Madras High Court
Karthi @ Ahori Karthik vs The State Rep By Its on 15 October, 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 12.09.2025
Pronounced On : 15.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A.(MD).No.334 of 2023
and
Crl.MP(MD)Nos.8551 and 8552 of 2023
1.Karthi @ Ahori Karthik
2.Mari @ Dory Mari ... Appellant/Accused No.1 & 2
Vs.
The State rep by its,
Inspector of Police,
Keerathurai Police Station,
Madurai City.
(In Crime No.1075 of 2020) ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the entire records in connection with the
judgment in C.C.No.278 of 2021, dated 05.09.2022 on the file of the
II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, and set aside the
conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants.
Page No.1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 05:31:48 pm )
For Appellants : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian for A1
Mr.Vijayaraja for A2
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
The appellants/A1 & A2 in C.C.No.278 of 2021 on the file of II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, have filed these appeals, challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against them on 05.09.2022, by which, they were convicted for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act for the alleged possession of 30 kg of ganja without having any valid license.
2.1. The brief facts of the case as follows:
When P.W.2 was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Keeraithurai Police Station, MAdurai, on 27.09.2020, at 03.00 pm, he received a secret information from his informant about the appellants' illegal selling of ganja behind the common Toilet of Madurai corporation, which was situated opposite to the burriel ground of Keeraithurai. He recorded the said information and recorded in the General Diary and reduced it in writting under Ex.P.6 and informed the same to his Immediate Superior. Thereafter, at about 03.45 p.m, P.W.2 and other police officers went to the spot with Page No.2/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 05:31:48 pm ) necessary equipment and the informant identified the appellant. On seeing the police party, the appellants tried to escape from the place of the occurrence. The second appellant fled away from the place of occurrence. However, P.W.2 and the police officers nabbed the first appellant, who had jumped from the top of the toilet and sustained injuries. P.W.2 introduced himself as police officers and he was informed about his right to be searched before the Judicial Magistrate or the Gazetted officer as required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The appellant consented to conduct search by the officer himself and hence, P.W.2 conducted a search and found two yellow and white coloured sacks in nearby bush and also found the presence of 30 kg of ganja in the said sacks and took the weightment of entire contraband and took the sample of S1 and S2 from the said sacks and properly sealed the same. He also properly sealed the remaining contraband. Thereafter, he arrested the appellant. The appellant also gave a confession and the same was recorded by P.W.2. P.W.2 brought the accused to the police station along with the entire contraband and sample and registered a case in Crime No.1075 of 2020 for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of NDPS Act against six persons and preferred a detailed report under Section 57 of NDPS Act. Following the same, P.W.2 handed over the custody of the accused to P.W.4 along with the contraband, sample and report under Section 57 of the Act. The Inspector of Police produced the accused Page No.3/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 05:31:48 pm ) before the learned Judicial Magistrate along with the recovered contraband and samples taken from the said contraband and made a request to remand him. After completing all the formalities, the learned Judicial Magistrate remanded the appellant in judicial custody. Thereafter, P.W.4 conducted the investigation and filed the final report before the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, against the four persons including the appellants and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.278 of 2021.
2.2. The learned trial Judge issued summons to the accused and on their appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and framed the necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial.
2.3. The prosecution, to prove the case examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and exhibited 14 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P14 and produced 6 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.6. The learned trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., proceedings by putting the increminating evidence available from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and documents. The accused denied the same as false and the case was posted for examination of the witnesses on the side of the appellants. On the side of the defence, no one was examined as witness and no document was marked.Page No.4/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 05:31:48 pm ) 2.4. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the accused No.3 & 4 and convicted the appellants for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, and sentenced them to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 12 months Rigorous Imprisonment each.
3. Challenging the said conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge, present appeal has been filed.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant/A1 and the learned counsel for the appellant/A2 jointly made the following submissions:-
4.1. A false case was registered against the appellants and there was no recovery from the appellants. The Investigating Agency filed the false case by planting ganja. Even before the recovery, the first appellant was in the illegal custody and he was assaulted his leg was broken by the police officers and thereafter, the case was registered with false recovery. The final report was filed against four persons by showing A3 and A5 were absconding accused and trial was conducted only against A1, A2, A4 & A6. The learned trial Judge convicted the appellants for the offence under Section Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.Page No.5/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 05:31:48 pm ) 4.2. There was no charge framed against the second appellant. Namely, Mari @ Dory Mari. So, the conviction and sentence passed against the second appellant is not legally maintainable.
4.3. When they surrounded both the appellants herein, it is unbelievable that the police officials allowed the second appellant/A2 to escape from the scene of occurrence. P.W.2 received the secret information about the illegal possession and selling of ganja by the appellants, who had the previous antecedents and the police should have been more more wary. In that event, their stand that the second appellant escaped from the scene of occurrence is unbelievable story. Hence, the entire evidence is not trustworthy. Hence, he seeks acquittal for the appellants.
4.4. It is the specific case of P.W.1 that the second appellant also sustained injuries. However, P.W.1 is unable to secure him. The case of the prosecution is that the appellants/A1&A2 procured the contraband from A3, A4, A5 and A6. But they were acquitted by the learned trial Judge. Hence, conviction for possession of the ganja, which is not in the custody of the appellants is not legally maintainable.
4.5. There was no explanation for the presence of crime number in the Page No.6/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 05:31:48 pm ) material object. Before registration of the case, crime number was found on the material object. In the said circumstances, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
4.6. The first appellant gave a detailed explanation about the injury caused by the police officers keeping him illegal custody and the same was not properly considered by the learned trial Judge. The police officers falsely foisted the case against the appellants on the basis of the previous antecedents. Hence, he seeks acquittal.
4.7. The learned trial Judge gave an erroneous finding that the second appellant was present at the scene of occurrence, which is contrary to the evidence of Searching Officer (P.W.2) and the accompanying witness (P.W.1).
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor made the following submissions:-
5.1. A secret information was received and properly recorded by P.W.2 and the same was duly intimated to the Immediate Superior and the Immediate Superior has also acknowledged the said information. Therefore, there is a strict compliance under Section 42 of the Act. Page No.7/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 05:31:48 pm ) 5.2. The presence of the second appellant was clearly proved through the recovery of contraband. He disclosed the place of concealment of the contraband and the same was admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
5.3. The searching officer also gave a proper explanation with regard to the presence of crime number on the material object. In his explanation, he stated that only for keeping safe custody with proper particulars and also in order to avoid the complication of mixing the object with other properties in other crime numbers, crime number was mentioned on the material object.
5.4. The report under Section 57 of the Act was duly submitted and also the case of the first appellant that he was in illegal custody prior to the occurrence, and the police officers caused injuries to him, is a mere pleading and there was no evidence adduced to substantiate the said pleadings. Therefore, in all aspects, the prosecution has clearly proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the records and also the precedents relied upon by the counsels. Page No.8/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 05:31:48 pm )
7. The only question arises for consideration in this appeal is that whether the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act for the possession of ganja of 30 kg is legally maintainable?
8. P.W.2 received the secret information on 27.09.2020, at 15 hours about the illegal possession and selling of contraband namely, Ganja by the appellants. He recorded the same in the General Diary and reduced it in writting under Ex.P.6 and submitted the same to P.W.3, Immediate Superior. P.W.3 also deposed about the information sent by P.W.2 and he also deposed about the acknowledgement of the said information. On the basis of the information, P.W.2 and P.W.1 and other team members went to the scene of occurrence. The informant identified the occurrence place and the appellants. According to P.W.2, even though he and his team members surrounded both the appellants, one of the accused namely, the second appellant/A2 escaped from the scene of occurrence. The first appellant/A1 jumped from the tank and he sustained injuries and he was caught by P.W.2 and his team members. Thereafter, first appellant/A1 gave a confession that he was in possession of Ganja and also disclosed the purchase made from the accused Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6 and the same was in joint custody of A1 and A2. Thereafter, he disclosed the Page No.9/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 05:31:48 pm ) place of ganja and the same was recovered and the sample was taken and the remaining contraband was sealed. Thereafter, the first appellant/A1 was arrested along with the contraband and the same was produced before the Court and FIR was registered and a report under Section 57 of the Act was submitted to P.W.3. P.W.3 remanded the accused along with all the material documents including the Form-91 and the compliance of documents relating to the Sections 42, 50 and 57 of the Act. P.W.1 and P.W.2's evidence relating to the recovery of the contraband is cogent and trustworthy. Their evidence also corroborated with the athatchi prepared in the occurrence place under Ex.P.5. The admissible portion of confession of A1 was marked under Ex.P.7. From the above circumstances, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the case against the A2 was clearly proved.
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/A1 that the first appellant was kept in illegal custody by the police team on 27.09.2020. All the police officers illegally took custody of the first appellant and others and also broke the legs of the first appellant and admitted him in the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. According to the defence counsel, the said plea was not considered by the learned trial Judge. Page No.10/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 05:31:48 pm )
10. The submission of the learned counsel for the second appellant/A2 that the second appellant/A2 was in the custody of the police in connection with some other case. P.W.2 falsely roped the second appellant/A2 in this case, by illegally taking into custody and broke his legs, and showed him as an accused in this case. The police officers falsely foisted the case against all the accused without their involvement and also filed the final report without any material and final report was filed only on the basis of the previous antecedents of the accused.
11. To consider the said plea, this Court perused the entire records and also the credibility of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. It is the specific case of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that P.W.2 received the secret information about the named accused namely, the appellants/A1 & A2. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is that the informant identified two persons and they are unable to trace out the second appellant. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that he and other police officials do not know the physical features of the absconding accused. Further, P.W.1 specifically admitted that the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W.2 never took any steps to secure the absconding second accused. The evidence of P.W.1 is as follows:-
jg;gp brd;wjhf brhy;Yk; vjphpfis gpog;gjw;F
rhh;g[ Ma;thsh; Kaw;rp bra;atpy;iy.
Page No.11/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 05:31:48 pm )
12. There was no identification parade conducted to identify the absconding accused namely, the second appellant/A2. P.W.2, Sub-Inspector of Polcie, who was search officer in the chief examination, specifically deposed that he did not take any steps to secure the absconding accused and the same is as follows;-
Rkhh; 16.00 kzpf;F nghyP]; ghh;l;oia fz;l vjphpfs; ,UtUk; mq;fpUe;J Fjpj;J jg;gp xl mjpy; xU vjphpia gpoj;Jk; kw;w vjphpia klf;fp gpof;f Kaw;rp bra;jnghJ g[jUf;Fs; brd;W jg;gpj;Jtpl;lhh;. nkYk;> njLtjhy; gpunah$dk; ,y;iy vd;gjhy; vdJ nghyP];
ghh;l;o Vw;fdnt klf;fp gpoj;j vjphpia tprhhpf;f mth; kJiu fy;nkL gFjpia nrh;e;j fhh;;j;jp vd;w mnfhhp fhh;j;jpf; vd;Wk;> mtUld; jg;gpj;J brd;w egh; kJiu uh $khefiu nrh;e;j khh; vd;w nlhhpkhhp vd;W Twpathplk; jftyhsp bfhLj;j jftyhd ePtPh; fQ;rh itj;jpUg;gjhf jfty; te;Js;sJ cq;fis nrhjid bra;a ntz;Lk;
mt;thW nrhjid bra;a ePjpkd;w eLth; mth;fsplnkh my;yJ murpjH; gjpt[ bgw;w mYtyhplnkh Tl;o brd;W nrhjid bra;a brhy;y cq;fSf;F mjpfhuk; cz;L vd nfl;ljw;F mth; fQ;rh itj;jpUg;gjhf cz;ikia xg;g[f;bfhz;L
13. From the above, it is clear that they created a false story about the illegal possession of ganja. Further, they have not taken any steps to secure the absconded accused and this itself shows that they are not fit to hold the post of police officers and also they have intentionally aided the absconded accused to escape from of the legitimate conviction. Therefore, in all aspects, this Court is unable to concur with the finding of the learned trial Judge with Page No.12/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 05:31:48 pm ) regard to the recovery from the appellants. P.W.1 & P.W.2 surrounded the appellants and P.W.1 admitted the fact that P.W.2 has not taken any steps to secure the absconded accused, who escaped from the place of the occurrence. Further, in an irresponsible manner, P.W.2 in his chief examination stated that, 'njLtjhy; gpunah$dk; ,y;iy'. In all aspect, this Court is not satisfied with the manner of the search made by the police officers.
14. The above facts, reveal the following inferences. One is that they intentionally allowed the second appellant/A2 to escape from the scene of occurrence and aided him to escape from the legitimate conviction or otherwise there was a willful negligence on the part of the police officials in allowing the second appellant/A2 to escape from the scene of occurrence or else a false story might have been fabricated against A2 regarding the illegal possession of ganja as averred by the defence. The same was further substantiated from the non-examination of the independent witness in the scene of occurrence. According to P.W.2, the place is a congested place and there was regular movement of public. In these circumstances, they allowed the second appellant to escape from the scene of occurrence can not be believed.
Page No.13/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 05:31:48 pm )
15. The appellants pleaded about the injuries sustained by them and also the same was found in the remand report and other medical reports. In view of the above circumstances, all the police officers conspired to foist a false case against the appellants in order to escape from the charge that they kept them in illegal custody and caused injuries.
16. The considered opinion of this Court is that the police officer foisted the false case against the six persons only for the reason that they have had criminal antecedents. This is not a way of punishing the appellants by foisting false case.
17. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the appellants have previous bad antecedents and therefore, the appellants are not entitled to acquittal. This Court is not inclined to consider the said submission for the reason that when there is no material to connect the appellants with the present case, claim that they have previous antecedents will not be sufficient to convict them as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra] 1977(3)SCC268 and Ram Lakhan Singh v. State of U.P reported in 2019 (12) SCC 460.
Page No.14/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 05:31:48 pm )
18.Apart from that, there was no clear evidence as to how the contraband was weighed. If the information was received by the officers relating to the possession of the ganja, they ought to have gone with the responsible official witnesses to susbtantiate the case of recovery.
19. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is unable to accept the case of the prosecution that the appellants were found in possession of contraband. It is the duty of the Court to prevent the registration of false case. The finding of the learned trial Judge that the the second appellant/A2 was present in the scene of occurrence itself shows his predetermined mind in deciding the issues infavour of the prosecution.
20. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants.
21.Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is Allowed on the folowing terms:-
20.1.The judgment passed by the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, in C.C.No.278 of 2021, dated 05.09.2022, is set aside.
Page No.15/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 05:31:48 pm ) 20.2.The appellants are acquitted from all the charges in C.C.No.278 of 2021 on the file of the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.
20.3.Fine amount if any paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them forthwith.
20.4. Bail bond executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled.
- Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
15.10.2025.
NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No dss/sbn To:
1.The II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Keerathurai Police Station, Madurai City.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4.The Section Officer, Criminal Section(Records), Page No.16/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 05:31:48 pm ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Page No.17/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 05:31:48 pm ) K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
dss/sbn Crl.A.(MD).No.334 of 2023 and Crl.MP(MD)Nos.8551 and 8552 of 2023 15.10.2025 Page No.18/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/10/2025 05:31:48 pm )