High Court · 2025

superior/P.W.4 and obtained the permission and went to the occurrence place along with his team namely the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tr.Chandran, Special Sub Inspector of Police, namely, Tr.Kanjithalaivan and one Head Constable, Tr.Balasubramanian and also the informant. When they were involved in vehicle check up near Chempatti traffic island on Dindigul-Batlagundu Road, the informant identified Maruthi Suzuki Swift car bearing registration No.RJ 06 C 6276 and they stopped the said vehicle and P.W.3 introduced himself and made enquiry and came to know that both accused did not know Tamil and their mother tongue is Hindi. Immediately, P.W.3 called P.W.2 who is fluent in Hindi and informed them about the right of conducting a search in the presence of the learned Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer, for which, they gave consent letter under Ex.P1 to conduct search by P.W.3 himself. P.W.1 and P.W.2 signed as witnesses in the consent letter. The signature of P.W.2 in the consent letter is Ex.P5 and search memo is Ex.P4. Thereafter, P.W.3 searched the car and during the search, they found two gunny bags containing each 25 Kgs of contraband in the trunk of the car. When P.W.3 enquired about the said contraband, the first accused voluntarily gave a 3/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis confession about his involvement in transporting ganja. P.W.3 recovered 50 kgs of ganja under the mahazar athatchi Ex.P2 in the presence of the said witnesses. The signature of P.W.2 in the mahazar is Ex.P6. He took two samples each weighing 50 gms and packed and affixed with NIB CID seal and stamped as S1 to S4. Thereafter, P.W.4 took up and continued investigation. Subsequently, PW.5 took up the investigation, obtained the chemical analysis report and filed the final report before the learned Ist Additional Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai. The same was taken on file in C.C.No.90 of 2019. 3. After appearance of the accused, copies of records were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Judge, on perusal of records and on hearing both sides and being satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the accused/appellant, framed charges under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985, r/w 34 of IPC and the same was read over and explained to them and on being questioned, the accused/appellants denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood trial.4/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined 5 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.5 and exhibited 13 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 and marked seven material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.7.5.When the accused were examined under Section 313(1) (b) of Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating materials available from the prosecution evidence against them, they denied the evidence as false and further stated that a false case was foisted against them. The accused neither produced any documents nor examined any witness on their side. 6.The learned Trial Judge, considering the materials and circumstances found that the accused in C.C.No.90 of 2019 were guilty and passed the conviction and sentence against the appellants as stated above and challenging the conviction and sentence of imprisonment the appellants have filed this appeal .5/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7. Submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant: The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellants did not know Tamil language. All the documents are in tamil. P.W.2 the translator is none-other than the husband of P.W.4. His town is 80 kms away from the occurrence place. It is the evidence of P.W.4 also that she was not available on the date of the occurrence at the time of the information furnished by P.W.2. In the said circumstances, the presence of translator, namely, the husband of P.W.4 and his participation in the entire recovery proceedings as a interpreter is highly doubtful and hence, the recovery is a make-believe story and no contraband was recovered as alleged by the prosecution. The charge was framed in Tamil language and the witnesses gave evidence in Tamil language and proceedings under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., also were recovered in Tamil and except the charge and proceedings under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., there was no material to show that the documents and the examination of the witnesses were interpretated to the accused in their language. Conducting fair trial is the fundamental right of the accused. The framing of charges and the deposition of the witnesses and answering during the 6/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis proceedings under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., without proper understanding is not a meaningful trial. The learned counsel also submitted that the proceedings under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded through video conference and the same was recorded in tamil language and the same was interpreted to the accused and the said procedure is not authorised under Code of Criminal Procedure. The reading of procedure under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., enunciates that the question and every answer must be recorded in full and interpreted to them in a language which they understood. Therefore, in this case, there was no such compliance. Therefore, the entire trial was vitiated. In this case, they did not know Tamil language and all the documents and also the evidence recorded by the Special Court are in Tamil and the sum and substance of the evidence alone was interpreted to the accused by the interpreter. In the said circumstances, there was a miscarriage of justice and also failure of justice.7.1.The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the presence of the translator in the scene of the occurrence is doubtful. Further he is the husband of P.W.4. The evidence of P.W.3 is that there 7/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis was no records to show that he called P.W.2 to be present during the search. In the said circumstances, he is a planted witness in order to get conviction by hook or crook. He also helped since P.W.4 being his wife. The recovery was made in the main busy road and P.W.2 also admitted that number of other persons were also present and in such an event non examination of the independent witnesses is a serious lapse. More particularly, it is not the case of P.W.2 and P.W.1 that the independent witnesses refused to join as a attesting witness. Therefore, the alleged recovery is suspicious. The learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that vehicle seized by the respondent police was returned to the original owner, and no case was registered against the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has not framed the charges under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985. In the said circumstances, without charge under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985 the charges under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 r/w Section 34 of IPC is not maintainable. He further submitted that there was no compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Considering the cumulative circumstances including the non compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS 8/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Act, 1985, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case. Hence, he seeks for acquittal. 8. Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the translator was available at the scene of the occurrence. The translator also gave evidence about the translation made to the accused and hence, the recovery of the contraband from the accused was clearly proved. P.W.2 is acted as both independent witness and translator. His presence nearby the occurrence place is probable and the same was established and no question was put to him that he was not available on the date of the occurrence. Apart from that, proceedings under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., is recorded and the questions and the answer was also recorded and in the said circumstances, there was a strict compliance of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. More over, the learned counsel also was present and therefore, the recording of proceedings under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., through the video conference is duly complied. Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985 was strictly complied with and the same was proved through Ex.P.1. The 9/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis absence of statement that all were read over and properly explained to the accused in Hindi by the interpretant is not a circumstance to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 about the recovery. Therefore, he submits that in all aspects the prosecution clearly proved the case and he seeks to dismiss this appeal. 9.This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record and the precedents relied upon by them.10.The question in this case is whether the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants and the learned trial Judge's conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant can be sustained or not?10/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

11.Discussion on the compliance under Section 42 of the NDPS Act:The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is total non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985. As per the Hon'ble constitution Bench judgement in the case of State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh reported in 1999 (6) SCC 172 and in the case of Karnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2009) 8 SCC 539, the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985, vitiates the trial. 11.1.According to P.W.3, he received the secret information on 04.09.2018 at 08.30 am. Immediately, he informed the same to P.W.4 over telephone. To prove the information through the phone no records were produced. There is no difficulty in accepting the CDR report to prove the said foundation fact of compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act, by informing to the superior. P.W.4 also deposed that at the time of receipt of information she was not available in the station and she came to the office only at 07.00 pm. He perused the report at 07.30 p.m. She admitted 11/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the same during his cross examination P.W.1 and other witnesses did not state that there was a recording of information in writing, which reads as follows:“NghyP]; ghh;l;b nua;L nrd;w thfdj;jpd; yhf; Gj;jfj;ij jhf;fy; nra;atpy;iy. jdf;F fpilj;j jftiy vOj;J %ykhf gjpT nra;jjhf j.fh.godpNty;> j.fh.ghyRg;gpukzpad;> rhh;G Ma;thsh; kzptz;zd; nrhy;ytpy;iy. Kjy; jfty; mwpf;if kw;Wk; gphpT 57 fPohd mwpf;ifapYk; mJgw;wp Fwpg;gpltpy;iy. 11.2.P.W.4 also admitted that in Ex.P8 it is written in her own hand writing that the information was received at 08.10 am. In that event, the case of P.W.3, that he received the information at 08.30 am, is false. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the case of the prosecution that P.W.3 received the secret information at 08.30 am., and informed to P.W.4/immediate superior under Ex.P8 is false. Therefore, there was no compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Hence, the appellants are entitled to acquittal.12/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

12. Discussion on the presence of the PW.2: PW.2 is the husband of the PW.4 and he was present nearby scene the of occurrence by chance and he knew to converse in Hindi and hence he was called by PW.3 to translate the events that happened between PW.3 and the accused. He explained the version of the accused in Tamil to PW.2 and explained the version of PW.2 in Hindi to the accused during the course of the recovery of the contraband as per the material documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. It is the specific evidence of P.W.3 that around 11.30 am., he intercepted the vehicle with the appellants and found that both did not know either Tamil or English. Therefore, he called P.W.2, who was the husband of P.W.4 to act as translator. PW.2 deposed that he is native of Karur Aravakurichi and same is 55km away from Dindigul where the office of the Respondent Police is situated and further 25km from Dindigul to the occurrence place. He came by chance to Athur village nearby the occurrence place to give invitation card. Therefore, he is a chance witness and the prosecution is bound to prove the presence of chance witness as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments:13/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CitationRelevant ParagraphBaby v. Inspector of Police, (2016) 13 SCC 33329. It is a well-settled legal principle that the evidence of a chance witness cannot be brushed aside simply because he is a chance witness but his presence at the place of occurrence must be satisfactorily explained by the prosecution so as to make his testimony free from doubt and thus, reliable. Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 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.Shankarlal v. State of Rajasthan (2004) 10 SCC 632 Deposition of a chance witness whose presence at the place of incident remains doubtful should be discardedThangaiya v. State of T.N. (2005) 9 SCC 650 Conduct of the chance witness, subsequent to the incident may also be taken into consideration particularly as to whether he has informed anyone else in the village about the incident His travel from 80km away from the scene of occurrence place has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Upon the perusal of the evidence on record, this Court is unable to accept the case of the prosecution that after receipt of the phone call from the PW.3, PW.2 came to the occurrence place. Firstly, he is the husband of PW.4. There was no explanation as to how PW.3 got to know about the phone number of PW.2. and how PW.2 came to Athur, a nearby village of the occurrence place. Specific case of 14/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis PW.2 that on 04.09.2018 he came to Athur Village to give invitation card to his relative. No evidence was collected either by PW.4 or PW.5 to prove that PW.3 made a call to PW.2 and also no invitation card was recovered to prove the visit of PW.2 to nearby village of the occurrence place to meet his relative at Athur. The relative of P.W.2 was not examined to test the testimony of PW.2 and creditability of the PW.2 about his statement that he came to the nearby village of the occurrence place to give the invitation card to his relative at Athur. P.W.3 did not understand about the language spoken by the accused and hence he contacted PW.2 through phone and asked to come to the occurrence place. Thereafter, P.W.2 came and he translated every event and all the documents, namely, the Mahazar consent letter under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and arrest memo that being the situation, there was no reference about the presence of translator and there was no reference that the contents of the said materials were explained and translated to the appellants. More particularly, the recovery mahazar, also does not have any reference contents of recovery about to the accused had been translated before they subscribed their signature. Apart from that, in the 15/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis arrest memo also there was no endorsement by the translator that the arrest was duly informed to the accused in their language. Further, P.W.3 admitted that there was no record to show that he called P.W.2 to act as translator for the entire recovery proceedings. There was a detailed cross examination on this aspect about the distance between the place of recovery and the residence of P.W.2 namely Aravakurichi which is more than 80 kms from the occurrence place. In the said circumstance, his arrival within 15 minutes to the occurrence is highly doubtful. The said suspicion gets further strengthened by the absence of P.W.4 on the date of the occurrence at the time of the information and recovery of the contraband. According to P.W.4, she came to the station only in the night ie. 7.00 pm. Further, a conspicuous absence of any statement in the material documents about his act of translation in Hindi to the accused is to be seriously viewed. Therefore, presence of PW.2 at the place of occurrence is not free from doubt and also his evidence is full of material contradictions and he was not examined by the Investigating Officer and all these facts create reasonable suspicion about his claim that he acted as translator at the time of recovery and makes his version of recovery 16/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis doubtful. In the said circumstances, the presence of the translator in the scene of the occurrence is highly doubtful and hence, the recovery in the presence of translator can not be believed.12.1.The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 is unbelievable on the ground that when the admission of P.W.2 is that the place of recovery was on the main road and there was crowd of people, no one was picked up from the crowd to witness the recovery. It is not the case of prosecution that the public witness were called and they refused to co-operate for witnessing the recovery. Therefore, the non-examination of the independent witnesses in the special circumstances of this case, creates a doubt over the recovery at the occurrence place. Hence, when the recovery was not proved the presumption under Section 54 and 35 of the NDPS Act, 1985 can not be invoked and therefore, the foundational facts of recovery of the contraband was not proved in accordance with law and hence, this Court finds the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case against the appellants. 17/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

13. Discussion on the failure of recording of the events in the language of the accused: A Lengthy submission was made by the Learned Counsel for the appellant that all the material documents are in Tamil and the case of PW.3 Searching Officer itself is that accused spoke in Hindi and he did not understand Tamil. Therefore, the help of the translator was required to make translation. Accused must know about the recovery proceedings and hence, he must be informed in this own language. There must be clear evidence about the translation of contents of the material documents to the accused. The following evidence of P.W.2 would reveal that the accused did not understand what was spoken in Tamil:“ehq;fs; nrk;gl;bapy; ,Ug;gjhfTk; thfdk; xd;iw Nrhjid nra;J nfhz;bUg;gjhfTk; mjpy; te;jth;fs; `pe;jpNgRk; egh;fs; vd;Wk; mth;fs; NgRtJ Ghpatpy;iy vd;Wk; clNd Gwg;gl;L te;J mth;fs; NgRtij Ghpe;J nfhs;sNtz;Lk; vd;Wk; mjw;F xj;Jiog;G juNtz;Lk; vd;Wk; Nfl;Lf;nfhz;lhh;. ”18/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

13.1.Therefore, understanding of the events by the accused in their own language is not only part of fair investigation and also is the fundamental right of accused to know what is happening in order to respond suitably. Mother tongue of the accused is “Rajasthani” and their knowledge of the Hindi language itself is doubtful and no material record was produced to show that they had understood the events of recovery from the Car said to have driven by them by informing them in Hindi language. In this aspect, it is relevant to extract the following portion of the evidence: “jftypy; vjphpfs; ve;j Njjp vj;jid kzpf;F tUfpwhh;fs; vd;w tptuq;fs; nrhy;yg;gltpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;. K.j.mwpf;ifapy; 12.00kzpKjy; 14.00 kzp tiu Nrh.rk;kj fbjk; jahh; nra;ag;gl;ljhf Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;. Nrh.r.fbjj;jpd; gpd;gf;fj;jpy; vq;fsJ nkhop njhpe;j egh; vd;W kl;Lk; jhd; Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ.me;j nkhop njhpe;j eghpd; ngah; vd;d vd;W Fwpg;gpltpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;. Vjphpfspd; nkhop uh[];jhdp vd;Wk; `pe;jp fpilahJ vd;W nrhd;dhy; rhpay;y. mth;fSf;F uh[];jhdp kw;Wk; `pe;jp Mfpa ,uz;Lk; njhpAk.; vjphpfSf;F `pe;jpapy; vOj Ngr gbf;f njhpAk; vd;W ve;j Mtzq;fspYk; Fwpg;gpl;L nrhy;ytpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;.mj;jhl;rpapy; rhl;rp KfkJmyp ngah; Fwpg;gplg;gltpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;. rk;gt ,lj;jpy; 19/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis rhl;rp KfkJ myp ,y;iy vd;Wk; mjdhy; mth; ngah; mj;jhl;rpapy; Fwpg;gplgltpy;iy vd;Wk; nrhd;dhy; rhpay;y. 13.2.Both accused are native of Rajasthan, They did not know Tamil. According to investigation officer PW.5 they knew both Rajasthani as well as Hindi. He also admitted that there was no reference that they have knowledge about Hindi in any of prosecution material documents. According to prosecution, husband of PW.4 is PW2. He has had sufficient knowledge of Hindi and hence he was called and he acted as translator and he made translation to the accused. In none of the material document namely recovery mahazar, arrest memo under section 52(1) of NDPS Act, there is any endorsement about his presence and his act of translation. P.W.4 First Investigating Officer categorically admitted that she did not examine P.W.2 and recovered his statement. P.W.5 subsequent Investigating Officer also did not examine him. The Presence of P.W.2 in the scene of occurrence also is doubtful because of his contradictory statement that no independent witness was present in the scene of occurrence. Admittedly, occurrence place is main road junction. Number of persons were available. P.W.3 specifically deposed that he did not 20/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis mention in any of the document about calling P.W.2 through phone to come to occurrence place. His signature was obtained only as translator. But, P.W.2 has given evidence otherwise:PW.3 - “nkhop ngah;g;ghsh; vd;w Kiwapy; ifnahg;gk; ngwg;gl;lJ. ”PW.2 –“jdpegh; ahUk; ,y;yhjjhy; vd;dplk; ifnaOj;J thq;fpdhh;fs;.”In ExP.1 to 6,he had not singed as witness,and he also admitted that he does not figure as witness in the charge sheet. Therefore, this court holds that the accused signed their signature in Hindi in the material documents after understanding the incriminating contents found in the said documents upon the translation of PW.2 is doubtful. In the similar circumstances the Hon'ble Judge of the Madyapradesh High Court in the case of Ramaswamy v. State of M.P. Reported in 2005 SCC OnLine MP 6 has held as follows:13. If the testimony of Investigating Officer is scrutinized further it would reveal that though he came to know that the person who was having contraband article in the hotel was staying denoting himself to be “S. Raman” but this fact has not been mentioned in the case diary by him that by fictitious name the appellant Ramaswamy was staying in the hotel. The Investigating Officer admitted the fact that the appellant 21/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis is a South Indian and is resident of Chennai. Though he denied the suggestion that appellant knows English and Tamil languages only and according to this witness, accused is little acquainted with Hindi language. But, if this piece of evidence of Investigating Officer is read conjointly along with the evidence of independent witness Mushtak (P.W. 8) who was called by the Investigating Officer to witness the entire episode and who has also signed all the documents, it is revealed that the accused does not know Hindi language. According to him, when the investigation was being taken place, he was unable to understand the language which was being spoken by the appellant. The other co-accused, who was discharged by the Trial Court namely Zabbar, was speaking in Hindi. In the accused statement recorded under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code also the accused has said that he is not acquainted with the Hindi language and, therefore, the entire investigation which was conducted in Hindi language, cannot rope the appellant. There is no material on record in order to show that whatever the procedure of investigation was adopted by the Investigating Officer was explained to accused/appellant in his own language or in English language. Thus, the entire proceeding and investigation which was conducted against the appellant is one sided and it cannot be said that the appellant was acquainted or was informed that what is being done against him.The Hon'ble Three Judges bench of the Supreme Court in AIR 1969 SC 381 in paragraph No.6, has stated that the question should be put to the 22/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis accused in a language which they understood. But here, the question was put in Tamil language. Of course interpreter was present and according to the interpreter the question was translated into Hindi does not find place in Section 313 of Cr.P.C., proceedings. The object of 313 of Cr.P.C., proceedings is that the accused should be present and the incriminating circumstances should be explained in the language known to them is not available. Hence, on this score along the conviction and sentence imposed against them is not legally maintainable. All the evidence of witnesses were recorded in Tamil. It is not the case of the prosecution that the same was explained at the time of recording the evidence in the language of accused.14.Other material circumstances creating doubt over the prosecution case: Owner of the car had filed petition and received his car by filing petition to return the recovered vehicle. There was neither investigation about the use of car nor charge under section 25 of NDPS Act.14.1.There was material delay of 3 days in production of 23/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis contraband. The Learned Trial Judge has held that contraband was produced before the Learned Trial Judge at the time of remand itself. To prove the same, this court finds no material i.e. form 95 was not marked. 14.2.Since this court made a detailed discussion on the merits and inclined to acquit the accused, the other material submissions made on the basis of the Chemical analysis report that the recovered Ganja did not contain flowering or fruiting tops need not be addressed to answer the sustainability of the conviction U/s. 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act r/w 34 of IPC.15.Conclusion: In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has not proved the recovery of contraband in accordance with law, apart from failure to prove compliance of section 42 of the Act. The entire prosecution case is riddled with infirmities and inherent improbability in all aspects. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt and hence, this 24/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis court is inclined to acquit the accused. 16.In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed in the following terms:16.1. The conviction under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act r/w 34 IPC passed by the learned I Additional Special Judge, Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai (FAC), dated 16.02.2021, in C.C.No.90 of 2019, is hereby set aside.16.2. The appellants are acquitted from all the charges in C.C.No.90 of 2019, dated 16.02.2021, on the file of the I Additional Special Judge, Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai (FAC), Madurai and they are directed to be released, unless their presence is necessary in any other case.16.3.Fine amount if paid by the appellants shall be refunded to the appellants forthwith. 25/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

16.4. Bail bond executed by the appellants shall stand terminated if the same had been executed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. .10.2025NCC:Yes/NoIndex:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NosbnNote: Issue order copy on 16.10.2025 26/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To1.The I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai.2.The Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Town Police Station, Madurai District.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.5.The Section Officer, Criminal Section (Records) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 27/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN.J,sbnCrl.A.(MD).No.117 of 202115.10.202528/28