Madras High Court
Rajaraman vs State Rep. By on 13 March, 2007
Author: P. Murgesen
Bench: P. Murgesen
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.03.2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. MURGESEN Criminal Appeal No.342 of 2003 Rajaraman .. Appellant accused Vs State rep. By The Inspector of Police Kumbakonam West Police Station .. Respondent Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court under the Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur in C.C.No.39 of 2002 dated 18.10.2002. !For Petitioner : T.Madasamy ^For Respondent : Mr.Siva Iyyappan, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) :J U D G M E N T
The appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court under the Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur in C.C.No.39 of 2002 dated 18.10.2002.
2.The case of the prosecution is briefly as follows:
a)P.W.2 was the Grade I Police Constable, attached to Kumbakonam West Police Station. On 15.2.2001, at about 11.00 a.m., on the basis of the message received from the informant, the Sub-Inspector of Police, left the station by 11.10 a.m. along with one Head Constable by name Benjamin and P.W.2 and proceeded to Alagappan Theru, Annal Agraharam Atrangkarai Theru, Kumbakonam and was watching that place near a plantain grove. At that time, the informant pointed out the accused. Immediately, the accused was surrounded by the Police party. They explained to the accused about the message received that he was having 'ganja', served a notice on him and also obtained his signature. Ex.P2 is the notice given to the accused. The Police people also asked the accused as to whether he was willing to be searched in the presence of the Judical Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. But the accused informed them that the Sub-
Inspector himself can make a search. So, the Sub-Inspector conducted the search in the presence of P.W.2 and the Head Constable. During search, they found 'ganja' in a paper packet weighing 200 gms. P.Ws 2 and 3 packed the 'ganja'in a brown sheet and affixed the S.H.O.seal.
Then they pasted a paper on the cover containing the details and obtained the signature of the accused. P.Ws 2 & 3 also put their signature on the same. Then mahazar was prepared under Ex.P3, which was also signed by P.Ws 2 & 3. M.O.1 was the 'ganja' recovered from the accused. Then they arrested the accused, prepared the arrest proceedings Ex.P4, obtained the signature of the accused and took him to the Station.
b)P.W.4 Inspector of Police attached to Kumbakonam West Police station took up further investigation in this case. He received the F.I.R. in Crime No.81/2001 and perused the documents and sent the requisition to the Court to send the property recovered for the chemical analysis.
c)P.W.1 was the Officer in the Thanjavur Forensic Lab. The Officer received the intimation from the Police Station and the Court. The Officer analysed the property and found that it is a 'ganja' and sent the report Ex.P1.
d)P.W.4 in continuation of his investigation examined P.W.1 and recorded her statement. P.W.4 also received the report from P.W.4 and filed a charge sheet against the accused under NDPS Act on 29.8.2001.
3.The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the accused, examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and filed Ex.P1 to P6 and marked M.O.1.
4.On consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court under the Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur, found the accused guilty, convicted him under section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(i) of N.D.P.S.Act and sentenced to undergo two months and four days rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. Challenging the Judgment of the learned trial Judge, the appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellant.
5.Point for Determination :
"Whether the prosecution has proved the case against the accused?"
6.P.W.2 was the Grade I Police Constable, attached to Kumbakonam West Police Station and P.W.3 was the Sub-Inspector of Police of that Station. On 15.2.2001, at about 11.00 a.m., on the basis of the message received from the informant, the Sub-Inspector of Police, left the station by 11.10 a.m. along with one Head Constable by name Benjamin and P.W.2 and proceeded to Alagappan Theru, Annal Agraharam Atrangkarai Theru, Kumbakonam and was watching that place near the plantain grove. At that time, the informant pointed out the accused. Immediately the accused was surrounded by the Police people and explained to him about the message received that he was having 'ganja', served a notice on him and also obtained his signature. They also asked the accused as to whether he is willing to be checked in the presence of the Judical Magistrate or a State Officer. But the accused informed them that the Sub-Inspector himself can make a search on him. So, the Sub-Inspector conducted the search in the presence of P.W.2 and the Head Constable. During search, they found 'ganja' in a paper packet weighing 200 gms. P.Ws 2 and 3 packed the same in a brown sheet and affixed the S.H.O.seal. Then they arrested the accused, prepared the arrest proceedings Ex.P4, obtained the signature of the accused and took him to the Station. P.W.4 Inspector of Police attached to Kumbakonam West Police station took up the further investigation in this case. He received the F.I.R. in Crime No.81/2001, perused the documents and sent the property recovered for the chemical analysis and on the basis of the report from P.W.4, he filed a charge sheet against the accused under NDPS Act on 29.8.2001.
7.So, it is clear that the accused was caught red handed with 'ganja' and the report of the chemical analyst established that the said property recovered was 'ganja'. So, the accused/appellant has committed the offence as charged by the Police. The prosecution witnesses have spoken cogently and their evidence are trustworthy and reliable. So, I find no reason to reject the evidence of the prosecution witness. On careful consideration of the evidence, I find that the prosecution has proved the case.
8.Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the Judgment of the learned trial Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court under the Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur in C.C.No.39 of 2002 dated 18.10.2002.
To
1.The Presiding Officer, Special Court under the Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur.
2.The Inspector of Police Kumbakonam West Police Station
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.