was taken on

file in C.C.No.259 of 2017, by the Principal Special Court for EC and

NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.

3.The learned trial Judge after appearance of the accused served the

copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C.,. Then, he framed necessary charges and

questioned the accused. The accused denied the charges and pleaded not

guilty and stood for trial.

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

4.To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and

exhibited 8 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 and produced 3 material objects

as M.O.1 to M.O.3. After recording of the evidence, the appellant was

questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., proceedings, disclosing the

incriminating materials against him and he denied the same as false and

thereafter, the case was posted for defence evidence. The accused neither

produced any documents nor examined any witnesses on his side.

5.The learned trial Judge, on considering the evidence of witnesses

and documents, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as

stated supra. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant preferred this appeal.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the

recovery was not proved in accordance with law and there is doubt

regarding the recovery of the contraband. Therefore, he seeks for acquittal.

6.1.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further

submitted that he was aged about 67 years and he had already undergone

two bypass surgery and his health condition is not good and hence, he

seeks for atleast reduction of sentence.

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

7.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on instructions,

submitted that the recovery was clearly proved through the evidence of

P.W.1 and P.W.2 and hence, he seeks for confirmation of the conviction. He

also further submitted that he has number of previous cases and hence, no

intelligence can be shown by this Court for reduction of the sentence of

imprisonment.

8.This Court considered the rival submission made by the learned

counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available

on record.

9.P.W.2 clearly deposed about the receipt of the secret information

about the illegal transportation of the Ganja by the appellant on 16.12.2015

at 8.15 a.m., and informed the same to P.W.3. P.W.3 clearly deposed about

the receipt of the information submitted by P.W.2 under Section 42 of

NDPS Act. Thereafter, P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to the occurrence place and

recovered the contraband from the appellant after following formalities.

P.W.2 also deposed about the recovery of the contraband from the

appellant. P.W.1 also corroborated the evidence of P.W.2. The evidence of

P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the cogent and trustworthy and there is no reason to

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

disbelieve their version and nothing was elicited during the cross

examination to disbelieve their version relating to the recovery of the

contraband.

10.In view of the above discussion, all prosecution witnesses have

clearly deposed about illegal transportation of 5.100 k. gms Ganja in a

white bag by the appellant. The chemical analysis report also confirmed

that the recovered contraband is Ganja. In all aspects, the prosecution

clearly proved that the appellant illegally transported the Ganja of 5.100

kgms and hence, this Court finds no reason to differ with the finding of the

learned trial Judge.

11.The available evidence clearly proved that the appellant was

illegally transporting 5.100 kgms Ganja and the learned trial Judge rightly

convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B)

of Narcotic Drug Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Therefore, this

Court confirms the conviction under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of

Narcotic Drug Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

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

12.Considering the incarceration of the appellant for the more than

18 months and his medical complication and taking into account his age of

67 years and further report of the jail authority relating to his heart

problem, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence to the 19 months

from 2 years.

13.Accordingly, this criminal Appeal is partly allowed with the

following modification of the sentence of imprisonment:-

i) The conviction passed against the appellant by the Principal Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, dated 14.11.2022, is confirmed and the sentence imposed against him under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of Narcotic Drug Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is reduced to 19 months from 2 years.