Madras High Court
Yasin vs State By on 24 November, 2025
2025:MHC:2660
Crl.A.No.443 of 2022
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 15.10.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 24.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
Crl.A.No.443 of 2022
1.Yasin,
S/o.Shek Alavudin
2.Mohamed Hussen,
S/o.Abdhul Munaf,
(Both are residing at
No.1/1, Srinivasapuram 2nd Street,
Old Washermenpet,
Chennai - 600 021.) ... Appellants / A1 & A2
versus
State by
The Inspector of Police,
H1 Washermenpet Police Station,
Chennai. ... Respondent/Complainant
(Crime No.1143 of 2019)
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the
judgment dated 06.04.2022 in C.C.No.141 of 2020 on the file of the learned
Special Judge, II Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases
under NDPS Act, Chennai.
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:05 pm )
Crl.A.No.443 of 2022
For Appellants : Mr.B.Kumarasamy
For Respondent : Mr.J.Subbiah
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
06.04.2022 in C.C.No.141 of 2020, on the file of the learned Special Judge,
II Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS Act,
Chennai.
2. The trial court convicted the appellants/A1 & A2 and sentenced
as follows:-
Rank of the Convicted Sentence of Fine Amount
Accused under Imprisonment
provisions
A-1 8(c) r/w 1 Year RI Rs.15,000/-
20(b)(ii) (B) of each, in default
the NDPS Act to undergo 3
A-2 months simple
imprisonment
3. Pending appeal, the first appellant/Yasin is reported to have
died on 04.03.2023. In view of the death of the first appellant, this appeal is
dismissed as abated, insofar as the first appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:05 pm )
4. It is the case of the prosecution that PW1/Sub Inspector of
Police received a call in his cellphone on 21.12.2019 at 10.30 a.m., wherein
a secret information was given about the sale of ganja by the three accused,
namely, Channu, Yasin and Mohamed Hussen. As per the information, A1 to
A3 are in possession of ganja and selling the same near Srinivasapuram
Railway Gate in Dio two-wheeler, bearing Registration No.TN-03-T-8068.
The informant gave the details of the physical features and the dress colour
of the accused.
5. PW1 recorded the information/Ex.P1 and after obtaining
permission from the Inspector of Police/PW4, accompanied by Head
Constable/PW2 and Charles, proceeded to the scene of occurrence. PW1, on
reaching the scene of occurrence at 11.15a.m., found A1 to A3 with the
same identity which was informed. On seeing the police, the accused tried
to escape and even though A1 and A2 were caught, A3 escaped from the
scene of occurrence.
6. On interrogation, the details of the accused were revealed. PW1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:05 pm )
sought the assistance of three independent witnesses, viz., Kumar, Suresh
and Selvam, but they refused. PW1 informed the accused about their right to
be searched in the presence of the Judicial Magistrate or a Government
Gazetted Officer, but both of the accused consented to search. Ex.P2 and
Ex.P3 are the search notices for A1 and A2. During search, A1 handed over
the contraband ganja from the blue and grey colour checked plastic cover to
PW1 and when weighed, it contained 1.500 kgs. Two samples of 50 grams
were taken and packed in brown colour paper and named as S1 (MO2) and
S2 (MO4). The remaining contraband was packed and named as P1 (MO1).
The witnesses and the accused affixed their signatures in MO1, MO2 and
MO4.
7. On seizure, PW1 prepared the seizure mahazar/Ex.P4 for the
contraband and the two-wheeler/MO3. A1 and A2 were arrested and they
were intimated the grounds of arrest. The arrest intimation of A1 and A2 are
Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, respectively. In the presence of witnesses, PW2 and
Charles, PW1 recorded the voluntary confession statement of A1. After
returning to the police station with the accused and seized properties, PW1
registered the FIR/Ex.P7 under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(1)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:05 pm )
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter
referred to as “the NDPS Act”).
8. The statements of PW2 and Charles, who accompanied them
were recorded. The arrest memos of A1 and A2 are Ex.P8 and Ex.P9. PW1
forwarded the seized properties to the court through Form 95/Ex.P10 and
prepared his special report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act/Ex.P11 and
the same was submitted to PW4.
9. PW4 took up the investigation and forwarded the properties for
chemical analysis. The request for chemical analysis is Ex.P13 and the
statement of the chemical analyst/PW3 was recorded and the report of PW3
is Ex.P12. PW4 completed his investigation and filed the final report.
10. The trial court took up the case, issued summons to the accused
and complied with Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and framed the charges under
Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act. On being
questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:05 pm )
11. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW4 and marked Ex.P1 to
Ex.P13 to prove the charges. After completion of prosecution evidence,
when the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the
incriminating materials available, they denied the same. The accused neither
examined any witnesses nor marked any documents.
12. The trial court after considering the materials and arguments,
convicted the appellants under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS
Act and acquitted both the accused under Sections 25 and 29(1) of the
NDPS Act. The trial court acquitted the third accused and imposed sentence
on the appellants as stated supra in Paragraph 2. Challenging the conviction
and sentence, the appellants have preferred the above appeal.
13. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
identification of the appellants itself is doubtful, as the information recorded
in Ex.P1 does not state anything about the identity or the colour of the dress
worn by the appellants. Further, the search and seizure is also doubtful, as
no statement of independent witnesses is recorded and examined. Moreover,
the signature of the accused has not been obtained in seizure
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:05 pm )
mahazar/Ex.P4.
14. He further contended that the arrest memos of A1 and A2
[Ex.P8 and Ex.P9] are in a computer printed format and there is no
possibility of preparing it in the place of occurrence i.e., near the railway
gate. When the FIR/Ex.P7 was registered only after returning to the police
station, the mentioning of the crime number in Ex.P.8 and Ex.P9 is doubtful
and therefore no such search, seizure or arrest has taken place in the place of
occurrence. The Material Objects 1, 2 and 4 were produced before the trial
court only on 20.01.2020, when they were seized on 21.12.2019, which is
fatal to the case of the prosecution.
15. However, after making the above submissions on merits, the
learned counsel confined his submissions for reduction of sentence,
considering the mitigating circumstances.
16. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
appearing on behalf of the respondent argued that PW1 on receipt of
information, had recorded Ex.P1 and along with PW2 and Charles, had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:05 pm )
visited the place of occurrence and on identifying the accused, had
conducted the search in due compliance to the provisions of the NDPS Act
and recovered the contraband from the possession of the first accused.
17. The seizure mahazar/Ex.P4 has been signed by the witnesses
and the accused have signed in MO1 to MO4. PW1 to PW4 were examined
and they have given clear and cogent evidence, which proves the recovery
of ganja from the possession of the appellants. The trial court having found
that the appellants had been in possession of ganja with intermediate
quantity, had convicted and imposed the sentence, which by itself is a
lenient view and needs no interference.
18. Heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available
on record.
19. PW1 received secret information on 21.12.2019 about the
possession and sale of ganja by the three accused along with their identity
and the vehicle. PW1 recorded the information/Ex.P1 and on obtaining
permission from the Inspector of Police/PW4 proceeded to the place of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:05 pm )
occurrence. On identifying the accused, A1 and A2 were caught, but the
third accused escaped from the scene of occurrence. PW1 sought the
assistance of independent witnesses, who refused. PW1 informed the
appellants about their right to be searched in the presence of Judicial
Magistrate or Government Gazetted Officer as per Section 50 of the NDPS
Act.
20. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are the intimation given to A1 and A2, who
consented for search by PW1. Though it is contended that when Ex.P1 had
not recorded anything about the identity of the accused and as such, the
identity itself is doubtful, the same cannot be sustained for the reason that
PW1 had clearly stated that he received the secret information about the
physical features of the accused along with the dress colour, which he had
kept in mind. Even though Ex.P1 had not recorded the colour of the dress
with minute details, but the accused were found and identified in the
informed place of occurrence.
21. As the independent witnesses have refused to assist, PW1 has
proceeded with the search and seizure in the presence of PW2 and Charles.
During search, the first appellant had handed over the ganja from the blue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:05 pm )
and grey colour checked plastic cover to PW1 and it weighed 1.500 kgs.
After drawing two samples of 50 grams each, noted as S1 (MO2) and S2
(MO4), the balance ganja was sealed and marked as P1 (MO1). Ex.P4 is the
seizure mahazar, seizing the contraband and the vehicle.
22. Though it is contended that Ex.P4 was not prepared at the
scene of occurrence, as it does not contain the signature of the independent
witnesses and also the signatures of the accused, however after seizure of
the contraband, P1 (MO3), the accused have signed in MO1, MO2 and MO4
at the scene of occurrence. The seizure of the contraband at the scene of
occurrence is established and the non-availability of signature of the
accused in Ex.P.4 does not in any way help the appellants.
23. PW1 and PW2 had clearly given cogent evidence to the effect
that they had taken the laptop and prepared the arrest memos/Ex.P8 and
Ex.P9 in the printed format, as it was entered into the laptop and the
printout was taken in the shop, which was just 5 meters away. PW1 and
PW2 had also explained the details of furnishing the crime number in Ex.P8
and Ex.P9 and after registering the case, Form 95/Ex.P10 along with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:05 pm )
accused were sent to remanding court on the same day i.e., on 21.12.2019.
24. MO1, MO2 and MO4 were produced before the trial court and
it has been recorded that there was no damage or leakage in the property. On
production of the contraband by PW4 along with the request for chemical
analysis, it has not been recorded that S1, S2 and P1 were tampered or
damaged or there was any variation in weight. Therefore, the trial court
concluded that there was no prejudice due to some delay in producing it
before the court.
25. The evidence of PW1 to PW3, coupled with the chemical
analysis report/Ex.P12, confirms the materials seized from the appellants is
ganja. The procedures contemplated under the Act for search and seizure
have been scrupulously followed and the charge against the appellants has
been proved through clear and cogent evidence of PW1 to PW4, which
inspires the confidence of this court. Nothing has been elicited in the cross
examination, adverse to the case of the prosecution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:05 pm )
26. Though the entire contraband has been recovered from the
possession of A1, finding that A2 is related to A1, the trial court had
convicted A2 on the ground that he had conscious possession of contraband
by A1. Therefore, even though no material has been seized from A2 since he
was found along with A1, the conscious possession was presumed and
thereby convicted the second appellant/A2.
27. When the presence of the second appellant/A2 along with the
first appellant/A1 at the place of occurrence is established and he was
arrested, then it has been rightly concluded by the trial court that he is
presumed to be in conscious possession of the contraband and therefore, the
decision of the trial court in convicting the second appellant/A2 is to be
sustained. On reappraising the entire evidence, this court does not find any
infirmity warranting interference in the decision of the trial court.
28. Insofar as the sentence imposed on the second appellant/A2, it
is submitted by the learned counsel that he was 21 years old at the time of
occurrence and he has no previous case. Further the learned counsel
submitted the second appellant was in custody for a period of 65 days
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:05 pm )
during trial and was in further custody of 25 days pending appeal and he
was under incarceration for a total period of 90 days.
29. Considering the mitigating circumstances that the contraband
ganja measuring 1.500 kgs, which is little more than the small quantity has
been recovered from A1 and there was no recovery from the second
appellant/A2, second appellant did not play any active role except found
with A1 at the time of seizure, he was young aged 21 years at the time of
occurrence, had no other previous case against him and further A3 having
been acquitted and A1 had died pending appeal, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the sentence imposed could be modified.
30. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the learned Special
Judge, II Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS
Act, Chennai, in C.C.No.141 of 2020 dated 06.04.2022, against the second
appellant/A2, is reduced from one year rigorous imprisonment to that of the
period already undergone by him. However the sentence of fine is increased
from Rs.15,000/- to that of Rs.50,000/ and the enhanced fine amount shall
be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:05 pm )
this order, in default to undergo a period of three (3) months simple
imprisonment. The confiscation of the vehicle is confirmed.
31. In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands partly allowed insofar
as the second appellant/A2 and dismissed as abated in so far as first
appellant/A1.
24.11.2025
Speaking order
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
sri
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:05 pm )
To
1.The Special Judge,
II Additional Special Court
for Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS Act,
Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
H1 Washermenpet Police Station,
Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:05 pm )
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
sri
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
24.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:05 pm )
