Madras High Court
Kasi Rajan vs The State Rep By Its on 15 May, 2025
Crl.A.(MD).No.143 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 29.01.2025
Pronounced On : 15.05.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A.(MD).No.143 of 2020
Kasi Rajan ... Appellant/Accused
Vs.
The State rep by its,
The Intelligence Officer,
Narcotics Control Bureau,
Madurai Sub-Zone,Madurai.
NCB F.No.48/1/04/2017/NCB/MDU
... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the judgment in
C.C.No.99 of 2018 dated on 09.01.2020 on the file of the Principal Special
Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, and set aside the same and
acquit the appellant from all charges framed against him.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Murugendran
For Respondent : Mr.R.C.Arulvadivel @ Sekar
Special Public Prosecutor for NCB Cases
Page 1 of 27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 09:56:32 am )
Crl.A.(MD).No.143 of 2020
JUDGMENT
The appellant/Accused in C.C.No.99 of 2018 on the file of the
Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, has filed this
appeal, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him on
09.01.2020, wherein, he was convicted for the offence under Section 8(c)
r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act for the illegal possession of 29.300 kg of
ganja.
2.The brief facts of the case as follows:
2.1. On 22.10.2017, at 02.30 a.m, P.W.1, Intelligence Officer,
Madurai, received a secret information from the informer that the appellant
would be receiving ganja from a ganja supplier near Rice Mill, Pannikundu,
Usilampatti, Madurai District and he also stated about the identidy of the
appellant. Thereafter, P.W.1 reduced the same in writting under Ex.P.1 and
informed the same to his Immediate Superior, P.W.4 and he acknowledged
the same under Ex.P.9. Thereafter, P.W.1 along with P.W.2 and one
Dhayanidhi went to the spot with necessary equipment and mounded
surveillance at 04.30 p.m. At about 05.00 p.m, the accused came there and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 09:56:32 am )
dragged out two bags from the bushes near that place. Thereafter, P.W.1 and
his team intercepted the appellant and introduced themselves as officers
and he was informed about his right to be searched before the Judicial
Magistrate or the Gazetted officer as required under Section 50 of the NDPS
Act. The appellant consented to conduct the search by the officer himself
and hence, P.W.1 opened the two gunny bags and found 29.300 kg of ganja.
He recovered the same after following the proceedure and took the samples
of (each 25 grams) S1 and S2 and properly sealed the same. Thereafter, he
arrested the appellant. The appellant also gave a confession and recorded
the confession. After that, P.W.1 handed over the accused along with
contraband and a detailed report under Section 57 of NDPS Act was sent to
P.W.5. P.W.5 remanded the accused along with contraband and case was
registered in NCB F.No.48/1/04/2017/NCB/MDU for the offence under
Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 27(A), 28 & 29 of NDPS Act. After
completing all the formalities, the learned Judicial Magistrate remanded the
appellant. Thereafter, P.W.5 conducted the investigation and filed the final
report before the Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases,
MAdurai, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.99 of 2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 09:56:32 am )
2.2. The learned trial Judge issued summons to the accused and on
his appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and framed the
necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused pleaded not
guilty and stood for trial.
2.3. The prosecution, to prove the case examined P.W.1 to P.W.5
and exhibited 32 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.32 and produced 11material
objects as M.O.1 to M.O.11. The learned trial Judge questioned the accused
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., proceedings by putting the incriminating
evidence available from prosecution witnesses and documents. The accused
denied the same as false and the case was posted for examination of the
witnesses on the side of the appellant. On the side of the defence, no one
was examined as witness and no document was marked.
2.4. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and
documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the offence under Sections
8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, and sentenced him to undergo
10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 09:56:32 am )
One Lake only) in default, to undergo, 6 months Simple Imprisonment for
the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.
3. Challenging the same, present appeal has been filed.
4. Submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant:-
4.1. In view of the material discrepancies between Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.
9 and the evidence of P.W.1 & P.W.4 relating to reducing of the information
under Section 42 of the Act, the compliance under Section 42 of the Act
was not proved by the prosecution.
4.2. Complaint was given by P.W.5. He is not the competent or
authorised person to lodge the complaint. Therefore, the complaint itself is
illegal and cognizance taken on the basis of complaint filed by incompetent
person is not legally valid.
4.3. One Sankaranarayanan of the Department acted as a
translator and he actively participated in the recovery proceedings. There
was a complaint against the said person that he had received money from
one Ravi @ Ravichandran and P.W.2 also admitted the same. Therefore, the
registration of case itself suspicious.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 09:56:32 am )
4.4. It is the admitted case that the appellant sustained injuries on
his shoulder and he was admitted in the hospital before the remand. In the
said circumstances, it is unbelievable that the appellant handled two bags of
ganja containing the quantity of 29.300 kg of ganja as deposed by P.W.1.
The said evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated by the evidence of the
independent witness namely, P.W.2. P.W.2 clearly deposed that he is unable
to identify the accused before the Court. He has not even deposed about the
place of the occurrence. Therefore, the possession and recovery was not
clearly proved by legal evidence.
4.5. The recovery was made within the jurisdiction of
Thirumangalam. However, the accused was produced before the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. It creates suspicion over the arrest and
recovery of the contraband from the appellant.
4.6. There was no material available to prove the weighing scale
to weigh the contraband and it was not disclosed.
4.7. There was no particulars about the weight of the contraband.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 09:56:32 am )
4.8. Apart from that, there was no reference about the
measurement whether weight was measured through electronic machine or
ordinary weighing machine. Therefore, the same creates doubt over the
prosecution case.
4.9. There is time discrepancy between the arrival of the
independent witness along with P.W.1, which is material in the particular
facts of the case. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, P.W.2 is
a chance witness and his presence at the place situated on the way to the
occurrence place i.e., from Pannikundu to Chellampatti is doubtful. He was
directed by the officer to accompany him as a independent witness to
recover the contraband and arrest the accused. The recovery was made at
04.30 p.m (Ex.P.2) and the information was received on 22.10.2017 at 02.30
p.m in their office situated at Madurai City. It is unbelievable to reach the
occurrence place, which is more than 20 km from their office within short
duration that too, after calling independent witnesses at Chellampatti village
and reaching the occurrence place with the independent witnesses.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 09:56:32 am )
4.10. P.W.1 received the information through the informant on
22.10.2017. At that time, the informant also stated about the identity of the
appellant. Hence, the informant has not accompanied P.W.1. In the said
circumstances, the arrest itself is illegal and the consequent recovery is also
not believable.
4.11. It is the specific case of P.W.2 that he recovered the amount
of Rs.8,500/-. They failed to produce the godown receipt for the deposit of
seized contraband and also not produced the weighment particulars of the
contraband. Therefore, in all aspects, the prosecution case is bristled with
infirmities and inconsistencies and hence, he seeks acquittal for the
appellant.
5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for NCB Cases made
the following submissions :-
5.1. Ex.P.1 clearly speaks that P.W.1 received the information and
he got permission to conduct raid and seized contraband. The same was
marked without any objection. Therefore, the plea of the counsel for the
appellant that there was no compliance of 42 of the Act is not correct.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 09:56:32 am )
5.2. After seizure of the contraband, summons under Section 67 of
the Act was issued to the appellant and he voluntarily appeared before the
NCB. He refused to give statement under Section 67 of the Act and
thereafter, he was arrested and produced before the jurisdictional Court and
this is not a circumstance to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2,
who have clearly deposed about the recovery of the contraband on the date
of occurrence.
5.3. The independent witness, P.W.2, due to the passage of time
was unable to identify the accused before the Court. But, he deposed that his
statement under Section 67 of the Act was recorded in which, he admitted
the signature in the statement under Section 67 of the Act. Therefore, the
learned trial Judge correctly appreciated Ex.P.4 and his evidence before the
Court to believe that the recovery was made in his presence from the
appellant, which corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1.
5.4. The motive alleged about Sankaranarayanan is mere pleading
and no separate materials are available on record to prove that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 09:56:32 am )
Sankaranarayanan was instrumental for the episode of the recovery of ganja
from the appellant.
5.5. The non-production of the weighment receipt is immaterial
when the entire contraband was produced before the learned Judicial
Magistrate at the time of remand itself and the same was received and
endorsed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. P.W.1 clearly deposed about the
weight of the entire contraband. In the said circumstances, there was no
necessity to produce any other material. Hence, the prosecution clearly
proved all the materials without any reasonable doubt. Therefore, he prayed
for dismissal of this appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence
passed by the learned trial Judge.
5.6. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record and also the precedents relied upon by them.
6. The question arising for consideration in this appeal is that
whether the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 09:56:32 am )
against the appellant and the conviction and sentence imposed by the
learned trial Judge against the appellant can be sustained or not?
7. Discussion on the compliance of the Section 42 of the Act:-
7.1. The prosecution produced two exhibits under Ex.P.1 and
Ex.P.9 to show the compliance under Section 42 of the Act. Ex.P.1 was
disowned by the superior officer namely, P.W.4. P.W.1 deposed as follows:-
vd;dplk; fhl;lg;gLk; jftiy ehd;jhd; gjpT nra;Njd;.
mJ m.rh.M9. m.rh.M1y; fz;fhzpg;ghshpd; Nkw;Fwpg;G ,y;iy
vd;why; rhpjhd;. m.rh.M9y; fz;fhzpg;ghshpd; ifnaOj;J ,y;iy
vd;why;rhpjhd;. md;iwa Njjpapy; 2 fz;fhzpg;ghsUk; tpLKiwapy;
,Ue;jjhy; kz;ly ,af;Feh; Nkw;Fwpg;G nra;Js;shh;. m.rh.M1y;
kz;ly ,af;Feh; Nkw;Fwpg;G nra;atpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;.
jftypy; fQ;rhtpd; vil Fwpg;gplgltpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;. 22k;
Njjp jftiy ePjpkd;wj;jpy; xg;gilf;ftpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;.
7.2. From that evidence, it is clear that there was no endorsement
of acknowledgement of the receipt of the information by the superior in
Ex.P.1. The signature of the Regional Director was absent in Ex.P.1. Apart
from that, he also admitted that he has not produced the information
received on 22.10.2017 before the Court. Apart from that, P.W.4 deposed as
follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 09:56:32 am )
m.rh.M.1-y; ehd; Nkw;Fwpg;G vJTk; nra;atpy;iy.
m.rh.M.9-y; ehd; Nkw;Fwpg;G nra;Js;Nsd;. vd;Dila Nkw;Fwpg;G
vJTk; ,y;yhj Mtzk; m.rh.M1 ePjpkd;wj;jpy; vg;gb jhf;fy;
nra;ag;gl;lJ vd;W vdf;F njhpahJ. gphpT 57d; fPohd mwpf;ifia
ehd; ghh;itapl;l gpd;dh; kPz;Lk; kJiuf;F mDg;gpajhf rk;ke;jkhf
nl];Ngr; vz; vJTk; guhkhpg;gJ fpilahJ. rq;fuehuazd; kw;Wk;
kw;w mjpfhhpfs; Nrh;e;J &.5 yl;rk; ngw;W nfhz;L ngha; tof;F
Nghl;Ls;sjhf mjpy; $wg;gl;bUe;jJ.
7.3. When both P.W.1 and P.W.4 deposed about the absence of
signature under Ex.P.1. But, Ex.P.1 contained the signature of P.W.4 and the
same was produced before the Court. In the said circumstances, the
compliance of Section 42 is not correct. When two documents were
produced before the Court and the officer disowned the signature in the
document under Ex.P.1, there is a suspicion over the preparation of the
documents whether Section 42 of the Act was complied. For better
appreciation, this Court extracts Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.9.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 09:56:32 am )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 09:56:32 am )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 09:56:32 am )
7.4. Ex.P.1 contained the signature of the officer but he disowned
the same. Therefore, this Court has no other reason except to accept the
argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the compliance of
Section 42 of the Act was not proved in this case. Once the compliance of
Section 42 was not proved, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted as per
the judgment of the Hon'ble Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 539. The said
fact is further strengthened by the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 also deposed
that report under Section 57 of the Act also was not sent to the officer. The
relevant evidence is as follows:-
“57d; fPohd mwpf;ifia cah; mjpfhhpf;F mDg;gpaJ
Fwpj;J Mtzk; vJTk; ehd; jhf;fy; nra;atpy;iy”
“gphpT 57d; fPohd mwpf;ifia ehd; ghh;itapl;l gpd;dh;
kPz;Lk; kJiuf;F mDg;gpajhf rk;ke;jkhf nl];Ngr; vz; vJTk;
guhkhpg;gJ fpilahJ. Rq;fuehuhazd; kw;Wk; kw;w mjpfhhpfs;
Nrh;e;J &.5 yl;rk; ngw;W nfhz;L ngha; tof;F Nghl;Ls;sjhf
mjpy; $wg;gl;bUe;jJ.”
7.5. From the above evidence, compliance of the Sections 42 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 09:56:32 am )
57 of the Act is doubtful. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
isolated circumstance of non-compliance of Section 57 of the Act is not a
ground to acquit the accused. When there are other circumstances, non-
compliance of Section 57 of the Act is material. In this case, the compliance
of Section 42 of the Act as stated in Section 57 of the NDPS Act is false and
therefore, they failed to comply with Section 57 of the Act. Therefore, these
material circumstances, pave the way to doubt the recovery of the
contraband as projected by the prosecution.
8. Discussion on the evidence of P.W.2:-
8.1. P.W.2 is an independent witness. He was examined to prove
the presence of the accused in the occurrence place and recovery of the
contraband on the disclosure of the appellant. P.W.2 hails from Madurai and
he would occasionally visit Chellampatti. Therefore, he is a chance witness.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the guidelines to rely the evidence of
chance witness in the case of Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab reported in
(2009) 9 SCC 719.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 09:56:32 am )
“22. The evidence of a chance witness requires a very
cautious and close scrutiny and a chance witness must
adequately explain his presence at the place of occurrence
(Satbir v. Surat Singh [(1997) 4 SCC 192 : 1997 SCC
(Cri) 538] , Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab [(2004) 11
SCC 253 : 2004 SCC (Cri) Supp 28] , Acharaparambath
Pradeepan v. State of Kerala [(2006) 13 SCC 643 : (2008)
1 SCC (Cri) 241] and Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga
Singh [(2007) 13 SCC 360 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 188] ).
Deposition of a chance witness whose presence at the
place of incident remains doubtful should be discarded
(vide Shankarlal v. State of Rajasthan [(2004) 10 SCC 632
: 2005 SCC (Cri) 579] ).”
8.2. In the chief examination, he has not even stated that whether
he was available in Chellampatti. He simply stated that 'Rkhh; 2
tUlq;fSf;F Kd;G $yp Ntiy nra;tjw;fhf NghapUe;Njd;'. He has not even
stated the place of Chellampatti in the chief examination and also further
stated that the officer brought him to one place i.e., 'rq;fuehuazd; kw;Wk;
kw;w xUehs; khiyapy; Mgprh;]; vd;id xU ,lj;jpw;F mioj;Jnrd;whh;fs;
mq;F gz;ly;fs;,Ue;jJ mjpy; fQ;rh ,Ug;gjhf nrhd;dhh;fs;. mJ rk;ke;jkhf
vd;dplk; ifnaOj;J thq;fpdhh;fs;. mjd;gpd;dh; xU ehs; kJiuapYs;s
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 09:56:32 am )
Mgprpw;F tu nrhy;yp vd;id tprhhpj;jhh;fs;. ehd; thf;F%yj;ij vd; ifg;gl
vOjp nfhLj;Njd;. fQ;rh vLf;Fk;NghJ mq;fpUe;j egiu ghh;j;jhy; milahsk;
fhl;l KbAkh vd;why; 2 tUlk; Mfptpl;ljhy; vd;dhy; milahsk; fhl;l
KbahJ. me;j ,lj;jpypUe;jth; ,d;W ePjpkd;wj;jpy; M[uhfpAs;s vjphpah vd;W
vdf;F njhpatpy;iy.'
8.3. From the reading of the above evidence, his presence is not
free from doubt. Further, on reading of the said chief examination, he
deposed against the prosecution case and the said witness has to be treated
as hostile. In any circumstances, if the prosecution witness deposed against
the prosecution case, it is the duty of the prosecution agency to declare him
hostile and cross-examine with the material particulars. In this case, no
such procedure was followed. Therefore, benefit of doubt has to be given to
the appellant. That apart, in cross examination, he specifically stated that
'P.1 and P.2 vd;w nghUs; vd; Kd;dpiyapy; jahhpf;ftpy;iy S1 and S2 vd;w
nghUs; vd; Kd;dpiyapy; jahhpf;ftpy;iy.' 'm.rh.M.11-y; Mtzj;jpy;
Mq;fpyj;jpy; vd;d vOjg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;W njhpahJ. m.rh.M.11-y; ehd;
mjpfhhpfs; nrhd;dij Ghpe;J nfhz;L ifnaOj;J nra;jjhf mjpy;
thrfq;fs; ,y;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;.'
- From the above evidence, his evidence is not reliable to prove
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 09:56:32 am )
the recovery as alleged by the prosecution.
9. Discussion on the evidence of P.W.1
9.1. The circumstances show that there is no corroborative
material to prove recovery. P.W.1's evidence bristles with infirmities and
inherent improbabilities. Therefore, this Court hesitates to rely the evidence
of P.W.1 to convict the appellant for the grave charge of possession of
commercial quantity of the ganja.
9.2. P.W.1's evidence is unbelievable evidence for various reasons.
It is the specific case of P.W.1 that the information was received from the
informant. He disclosed about the identification marks of the person, who
would receive the contraband. Admittedly, the informant did not accompany
P.W.1. In the said circumstances, identification of the appellant by P.W.1
without any corroborative evidence namely, the evidence of P.W.2, this
Court is unable to believe the evidence of P.W.1.
9.3. In addition to that, P.W.1's specific evidence is that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 09:56:32 am )
appellant dragged two bags of ganja from a bush to the main road. The said
deposition is not believable on the ground that according to the prosecution,
the appellant sustained grievous injuries on his shoulder. From the evidence
of doctor, the appellant was admitted on the hospital as inpatient for the
injuries sustained on his shoulder. In the said circumstances, allegation of
dragging of bags, containing huge quantity of contraband is not believable
one.
10. Further, as already observed he has not explained how the
document Ex.P.1 contained the signature of superior P.W.4. P.W.4 denied the
signature in Ex.P.1. Further, the mahazar was prepared in English. Whether
it was explained to the accused in language known to him is another doubt.
According to the evidence, it was explained through one Sankaranarayanan
of the department. The accused also made a complaint against the said
Sankaranarayanan alleging that he foisted the false case upon receiving the
bribe from one accused Ravi @ Ravichandran, who was secured on the
information furnished by the appellant. P.W.5 admitted that there was
allegation against Sankaranarayanan about the receipt of Rs.5 lakhs to foist
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 09:56:32 am )
a false case. The evidence of P.W.4 is as follows:-
rq;fuehuazd; kw;Wk; kw;w mjpfhhpfs; Nrh;e;J &.5
yl;rk; ngw;W nfhz;L ngha; tof;F Nghl;Ls;sjhf mjpy;
$wg;gl;bUe;jJ. utpr;re;jpud; vd;gth; vjphpf;F vjpuhf tof;F gjpT
nra;tjw;fhf gzk; &.5 yl;rk; nfhLj;jjhf vjphp jug;gpy;
Fw;wr;rhl;L $wp Gfhh; mDg;gg;gl;bUe;jJ.
11. Therefore, the case of the defence that the case was falsely
foisted against the appellant is established on the touchstone of
preponderance of probability. The appellant was TNSTC driver and from the
record, it is seen that he acted as a informant to the department. Hence, he
was honored by the department and later at the instigation of the said
Sankaranarayanan, who is said to have received Rs.5 lakhs from one Ravi
@ Ravichandran this case has been foisted. All these circumstances,
probabalise the defence of false case.
12. The said circumstances were further strengthened from the
remand made before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, instead of
producing him before the jurisdictional Magistrate of Thirumangalam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 09:56:32 am )
Normally, the said fact is not material. But, in view of the injury on the
accused and also considering the other circumstances, the remand made
before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madurai instead of Thirumangalam
creates a doubt over the prosecution case and strengthened the case of the
accused that he was falsely roped in this case.
13. Yet another circumstance is that P.W.1 in his evidence deposed
that he reached the occurrence place namely, Pannikundu at 04.30 p.m,
whereas P.W.2 in Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12 stated that NCB officers brought him
and other witness Dhayanithi at 04.30 p.m, at Chellampatti and reached the
occurrence place at 05.00 p.m, which is situated far away from the scene of
occurrence. Therefore, it also creates doubt over the case of the prosecution.
P.W.1 has also not produced go-down receipt for the contraband recovered
from the appellant and also not produced the weighment receipt. In all the
circumstances, this Court finds that the prosecution miserably failed to
prove the charge against the appellant. Hence, the appellant is liable to be
acquitted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 09:56:32 am )
14. P.W.5 did not know Tamil language and he has susbscribed his
signature under Ex.P.12. One Sankaranarayanan, Sepoy of Department
helped as translator. As per the evidence, there is an allegation against him
with regard to the receipt of bribe. It is not the case of the officers, who have
been examined on the side of the prosecution that the said fact is false. They
stated that there was an enquiry in this regard. If the officers say that they
conducted enquiry about the said allegation and found that same is false,
then this Court will not consider the said allegation. At this stage, this Court
is inclined to take the allegation against Sankaranarayanan in favour of the
accused. Hence, this Court inclines to accept the defence that the
prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments held that the
prosecution and the Investigation Agency must act in a fair manner and the
prosecution has not only to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt but also
make out a fool proof case for the reason that the accused is in jail without
bail up to the trial. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Noorjahan Vs. State represented by DSP reported in AIR 2008 SC 2131,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 09:56:32 am )
has specifically observed that the prosecution should prove the foundational
facts of possession through legal evidence. The judgment of the Hon'ble
Constitution Bench in the case of Mukesh Singh Vs. State (Narcotic
Branch of Delhi) reported in (2020) 10 SCC 120 also reiterated the
principle that in the grave nature of the offence, the greatest responsibility
upon the prosecution is to prove the foundational facts.
15.1. The latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Balwinder Singh (BINDA) vs. The Narcotic control Bureau
reported in 2023 INSC 852 has reiterated the said principle:-
“Since the provisions of the NDPS Act and the
punishments prescribed therein are stringent, the extent of
burden of prove the foundational facts cast on the
prosecution, would have to be more onerous. The view
taken was that Courts would have to undertake a
heightened scrutiny test and satisfy itself of “proof beyond
all reasonable doubt”. Emphasis was laid on the well-
settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that more
serious the offence, the stricter would be the degree of proof
and a higher degree of assurance would be necessary to
convict an accused [Also refer: State of Punjab vs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 09:56:32 am )
Baldev Singh, Ritesh Chakarvarti v. State of M.P.,
and Bhola Singh (supra)]
15.2. In this case, this Court finds that there is no legal evidence
to prove the recovery of possession. Therefore, this Court is unable to
concur with the finding of the learned trial Judge in convicting the
appellant.
16. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed on the following
terms :-
20.1.The judgment passed by the Principal
Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, in
C.C.No.99 of 2018 dated on 09.01.2020 is set aside.
20.2.The appellant is acquitted from all the
charges in C.C.No.99 of 2018 on the file of the
Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases,
Madurai.
20.3.Fine amount if any paid by the appellant
shall be refunded to him forthwith.
20.4. Bail bond executed by the appellant
shall stand cancelled.
15.05.2025.
NCC :Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 09:56:32 am )
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
dss
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 09:56:32 am )
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
dss
To:
1.The Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases,
Madurai.
2.The Intelligence Officer,
Narcotics Control Bureau,
Madurai Sub-Zone, Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section(Records),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
15.05.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 09:56:32 am )
