Madras High Court
Kannan vs State Rep. By on 30 June, 2025
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.587 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.587 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)No.6472 of 2025
Kannan ... Petitioner
-vs-
State Rep. by,
The Inspector of Police,
Kodaikanal Police Station,
Dindigul District.
(In Crime No.57 of 2024) ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Review Case filed under 438 r/w. 442 of BNSS, 2023,
to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 15.04.2025,
passed in Crl.M.P.No.227 of 2025 in C.C.No.252 of 2024 on the file of the
learned Principal Special Court, for EC & NDPS Act cases, Madurai and to
set aside the same and discharge the petitioner from the above said case.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Selvam
For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi,
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case is filed, assailing the order dated
15.04.2025, passed by the learned Principal Special Court for Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Cases, Madurai, in Crl.M.P.No.227
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 11:37:28 am )
of 2025 in C.C.No.252 of 2024.
2.By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court dismissed the
petitioner’s application for discharge on the footing that (i) charges had
already been framed on 19.09.2024 and (ii) Section 362 CrPC
(corresponding to Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023) barred review of its earlier order.
Prosecution Case :-
3.The petitioner stands charged under Sections 8(c), 22(c), and 29(1)
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).
Charges were framed on 19.09.2024 and the trial is in progress and three
prosecution witnesses have been examined. On 27.01.2025 , the petitioner
moved for discharge; the same was rejected by the impugned order.
Submissions:-
4.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that, the learned Trial Court erred in invoking Section 362 Cr.P.C., without
examining the merits. He further categorically stated that an order framing
charge is neither interlocutory nor final and therefore, not immunised from
review; and relying upon the cases of Madhu Limaye v. State of
Maharashtra1 and Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency v. CBI2, he
1 1978 (2) SCC 573
2 2018 (16) SCC 299
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 11:37:28 am )
insisted to preserve the revisional power of the High Court to correct
jurisdictional errors. He further submitted that unless the contraband
recovered qualifies to be a psychotropic substance, the possession thereof
would not be an offence under the provisions of Section 22 of NDPS Act.
Mushroom falls outside the scope of the definition of Narcotic Substance,
under NDPS Act. Though psilocybin appears at serial No.145 of the table
notified for psychotropic substance, the recovered contraband under the
cover of mahazaar was not psilocybin, but mushroom. Already this Court
has held that Magic Mushroom is not a psychotropic substance in the case
of P.Rajkumar vs The State of Tamil Nadu3.
5.The Additional learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent countered that once charges are framed in a warrant case, the
accused has no right to seek discharge. The application filed four months
after framing of charges and after commencement of trial, is an abuse of
process of law. He placed reliance on the cases in State of Bihar v.
Ramesh Singh4 and State of Maharashtra v. Salman Salim Khan5.
That apart, he pointed out that the botanical name of magic mushroom
itself is psilocybin cubensis and that it's principal active compound are
psilocybin and psilocybin hydroxy N.N dimethyltryptamine.
4 1977 AIR 2018
5 2004 (1) SCC 525
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 11:37:28 am )
6.Head both sides and carefully perused the materials available on
record.
Points for Determination:-
(i) Whether the learned Trial Court committed jurisdictional error in
declining to entertain the discharge petition after framing of charges.
(ii) Whether the impugned order warrants interference in revision.
Discussion:-
7.1.Statutory Position:- Section 227 of Cr.P.C., permits discharge
“before” charge. Once charges are framed under Section 228, the court
must “proceed to try” the accused. Section 362 forbids alteration of a
judgment or final order except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors;
while the order framing charge is not “final” in the appealable sense, the
statutory scheme leaves no room for a fresh discharge at that stage.
7.2.Precedents:- The principle that post-charge the trial court is
functus officio as to discharge is settled by State of Bihar v. Ramesh
Singh6 and State of Maharashtra v. Salman Salim Khan6 and Union
of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal7. Those rulings hold that the
adequacy of evidence is tested at the stage of judgment, not discharge.
6 Supra 4
6 Supra 5
7 1979 (3) SCC 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 11:37:28 am )
7.3.Applicability of Madhu Limaye and Asian Resurfacing:-
Those decisions safeguard the High Court’s revisional and inherent powers,
but they do not confer upon the trial court a power to reopen the question
of charge contrary to the CrPC framework. In Madhu Limaye Case, the
discharge petition was filed before the framing of charges unlike the case in
hand.
7.4.Stage of Trial :- Three witnesses have been examined; the
Investigating Officer stands to be examined next. Remitting the matter for
re-consideration would stall the trial, defeating the mandate of speedy
justice embodied in Section 309 of Cr.P.C., and the NDPS Act’s stringent
timeline.
7.5.Section 362 of Cr.P.C :- The learned trial court’s reference to
Section 362, though inexact, does not vitiate the conclusion. Even if
Section 362 is inapplicable in stricto sensu, the absence of statutory power
to discharge after framing of charges leads inexorably to the same result.
Conclusion :-
8.No jurisdictional error, perversity, or material irregularity is
demonstrated. Interference under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., is therefore
unwarranted. Further the question as to whether the recovered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 11:37:28 am )
contraband, namely, magic mushroom is a narcotic substance or not,
cannot be gone into by the learned Trial Court in a discharge petition filed
after the framing of charges.
9.Hence this Court is of the considered opinion that, the grounds
relied upon by the petitioner will not sustain his case. Accordingly, the
Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The impugned order dated
15.04.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.227 of 2025 is affirmed. The learned Trial Court
shall proceed expeditiously with C.C.No.252 of 2024 and endeavour to
conclude the trial, uninfluenced by any observation herein. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition, if any, stand closed.
30.06.2025
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes
Mrn
To
1.The Principal Special Court, for EC & NDPS Act cases, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kodaikanal Police Station,
Dindigul District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 11:37:28 am )
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Mrn
30.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/07/2025 11:37:28 am )
