High Court · 2025

CRL A No. 202 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 20-06-2025CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYANCRL A No. 202 of 20231. Pandian2. Kathiresan3. Manimaran4. TheivamAppellant(s)Vs1. Inspector Of PoliceS-5 Pallavaram Police Station,Chennai.Respondent(s)PRAYER:Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment passed by the learned I Additional Special Courts under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai in C.C.No.74 of 2018.For Appellant(s):M/s R.C.Paul KanagarajFor Respondent(s):Mr.S.Raja KumarAdditional Public Prosecutor https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A No. 202 of 2023JUDGMENTThis Criminal Appeal has been preferred as against the judgment passed by the learned I Additional Special Courts under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai in C.C.No.74 of 2018 dated 20.09.2022, thereby convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w. 20 (b)(ii) (C) of NDPS Act, 19852. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.07.2015 at 09.30 a.m. the respondent received an information that four persons (petitioners herein) of Uthamapalayam, Theni District were selling ganja at No.36, Easwari Nagar Main Road, Jameen Pallavaram, Chennai. After getting permission from the Assistant Commissioner, the respondent proceeded to the scene of occurrence and intercepted the accused and after completing the procedure for search, seized 56 kgs of ganja from the accused persons. After the contraband was sealed and after sampling, voluntary confessions of the accused were recorded and thereafter a case was registered against the accused iin Cr.No.1553/2015 for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) r/w. 20(b) (ii)(C) of NDPS Act. Subsequently a sum of Rs.1,38,808/- was recovered from the first accused.3. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance. On the side of the prosecution they have examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and marked Exs.P1 to P12. The prosecution produced material objects M.O.1 to M.O.4. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no documents were marked. On perusal of the oral and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A No. 202 of 2023documentary evidence the trial Court found the appellants guilty and sentenced as follows:Name of the AccusedOffence SentenceA1- PandianA2 – KathiresanA3-ManimaranA4-Theivam8(c) r/w. 20(b) (ii)(C) of the NDPS ActRigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default thereof to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six monthsAggrieved by the same the present criminal appeal has been preferred.4. As per the case of the prosecution on 06.07.2015 at about 09.30 a.m. the respondent received a secret information that four persons of Uthamapalayam, Theni District, were selling Ganja at No.36, Easwari Nagar Main Road, Jameen, Pallavaram, Chennai. After obtained permission from the superior officer, the respondent along with his team went to the scene of crime and intercepted the accused. After following the procedure as contemplated under the NDPS Act, the respondent seized 56 kgs of Ganja from the accused persons and thereafter their confession statements were recorded at about 12.00 p.m. to 02.00 p.m. and prepared the seizure Mahazar at about 1.00 p.m. Thereafter, they were brought to the Investigation Officer along with the contraband and documents and FIR was registered at about 02.00 p.m. But the seizure Mahazar which was marked as Ex.P6 contained the Crime Number as No.1553/2015 registered for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) r/w. 20 (b) (ii)(c) of NDPS Act and it was also categorically admitted by P.W.1 which https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A No. 202 of 2023reads as under:“ vdJ 57 vd;ogpv!; mwpf;ifia bgw;W cjtp Mizahsh; Kjy; jfty; mwpf;ifai jahh; bra;jhh; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ Fw;w vz; bfhLf;fg;gl;l neuk; kjpak; 02/00 vd;why; rhpjhd;/ M/rh/M6 kfrh; Mtzj;jpy; brhj;J ifg;gw;wpa neuk; kjpak; 01/00 kzp vd Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ nkw;go Mtzj;jpy; ifg;gw;wg;gl;l ,lk; Fwpg;gpltpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;/ vdJ 57 goahd mwpf;ifapy; 11 kzpf;F jahh; bra;ag;gl;ljhf brhy;yg;gLk; kfrh; Mtzk; ,J ,y;iy vd;why; rhpay;y/ 01/00 kzpastpy; jahh; bra;ag;gl;l Mtzj;jpy; Fw;w vz; kw;Wk; rl;lg;gphpt[fs; fhzg;gLfpwJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ rk;gt ,lj;jpy; itj;J jahh; bra;ag;gl;ljhf brhy;yg;gLk; xt;bthU vjphpfspd; xg;g[jy; thf;FK:y';fspYk; ,e;j tHf;fpd; Fw;w vz; kw;Wk; rl;lg;gphpt[fs; fhzg;gLfpwJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ ifJ eK:dh kw;Wk; ifJ mwpf;ifapd; go ,e;j tHf;fpy; vjphpfs; midtUk; fhiy 11/30 kzpf;F vd;dhy; ifJ bra;ag;gl;Ls;shh;fs; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ vjphpfs; ifJ bra;ag;gl;l gpwFjhd; ,e;j tHf;fpy; kfrh;. xg;g[jy; thf;FK:y';fs; kw;Wk; kw;w Mtz';fs; midj;Jk; jahh; bra;ag;gl;lJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/”5. Thus it is clear that even before registration of FIR, the crime number was mentioned in the seizure Mahazar. Hence the very registration of FIR and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A No. 202 of 2023the seizure of Mahazar are doubtful.6. In this regard the learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kaaljit Singh @ Pappu Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2020) 14 SCC 9 wherein it is held as under:“ 6. This Court, in the recent decision in the case of Mohan Lal Vs. The State of Punjab – AIR 2018 SC 3853, has frowned upon the same police official being the informant and the investigating officer. The court has observed thus:“25. In view of the conflicting opinions expressed by different two Judges Benches of this Court, the importance of a fair investigation from the point of view of an accused as a guaranteed constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is considered necessary that the law in this regard be laid down with certainty. To leave the matter for being determined on the individual facts of a case, may not only lead to a possible abuse of powers, but more importantly will leave the police, the accused, the lawyer and the courts in a state of uncertainty and confusion which has to be avoided. It is therefore held that a fair investigation, which is but the very foundation of fair trial, necessarily postulates that the informant and the investigator must not be the same person. Justice must not only be done, but must appear to be done also. Any possibility of bias or a predetermined conclusion has to be excluded. This requirement is all the more imperative in laws carrying a reverse burden of proof.” 7. Indeed, Manjit Singh (PW 2) had received information telephonically and had passed on the same to his contemporary who recorded the FIR but the fact remains that he himself investigated the case. The unfairness in investigation becomes more glaring when we peruse the search and seizure panchanamas. It is seen that the FIR number has been noted at the top of these panchanamas. It is unfathomable as to how the FIR number could be noted on the search and seizure panchanamas when the same were drawn up https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A No. 202 of 2023obviously at an earlier point in time and preceded the registration of the FIR. Even this discrepancy has not been explained by the prosecution at all. Furthermore, we find that the FIR has been registered by Nirmaljit Singh but he has not been examined by the prosecution and no explanation is offered in this regard as well.8. All these deficiencies, in our opinion, create serious doubts and are fatal to the prosecution case, for which reason the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the stated offence by giving him the benefit of doubt. We order accordingly. The bail bond stands discharged. The appeal is allowed.”7. The above case is squarely applicable to the case on hand. The prosecution failed to explain the discrepancy, and it is apparent on the face of the record in the prosecution's case. Therefore the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond the doubt and the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellants. Hence, this Court feels that the above conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed.8. Pending appeal, the appellants 1 & 3 died. Therefore, the entire charges are abated against them. The judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the learned I Additional Special Courts under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai in C.C.No.74 of 2018 dated 20.09.2022, is hereby set aside and the appellants 2 & 4 are acquitted of all charges. Fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the appellants forthwith. Bail bonds, if any executed, shall stand cancelled. Whatever amount is seized from the accused is also liable to be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A No. 202 of 2023returned to them. The trial Court is directed to disburse the amount seized from the accused to refund the same to the accused as well as to the legal heirs of the deceased accused in the manner known to law.9. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed.20-06-2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/NobknTo1.Inspector Of PoliceS-5 Pallavaram Police Station,Chennai.2. I Additional Special Courts under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai3. The Public Prosecutor,Madras High Court. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL A No. 202 of 2023G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.bknCRL A No. 202 of 2023 20-06-2025