Madras High Court
Raman vs State Through Inspector Of Police on 20 June, 2018
Author: R. Tharani
Bench: R. Tharani
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 20.06.2018 RESERVED ON : 21.04.2018 PRONOUNCED ON : 20.06.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI Crl.A.(MD) No.637 of 2007 1.Raman 2.Ravi ... Appellants vs. State through Inspector of Police, Usilampatti Taluk Police Station, Madurai District. Crime No.161 & 162 of 2003 ... Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment and conviction passed by the learned Special District and Sessions Judge (N.D.P.S. Act Cases), Madurai in C.C.No.395 of 2004 dated 29.11.2007 convicting them for the alleged offence under Section 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (b) of NDPS Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. !For Appellants : Mr.S.Karthick legal aid ^For Respondent : Ms.J.Ananda Devi Government Advocate :JUDGMENT
Heard Mr.S.Karthick, learned Legal Aid counsel appearing for the appellants and Ms.J.Ananda Devi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent.
2.This appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment and conviction passed by the learned Special District and Sessions Judge (N.D.P.S. Act Cases), Madurai in C.C.No.395 of 2004 dated 29.11.2007 convicting them for the alleged offence under Section 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (b) of NDPS Act sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
3.The case against the appellants is that on 21.10.2003 at 10.00 a.m., at Kuthiveeranpati both the accused were found in possession of 10 kgs of Kanja which is punishable under Section 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(b) of N.D.P.S. Act. The Special Court convicted the appellants.
4.On the side of the appellants, it is stated that all the witnesses are Official witnesses. Even when the occurrence was said to have been taken place at 10.00 a.m., no independent witness was examined by the Police. The arrest was not informed to the relatives of the accused and the consent letter from A1 is not marked as exhibit and A1 alone was caught hold of by the Police and he only gave confession and the version of the prosecution is that these two appellants escaped from the scene of occurrence. The Officer who prepared the consent letter is also not examined. As per the Section 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1995, the report of seizure and arrest should be intimated to the higher authorities within a period of 48 hours. No such documents are produced in this case. P.W.4 has deposed that no such report was sent by the Sub-Inspector of Police. P.W.5 has also admitted that no such report is sent to the higher Official. The Observation Mahazer and sketch were not prepared. The conviction is only based on the confession of the co-accused.
5.On the side of the respondent, it is stated that three criminal case were registered on the basis of a single occurrence. One case is registered against A1 to A3 and then the case was split up against A2 and A3. The case was split up and this appeal is filed against A2 and A3 and the recovery is only from A1 and the case against A1 is still pending in C.C.No.2038 of 2003.
6.Records perused. The occurrence is said to have been taken place at 10.00 a.m., on 21.06.2003 but all the witnesses are Official witness and no independent witness is examined by the prosecution. The case of the prosecution is that A2 and A3 abscond from the place of occurrence and only A1 was arrested by the police. This appellants were impleaded in the case only on the basis of the confession statement given by A1.
7.On the side of the appellants, it is stated that the consent letter of A1 is not marked by the respondent. P.W.2 has deposed that mt;tplj;jpy; jdpegu; rhl;rpfs; ahUk; ,y;yhjjhy; ghu;l;bapy; ,Ue;j vd;idAk;> rhl;rp NrhkRe;juj;jpidAk; rhl;rpfshf epakpj;J rk;kjf;fbjk; jahu; nra;jhu;. mjpy; rhl;rpfshfpa ehq;fSk;> vjpup Nfhl;ilAk; ifnaOj;J nra;Njhk;. The consent letter is not marked by the prosecution. It is further stated that P.W.2 has deposed that consent letter was prepared by the Sub-Inspector of Police. P.W.2 has deposed that vjpup Nfhl;ilf;fhd Ma;T e%dh> Nrhjid rk;kjf;fbjk; jahu; nra;ag;gl;l 2> 3 epkplq;fspy; jahu; nra;ag;gl;lJ. Mjid gapw;rp rh.M.jahu; nra;jhu;.
8.On the side of the appellants, it is stated that under Section 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1995, the report has to be sent by the consent Sub-Inspector of Police to the Superior Officer and P.W.4 has deposed that tof;fpy; vjpup ifJ nra;ag;gl;ljw;Fk; Nghij nghUs; ifg;gw;wg;gl;ljw;Fk; kdkaf;f rl;lk; gpupT 57d; fPo; mwpf;if vijAk; rhu;gha;thsu; rku;g;gpf;ftpy;iy. ehd; tof;F rk;ge;jg;gl;l ,lj;ij ehd; nrd;W ghu;f;ftpy;iy. nghUs; ifg;gw;wgl;l ,lj;jpw;Fk; fUj;JtPud; gl;bf;Fk; ,ilapy; 3 gu;yhq; J}uk; ,Uf;Fk; fz;kha;f; fiuapy;jhd; nghUl;fs; ifg;gw;wg;gl;ld. P.W.5 has deposed that ,e;j tof;fpy; tpupthd mwpf;if jahu; nra;J Ma;thsUf;F rku;g;gpf;ftpy;iy vd;why; rupjhd;. He has further deposed that rh.ngh.1 Kjy; 6 xl;lg;gl;Ls;s rhd;WnghUl;fspy; rpypg;gpy; Ma;thsu; jpU.uhkre;jpud; ifnahg;gk; ,l;Ls;shu;. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.5 seized the property in the M.Os.1 to 6 but P.W.5 did not sign the slip.
9.Considering the fact that the appellants were not arrested by the police and they were impleaded only on the basis of confession of A1 and considering the fact that no recovery was made from the appellants and the contraband substance was identified only by the co-accused A1 and not by this accused, considering the fact that the consent letter of A1 was not marked by the prosecution, considering the fact that the person who prepared the consent letter, the Sub-Inspector of Police is not examined by the prosecution and considering the fact that in M.Os.1 to 6, P.W.5 did not sign the slip. Considering the fact that no independent witness was examined and also considering the fact that P.W.5 did not file a detailed report regarding the seizure and arrest to his higher Officer, this Court came to a conclusion that the offence against A2 and A3 is not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
10.Hence, this criminal appeal is allowed and the appellants were acquitted from all the charges. The order passed by the lower Court in C.C.No.395 of 2004 dated 29.11.2007 is set aside. Bail bonds if any executed, shall stand cancelled. The excess fine amount if any paid by the appellants shall be refunded.
To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.
2.The Special District and Sessions Court, (N.D.P.S. Act Cases) Madurai.
3.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Usilampatti.
4.The District Collector, Madurai.
5.The Director General of Police, Chennai.
6.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai.
7.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madurai District.
8.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
9.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.