High Court · 2025

Crl.A.No.293 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 10.07.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.A.No.293 of 2023Murugan... AppellantVs.The State rep. byThe Inspector of Police,NIBCID,Chennai.... RespondentPRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment passed by the learned Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai in C.C.No.83 of 2020.For Appellant: Mr.R.C.Paul KanagarajFor Respondent: Mr.S.Rajakumar Additional Public ProsecutorJUDGMENTThis Criminal Appeal has been filed as against the judgment dated 03.03.2023, passed by the learned Principal Special Judge, Principal Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai, made in C.C.No.83 of 2020, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences Page 1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.293 of 2023punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(C) & 8(c) r/w. 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act”).2.The case of the prosecution was that on 01.02.2020 at about 4.00 a.m., when P.W.1 was on duty at Police Station, she received information that at about 6.30 hours, two persons were going to be involved in illicit trafficking of ganja from Andhra Pradesh through train at Egmore Railway station, Chennai. After receipt of the said information, it was reduced in writing by P.W.1 and was submitted to the superior officers and permission was obtained. Thereafter, a team proceeded to the scene of crime along with team members. As per the secrete information, they found two persons and they were in possession of 22 Kgs of ganja. After completion of all the formalities, they were brought to the police station and the FIR was registered in Crime No.5 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C) & 29(1) of the NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed final report and the same was taken cognizance by the trial Court in C.C.No.83 of 2020. Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.293 of 20233.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. The prosecution also produced material objects in M.O.1 to M.O.6. On the side of the appellant, no one was examined and no documents were marked before the trial Court. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidences, the trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(C) & 8(c) r/w. 29(1) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him a follows :-S.No.ConvictionSentence1 8(c) r/w. 20(b) (ii)(C) of the NDPS Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twelve years and to pay fine of Rs.1,20,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of six months. 2 8(c) r/w. 29(1) of the NDPS Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of six months. The above sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present appeal.4.Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised several ground, he specifically raised a ground that the search Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.293 of 2023memo was issued to both the accused jointly and obtained consent, which was marked as Ex.P.2. It is clear violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 5.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that after complying all the mandatory provisions, the appellant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Further, the prosecution proved all the charges and it doesn't warrant any interference of this Court. 6.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.7.On perusal of the Ex.P.2 viz., search notice, it is revealed that the said notice was issued both the accused jointly. It is relevant to extract the search notice as follows :-@mwptpg;g[brd;id ngh/bgh/E/ gphpt[ fhty; Ma;thsu; fPjh Mfpa ehd; epiya mYtypy; ,Ue;j nghJ 1/KUfd;.t-35. j/bg/ghz;oad;. vz;/25-5. Fu';Fkhad; bjU. fk;gk;. njdp Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.293 of 2023khtl;lk; kw;Wk; 2/knfe;jpud;. t-39. j-bg/Ia;ag;gd;. vz;/93. Fu';Fkhad; bjU. fk;gk;. njdp khtl;lk; Mfpa eP';fs; murhy; jilbra;ag;gl;l nghij bghUshd f";rhit flj;jp tUtjhf jfty; cs;sJ/ mjd;go c';fis nrhjid bra;a ntz;Lk;/ mg;go nrhjid bra;a ntz;Lkhdhy; c';fis mUfpy; cs;s Fw;wtpay; ePjpj;Jiw eLth; Kd;ghfnth my;yJ murpjH; gjpt[ bgw;w mYtyu; Kd;ghfnth miHj;Jr; brd;W c';fis nrhjidf;F cl;gLj;jp bfhs;s c';fSf;F NDPS rl;lgphpt[ 50d; go chpik cs;sJ/ vdnt c';fis mt;thW miHj;Jr; brd;W nrhjid bra;a ntz;Lkh? c';fs; tpUg;gj;ij Twt[k; vd;W bjhptpf;fg;gl;lJ/ mjw;F nkw;go egu;fs; fPH;fz;lthW bjuptpj;jhu;/ mk;kh.jh';fs; Twpa nkw;go tptuj;ij eh';fs; bjhpe;J bfhz;nlhk;/ v';fis fhty; Ma;thsuhfpa jh';fns j';fSld; te;Js;s nghyPrhu; K:yk; nrhjid bra;a rk;kjpf;fpnwhk;/@ Therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is not legitimate and as such the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused.Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.293 of 20238.In this regard, it is relevant to relay upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 563 in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand and anr., which held as under:-"14. In our opinion, a joint communication of the right available under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act to the accused would frustrate the very purport of Section 50. Communication of the said right to the person who is about to be searched is not an empty formality. It has a purpose. Most of the offences under the NDPS Act carry stringent punishment and, therefore, the prescribed procedure has to be meticulously followed. These are minimum safeguards available to an accused against the possibility of false involvement. The communication of this right has to be clear, unambiguous and individual. The accused must be made aware of the existence of such a right. This right would be of little significance if the beneficiary thereof is not able to exercise it for want of knowledge about its existence. A joint communication of the right may not be clear or unequivocal. It may create confusion. It may result in diluting the right. We are, therefore, of the view that the accused must be individually informed that under Section 50(1) of the NDPS Act, he has a right to be searched before a nearest gazetted officer or before a nearest Magistrate. Similar Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.293 of 2023view taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Paramjit Singh and the Bombay High Court in Dharamveer Lekhram Sharma meets with our approval."9.In criminal jurisprudence, the burden is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. When two views are possible and the one favourable to the accused is equally plausible, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the accused. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden convincingly, and the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the infirmities in the prosecution case. Therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court in respect of all the charges against the appellant cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. 10.In view of the above discussions, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the judgment dated 03.03.2023 passed by the learned Principal Special Judge, Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai, made in Special C.C.No.83 of 2020, for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(C) & 8(c) r/w. 29(1) of the NDPS Act, are hereby set aside. The appellant/first accused is acquitted of all charges in C.C.No.83 of 2020, on the file of the learned Principal Special Judge, Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.293 of 2023Special Court under EC & NDPS Act, Chennai. Fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the appellant forthwith. Bail bonds, if any executed, shall stand cancelled. 11.Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed. 10.07.2025 Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderrtsPage 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.293 of 2023To1. The Principal Special Judge,Special Court for EC & NDPS Act, Chennai,2. The Inspector of Police,NIBCID,Chennai.3. The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.293 of 2023G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.rtsCrl.A.No.293 of 202310.07.2025Page 10 of 10