Madras High Court · 2025

Crl. A. No. 1202 of 2025J U D G M E N TThis Criminal Appeal has been preferred as against the judgment passed in C.C.No.190 of 2022 dated 30.11.2023 on the file of the I Additional Special Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS Act, Chennai thereby convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.12.2021 at about 10.00 am, the respondent had received an information from an informant that the appellant herein was trafficking 20.300 kgs of ganja near Villivakkam railway station. The respondent police after recording the information and obtaining permission from superior police officer, proceeded to Villivakkam railway station at about 10.30 a.m., along with the police party. When they were waiting near the market near Villivakkam railway station, the appellant was carrying plastic gunny bag in his hand and he was identified by the informant. After serving notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, search was conducted on the appellant. On the search, the respondent 2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. A. No. 1202 of 2025found that he was in possession of ganja weighing 20.300 kgs. After lifting samples, the appellant and the contraband were brought to the respondent police station and FIR was registered in Crime No.931 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act. 2.1. On completion of investigation, final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the trial Court. In order to bring the charges on file, the prosecution had examined PW.1 to PW3 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. The prosecution produced MO1 to MO3. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no documents were marked before the trial Court.2.2. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and also imposed fine of Rs.1 lakh, in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal.3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that 3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. A. No. 1202 of 2025according to the respondent, they had received secret information at about 10.00 a.m., and they reached the scene of crime at about 10.30 a.m. The appellant was served with search notice at about 10.40 a.m., on 06.12.2021. Thereafter, at about 10.45 a.m., under the seizure mahazar, the contraband weighing 20.200 kgs of ganja were seized after lifting 100 grams of ganja as sample. The seizure mahazar, even when the FIR was not registered, contained crime number. Thereafter, the appellant was served with arrest report. It also contains the crime Number as 931 of 2021 at about 12.30 hours. At the time of his arrest, namely at about 11.00 a.m., on 06.12.2021, the arrest card contains the crime number. Further the arrest intimation which was intimated to the appellant's mother is also contains the crime number. Thereafter, the appellant and the contraband brought the police station at about 12.30 a.m., and registered the FIR in Crime No.931 of 2021. Therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is foisted and cooked up one and it is unbelievable one. 3.1. He further submitted that the alleged contraband was seized from the appellant on 06.12.2021. Thereafter, it was produced 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. A. No. 1202 of 2025before the trial Court only on 02.06.2022. Only thereafter the samples were sent for chemical analysis and it was also categorically admitted by the PW.1. Therefore, the trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellant. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State submitted that all the procedures have been duly followed and the evidences of PW1 to PW3 corroborated each other to bring the charges to file. Therefore, the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant and it does not warrant any interference of this Court.5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent.6. Perusal of the records revealed that the secret information from the informant was recorded by PW1 at about 10.00 a.m. Thereafter, PW1 and his team went to the scene of crime at about 10.30 a.m., on 06.12.2021. The search notice was served on the appellant and thereafter, the appellant was found in possession of 5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. A. No. 1202 of 2025contraband weighing 20.300 kgs at about 10.45 a.m. Thereafter, the contraband was seized under the seizure mahazar at about 10.45 a.m., on 06.12.2021. On perusal of the seizure mahazar, it is revealed that it contains the crime number in Crime No.931 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 22(C) of NDPS Act. The appellant was served with arrest report at about 11.00 a.m. He was served with arrest memo and it also contains the crime number as Crime No.931 of 2021. The arrest intimation was served to him and his mother at about 11.00 a.m., on 06.12.2021. It also contains the crime number as Crime No.931 of 2021. Thereafter, at about 12.30 hours, the appellant and the contraband were brought to the respondent's station and the FIR was registered in Crime No.931 of 2021. Therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is not legitimate and creates doubt over the case of the prosecution. 6.1. Further, the alleged contraband was seized by the respondent on 06.12.2021 and was produced before the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, the PW.1 was directed to produce the same before the trial Court. Only on 02.06.2022, the contraband was 6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. A. No. 1202 of 2025produced before the trial Court i.e., after nearly six months, for which there is absolutely no explanation from the prosecution. Only thereafter the samples were sent for chemical analysis. Therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is foisted one and the prosecution failed to prove the charge in the manner known to law.7. In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon 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 7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. A. No. 1202 of 2025or 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 obviously 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.”The above judgment is squarely applicable to this case on hand, since the seizure mahazar and other documents contained crime number as Crime No.931 of 2021 even before the registration of FIR. The respondent was examined as PW1. The PW1 also categorically admitted that all the documents were containing crime number even before the registration of FIR. 8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. A. No. 1202 of 20258. Further, though the appellant was arrested in market place at Villivakkam Railway Station, the respondent failed to examine any person from general public as a witness. Except PW.1 and PW2, no one was examined by the prosecution to corroborate their evidence. It is relevant to extract the cross examination of PW.1 as follows: -“xg;g[jy; thf;FK:yj;ij jtpu kw;w Mtz';fis ifahy; vGJtjw;F VjhtJ jdpg;gl;l fhuzk; cs;sjh vd;why; ,y;iy/ tHf;F brhj;jpd; kPJ xl;lg;gl;l nygps; rk;gt ,lj;jpy; itj;J xl;lg;gl;lJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ rk;gt ,lj;jpy; ,Ue;J tHf;F brhj;ij ifg;gw;wp fhty; epiyak; te;j gpwFjhd; ,e;j tHf;fpy; Kjy; jfty; mwpf;if gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;lJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ ,e;j tHf;fpd; Kjy; jfty; mwpf;if gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;l gpwFjhd; ,e;j tHf;fpy; Fw;w vz; xJf;fg;gl;lJ vd;why; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; bjhiyngrp K:yk; Fw;w vz; fpilf;fg;bgw;nwd;/ nkw;fz;l tptuj;ij Kjy; jfty; mwpf;ifapnyh ,Wjp mwpf;ifapnyh Fwpg;gpltpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;/ ehd; ,e;j tHf;fpw;fhf ehd; Fw;w vz;iz nghd; K:yk; 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. A. No. 1202 of 2025nfl;ljhf Fwpg;gpLtJ bgha; vd;why; rhpay;y/ ehd; ,e;j tHf;fpw;fhf jdpawpf;ifia vdJ caujpfhhpf;F bfhLf;ftpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;/ ,e;j tHf;fpy; ,Wjp mwpf;if jhf;fy; bra;a caujpfhhp vGj;J K:ykhd mDkjp bfhLj;jhuh vd;why; ,y;iy/ rk;gt ,lj;jpy; jahh; bra;ag;gl;ljhf brhy;yg;gLk; kfrh;. xg;g[jy; thf;FK:yk;. nygps; Mfpatw;wpy; Fw;w vz; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ ,e;j tHf;F brhj;jhdJ Vwf;Fiwa 6 khjk; fHpj;Jjhd; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; xg;gilf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/ ,e;j tHf;F brhj;Jfs; ,ilg;gl;l fhyj;jpy; ahhplk; ,Ue;jJ vd;gjw;fhd Mtz';fis ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;Js;nsdh vd;why; ,y;iy/ tHf;fpw;fhd rl;lg;gphpt[fs; jtwhf Fwpg;gpl;Ls;nsd; vd vg;nghJ bjhpate;jJ vd;why; nyg; hpg;nghh;l; te;j gpwF xg;gPdpad; th';fpa gpwF bjhpate;jJ/ Ma;twpf;if tUtjw;F Kd; tiu ifg;gw;wpa brhj;J vd;d vd;W bjhpahJ vd;why; rhpay;y/”10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. A. No. 1202 of 20259. Thus it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act and as such, the conviction imposed on the appellant cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside. 10.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 they 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.11. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant dated 30.11.2023 in C.C.190/2022 on the file of the I Additional Special Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS Act, 11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. A. No. 1202 of 2025Chennai, is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all charges. Fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the appellant forthwith. Bail bond, if any executed, shall stand cancelled. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 12.08.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoAT12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. A. No. 1202 of 2025To1.The I Additional Special Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS Act, Chennai2.The Inspector of Police, V4 Rajamangalam Police Station, Chennai.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl. A. No. 1202 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. AT Crl. A. No. 1202 of 2025 inCrl. M.P. No. 15336 of 2025 12.08.202514/14