Madras High Court
D.A.Arun vs The State Represented By on 15 May, 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 31.01.2025
Pronounced on : 15.05.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.126 of 2022 and 880 of 2023
D.A.Arun ... Appellant/Accused No.1
( In Crl.A(MD)No. 126 of 2022 )
Ravi ... Appellant/Accused No.2
( In Crl.A(MD)No.880 of 2023 )
Vs.
The State Represented by,
The Intelligence Officer,
Narcotics Control Bureau,
Madurai Sub Zone, Madurai.
(NCB.F.No.48/1/07/2018/NCB/MDU)
... Respondent/Complainant
( In both Appeals )
COMMON PRAYER : Criminal Appeals have been filed under Section
374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside
the judgment dated 25.01.2022 made in C.C.No.20 of 2019 on the file of
the I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, and allow the
above Criminal Appeals.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian
for Mr.K.Kevinkaran
(In Crl.A(MD)No.126 of 2022)
: Mr.M.Sundar
(In Crl.A(MD)No.880 of 2023)
Page No.1/41
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm )
For Respondent : Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar
Special Public Prosecutor
(In both Appeals)
COMMON JUDGMENT
The appellants/A1 & A2 in C.C.No.20 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, have filed these appeals, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against them on 25.01.2022, wherein, they were convicted for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act r/w 34 IPC and under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) r/w 25 and under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) r/w 29 of NDPS Act, for the alleged illegal possession of 251.500 kg of ganja without having any valid licence.
2. Since these appeals are arising out of the same occurrence and filed against the judgment of conviction made in C.C.No.20 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, these appeals are taken up together for hearing and disposed of by way of this common judgment.
Page No.2/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm )
3. The brief facts of the case as follows:
3.1. On 11.06.2018, at 05.30 pm, when P.W.1 was working as Intelligence office, NCB, Madurai, he received a secret information from his informant about the appellants' illegal possession and transportation of huge quantity of ganja near Anjaneya Hotel, Latchumipuram Toll Gate, Kodaikanal to Batlagundu road. He recorded the said information and reduced it in writting under Ex.P.1 and informed the same to his Immediate Superior, P.W.3 and got permission. Thereafter, at 10.00 pm, P.W.1, P.W.3 and other officers went to the spot with necessary instruments along with the informant and made surveillance. At about 10.10 p.m, they intercepted a TATA Safari car bearing Reg.No.TN-72-AJ-9000, which was proceeding towards Batlagundu from Dindigul. P.W.1 found the presence of three persons in the car and introduced themselves as officers of NCB and they were informed about their right to be searched before the Judicial Magistrate or the Gazetted officer as required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The appellants consented to conduct search by the officer himself and hence, P.W.1 conducted search in the car in the presence of P.W.2 and other officers.
He found 251.500 kg of ganja in the dicky of the car in 114 parcels. P.W.1 converted the said 114 parcels into 6 gunny bags. Each gunny bag contained 19 parcels and took two samples from each gunny bag were taken and all the samples were properly sealed and the remaining contraband was also Page No.3/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) properly sealed and produced before the Court. Thereafter, he arrested the appellants. The appellants also gave confessions and the same were recorded by P.W.1. P.W.1 brought the accused to the NCB office along with the entire contraband and sample and registered a case in NCB.F.No. 48/1/07/2018/NCB/MDU for the offence under Sections 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C), 25, 27A, 28 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, and prepared a detailed report under Section 57 of NDPS Act. Following the same, P.W.1 handed over the custody of the accused to P.W.12 along with the contraband, sample and report under Section 57 of the Act. Then the accused were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, along with the recovered contraband and samples taken from the said contraband and with a request to remand them. After completing all the formalities, the learned Judicial Magistrate remanded the appellants in judicial custody. Thereafter, P.W.12 conducted investigation and filed the complaint before the I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.20 of 2019.
3.2. 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 claimed to be tried.
Page No.4/41https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) 3.3. The prosecution, to prove the case examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and exhibited 99 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.99 and produced 27 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.27. The learned trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating evidence available from prosecution witnesses and documents. The accused denied the same as false and false case was registered and the case was posted for examination of the witnesses on the side of the appellants and on their side D.W.1 to D.W. 3 were examined as witness and documents Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4 were marked.
3.4. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the appellants from the charges under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 27A and 28 of the NDPS Act and convicted them for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) r/w 34 IPC and Sections 25 & 29 of NDPS Act and sentenced them to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lake only) each in default, to undergo, 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment each for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act r/w 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lake only) each in default, to undergo, 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment each for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) r/w 25 of the NDPS Act and sentenced them to undergo 10 years Page No.5/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lake only) each in default, to undergo, 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment each for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) r/w 29 of the NDPS Act and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
4. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed.
5. Mr.M.Jegateesh Pandian, the learned counsel for the appellant/A1 in Crl.A(MD)No.126 of 2022 and Mr.M.Sundar, the learned for the appellant/A2 in Crl.A(MD)No.880 of 2023 jointly made the following submissions:-
5.1. The recovery of huge quantity of 251.500 kg of ganja in the car is not believable one. It is impossible to believe the transportation of huge quantity of the ganja in the said car.
5.2. Search was made in front of the Anjaneya Hotel and CCTV was available and the CCTV footages were destroyed by the respondent/NCB Officer and the same was clearly deposed by D.W.2. The said evidence of D.W.2 was not properly considered by the learned trial Judge.Page No.6/41
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) 5.3. The non-production of CCTV footages and also the non-explanation relating to failure of recovery of the said CCTV footages are material circumstances to disbelieve the evidence of recovery. The prosecution has not established the strict compliance of Section 42 of the Act.
5.4. Even according to the evidence of P.W.1, the accused were in their custody at 10.30 p.m on 11.06.2018 and they were remanded in the Court only at 05.00 p.m on 13.06.2018 and therefore, there was illegal custody of two days and the same was not properly explained.
5.5. There was genuine doubt over the arrest and recovery of the contraband. There was no compliance under Section 50 of the Act.
According to the prosecution, the search was made both on the body and of the car of the appellants and hence, as per the Paramanantham Case, the compliance of Section 50 of the Act is necessary. Therefore, the entire search and recovery is not legally valid.
5.6. In this case, the prosecution has not complied with the requirements under Section 52A of the Act. According to the facts of the present case, the said requirement is material one.
Page No.7/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) 5.7. In view of the inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution about the recovery of the contraband and as there is a huge difference in quantity between Ex.P.28 and Ex.P.27, there is a doubt over the recovery of the contraband from the appellants.
5.8.P.W.12 specifically deposed that he did not know Tamil language. Therefore, the case of the recovery by informing A1 about the contents of the document in Tamil language is highly unbelievable.
5.9. According to the appellants, the independent witness P.W.4 is a planted witness and his evidence is not cogent and trustworthy. He was examined on 07.11.2020 i.e., after 2 years from the date of the occurrence. In his chief examination and cross-examination, he stated that, he has not properly identified the appellants and the ownership of the car was not properly proved by the prosecution. The prosecution examined P.W.5 to P.W. 10 to prove the possession and occupation of the vehicle on the date of the occurrence. The evidence of all the witnesses never inspired confidence due to the inconsistencies in their evidence. Therefore, the conviction under Section 25 of the NDPS Act is not legally maintainable. Page No.8/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) 5.10. None of the document disclosed about the ownership of the car by the appellant/A1. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that he went to Andra Pradesh and purchased the contraband is not legally maintainable. The cell phones of all the accused were recovered. But, no incriminating material is available in CDR report to connect the accused under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. But, the learned trial Judge, acquitted the appellant under Sections 27 and 28 of the NDPS Act and convicted them for the offence under Sections 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. On the date of occurrence, the vehicle number stood in the name of one Shankar (P.W.7) and no legally valid document was produced before the Court to presume the ownership or the possession of the vehicle by the appellant/A1. The evidence of P.W.1 and other witnesses is not cogent and their evidence is not believable as there are material discrepancies between their evidence about the recovery of the contraband.
5.11. Ex.P.51 is not a primary document. It is only a xerox copy and the original was not produced. Therefore, the same is inadmissible without compliance of requirement of Section 63(c) of the Evidence Act. The defence examined three witnesses. All the three witnesses clearly deposed that there was doubt over the presence of the appellant/A1 at the scene of occurrence and he was illegally taken by the police officers at 05.00 p.m itself. The same Page No.9/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) was clearly by the CDR report of the prosecution document itself. Therefore, the alleged recovery of contraband at 06.30 a.m is false.
5.12. The prosecution has not produced any document to show that the cell phones, which were recovered from the house the accused, belonged to them. They have not produced any document to show that the appellants used these mobile phones. There was no evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution to prove that at the material point of time, the cellphone was used by the appellants in Andra Pradesh.
5.13. Similarly, there was no material was adduced to prove the withdrawal of amount from the account of one of the accused by the appellants. The house search was conducted in the presence of one Gunasekaran. The recovered phone stands in the name of said Gunasekaran. Therefore, the Investigating Agency, falsely implicated the appellants in the present case.
5.14. According to the prosecution, the entire seizure was at the night hours. It was commenced at 05.30 p.m and ended at 04.30 a.m on the next day. But, none of the witnesses speak about the presence of the light. Therefore, the arrest and recovery is stage managed one. There was no Page No.10/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) communication from A2's phone to A1's phone. A2 seriously disputed about the house search. There was no incriminating material available in CDR report to connect the accused under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The appellants' control over the vehicle, is a basic minimum requirement to convict the appellants under Section 25 of the NDPS Act. Hence, he seeks acquittal for the appellants.
5.15. To support their contention, the learned counsel for the appellants in Crl.A(MD)No.126 of 2022 and the learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.880 of 2023 relied the following judgments:-
1.2018 SCC Online Pat 906: 2019 Cri LJ (NOC 47) 20: (2018) 4 PLJR 261
2. Ishdan Seikh vs. Union of India (2020) and Ali Hossain SK @Ali Hussain Seikh vs Narcotic Control Bureau (2019)
3. Sumit Rai vs State - 2019 SCC Online Del 9364
4. K.Uganchand Kumawat vs. The Inspector of Police, NIB-CID, Dindugul.
5. Allauddin Khan vs. State of West Bengal 2015 SCC Online Cal 3033
6. Thomaso Bruno and Another vs. State of U.P - (2015) 7 Supreme Court Cases 178
7. 2024: CGHC: 21721-DB
8. Chanam Ranjit Meitai vs Union of India - 2009 Page No.11/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) SCC Online Gau 442
9. Kunal Dattu Kadu vs Union of India - 2022 SCC Online Bom 1770
10. Arti Sen vs. State of M.P - 2013 SCC Online MP 11182
11. Krishan Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh - (2018) 1 SCC 222
12. 2018 SCC Online P&H 7164
13. Avtar Singh and other vs. State of Punjab - (2002) 7 SCC 419
14. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari and another vs State of Orissa - 2017 SCC Online Ori 838
15. State of Rajasthan v Ram Chandra - (2005) 5 SCC 151
16. Kalayath Nassar State of Kerala - (1999) 7 SCC 309
17. Mohammed Khalid & Anr Vs. The State of Telangana - 2024 INSC 158
18. Yusuf @ Asif Vs. State – 2023 INSC 912
19. Union of India v Mohantal, (2016) 3 SCC 379
20. Boota Singh v State of Haryana, (2021) 19 SCC 606
21. Smt. T. Ramadevi Vs. The State of Telangana in W.P. No 21912 of 2024 dated 26.09.2024
22. Ashak Hussain Allah Detha Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs (P) Bombay, 1950 SCC Online Bom3
23. Iqbal Kaur Kwatra v. District General of Police, Rajasthan State - 1996 SCC Online AP 206 Page No.12/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm )
24. Extracts from Drug law Enforcement Field Officers Handbook issued by Narcotics Control Bureau (Pages 1 to 37)
25. Shafhi Mohd. v. State of H.P, (2018) 5 SCC 311
26. Order dated 22.06 2022 by the Calcutta High Court in In Re-An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with NDPS Case No. 198 of 2021 arising out of Lalgola P S. Case No. 698 of 2021 dated 17.09.2021 under Sections 21(c)/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act
27. Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. The Narcotics Control Bureau - 2023 INSC 852
28. Ramji Singh v State of Haryana, 2007 SCC Online P&H 213
29. Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi v. State of Goa, (2005) 9 SCC 773
30. Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417
6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor made the following submissions:-
6.1. The officer has no motive against the appellants. They received the secret information about the illegal transportation of huge quantity of contraband. They properly recorded the information and informed same to the superior and recovered the contraband in the presence of the independent witness, P.W.4. Apart from the official witnesses, P.W.4, the independent Page No.13/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) witness clearly deposed about the recovery from the car. The lapse on the part of the Investigating Agency in not recovering CCTV footages and the recorded footage is not a material one when the evidence of independent witness P.W.4 and the official witness are cogent and clear. He further stated that the hotel name was changed much earlier to the issuance of the said document. But, Ex.D.4 contains the original name i.e., Anjaneya Hotel and not in the name of the 'Eden Garden Hotel'. It creates doubt over the evidence of D.W.3.
6.2. D.W.1/Wife of the first appellant/A1 deposed that her husband received a phone call at 08.30 p.m on 11.06.2018 and subsequently, he left the house. Thereafter, when she called him at around 09.00 p.m, his phone was switched off. Her mother-in-law received a call from somebody that her husband was involved in the drug trafficking and the same was published in the local news. Thereafter, they went to NCB office and they did not respond properly. Thereafter, she came to know that on 13.06.2018 at 05.00 p.m, he was illegally confined in the prison. In this regard, she made a complaint to various officers under Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 and her evidence is artificial one.
From the contents of the document, it shows that it is a false one. She sent a complaint about the illegal custody on 11.06.2018. But, according to defence, the illegal custody of the appellant/A1 was on 13.06.2018. Therefore, the Page No.14/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) delay in giving the complaint about the illegal custody of the appellant/A1 was not properly explained and hence, the claim of D.W.1 is liable to be rejected.
6.3. The evidence of D.W.2 is that he was working in Hindu Religious and Endowment Board at Gopinathaswamy Thirukovil, Rettiyarchatram. Dindigul District. He and his brother/A1 went to the Anjaneya Hotel and thereafter, they were illegally taken custody by NCB officers is not believable one. He did not make any complaint to any person relating to the above illegal detention. The evidence of D.W.3 that he was working as Cashier of the Anjaneya Hotel is a false one. He did not produce any evidence to show that he was working in the said Anjaneya Hotel on the date of occurrence i.e., 11.06.2018. The Employment Certificate was produced by D.W.3, which was marked as Ex.D.4 itself is doubtful one.
6.4. D.W.3 never deposed about the damage caused to the CCTV Camera in the Anjaneya Hotel by NCB officers. According to him, the name of the hotel was changed as 'Eden Garden Hotel' before the issuance of Ex.D.
4. But, the document contained the name of Anjaneya Hotel. Therefore Ex.D. 4 is a false one and it was created only with an intention to safeguard the appellant/A1. Therefore, he seeks to reject the evidence of the defence. Page No.15/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) 6.5. The appellant/A1 was working as Assistant Public Relations Officer in Dindigul Collectorate, Dindigul. He was absent during 5 days i.e., from 08.06.2018 to 12.06.2018. He has not produced any document to prove their absence is bona fide. But, his presence in the Andhra Pradesh is established through CDR report and he also operated his account in Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the prosecution clearly proved the presence of the appellants in the State of Andhra Pradesh and his absence at his office during that time and the material conversation between the accused, all cumulatively proved the charge under Sections 25 and 29 of the Act. The evidence of P.W. 1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 clearly proved the presence of the appellants in the car and the said car was seized with contraband. The weight of the contraband is 251.500 kg. The same was clearly established through the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and the corresponding contemporaneous documents and all the documents were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate at the time of remand itself.
6.6. At the time of remand, none of the accused stated before the learned Judicial Magistrate about the illegal custody or the assault made by the officers. In the above circumstances, the prosecution clearly proved the case.
Page No.16/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) 6.7. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly proved the compliance under Section 42 of the Act and in the document under Ex.P.2 it is clearly stated about the compliance.
6.7.1. Compliance under Section 50 of the Act is not applicable to this case for the reason that the recovery was made from the car. There was huge quantity of contraband and the same was also produced before the court and go-down receipt was produced and a report under Section 57 of the Act also was properly submitted to the Higher Officials. Therefore, the prosecution clearly proved the case of the huge quantity of 251.500 kg of ganja.
6.7.2. There was recovery of huge quantity of ganja in 114 parcels. The officer converted 114 parcels into 19 parcels and put the same in 6 gunny bags and obtained 2 samples ( each sample 25 gram ) from each gunny bag and the weight of six gunny bags were 41.650 kg, 42.050 kg, 41.850 kg, 42.150 kg, 41.850 kg and 41.950 kg and the total weight of contraband was 251.500 kg. They followed the 'homogenic method' in taking samples and all the samples were properly sealed and the remaining contraband was also properly sealed and produced before the Court. Therefore, they had properly taken the samples and properly sealed the remaining contraband as per the procedure stated in the notification.
Page No.17/41https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) 6.8. The acquittal under Sections 27A and 28 of NDPS Act is not a ground to disbelieve the available evidence to convict the appellants under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29 of NDPS Act. Therefore, in all aspects, the prosecution clearly proved the case and hence, he seeks to confirm the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge.
7. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record and the precedents relied upon by them.
8. The question arising for consideration in this case is whether the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge against the appellants can be sustained or not?
9. Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the Act:-
9.1. P.W.2 received the secret information on 11.06.2018 at 05.00 p.m and he recorded it and thereafter, informed to his immediate superior P.W.3.
To prove the same, Ex.P.1 was marked and it is clearly stated that the information was also reduced in writing at 05.30 p.m and P.W.3, the Page No.18/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) immediate superior also acknowledged the same. P.W.3 also deposed that he received the information and accorded permission to P.W.1 to conduct search at 06.00 pm. P.W.3 clearly deposed that he received the official information. Considering the above evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 along with Ex.P.1, this Court has no hesitation to hold that there was compliance of section 42 of the NDPS Act. The Hon’ble Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in (2009) 8 SCC 539 has considered the said requirement and laid the following guidelines:-
“35.In conclusion, what is to be noticed is that Abdul Rashid [(2000) 2 SCC 513 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 496] did not require literal compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) nor did Sajan Abraham [(2001) 6 SCC 692 :
2001 SCC (Cri) 1217] hold that the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) need not be fulfilled at all. The effect of the two decisions was as follows:
(a) The officer on receiving the information [of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 42] from any person had to record it in writing in the register concerned and forthwith send a copy to his immediate official superior, before proceeding to take action in terms of clauses (a) to (d) of Section 42(1).
(b) But if the information was received when the officer was not in the police station, but while he was on the move either on patrol duty or otherwise, either by mobile phone, or other means, and the information calls for Page No.19/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) immediate action and any delay would have resulted in the goods or evidence being removed or destroyed, it would not be feasible or practical to take down in writing the information given to him, in such a situation, he could take action as per clauses (a) to (d) of Section 42(1) and thereafter, as soon as it is practical, record the information in writing and forthwith inform the same to the official superior.
(c) In other words, the compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) in regard to writing down the information received and sending a copy thereof to the superior officer, should normally precede the entry, search and seizure by the officer. But in special circumstances involving emergent situations, the recording of the information in writing and sending a copy thereof to the official superior may get postponed by a reasonable period, that is, after the search, entry and seizure. The question is one of urgency and expediency.
(d) While total non-compliance with requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance with Section 42. To illustrate, if any delay may result in the accused escaping or the goods or evidence being destroyed or removed, not recording in writing the information received, before initiating action, or non-sending of a copy of such information to the official superior forthwith, may not be treated as violation of Section 42. But if the information was Page No.20/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) received when the police officer was in the police station with sufficient time to take action, and if the police officer fails to record in writing the information received, or fails to send a copy thereof, to the official superior, then it will be a suspicious circumstance being a clear violation of Section 42 of the Act. Similarly, where the police officer does not record the information at all, and does not inform the official superior at all, then also it will be a clear violation of Section 42 of the Act. Whether there is adequate or substantial compliance with Section 42 or not is a question of fact to be decided in each case. The above position got strengthened with the amendment to Section 42 by Act 9 of 2001.
9.2. From the above precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that once the officer received the secret information and proceed to make search, recovery and arrest the accused along with contraband, it is the duty of the officer to comply the requirement of Section 42 of the Act.
9.3. In this case, P.W.1 and P.W.3 have clearly deposed about the compliance of section 42 of the Act and their evidence are cogent and they were subjected to incisive cross examination, but nothing was elicited to disbelieve their evidence about the compliance of section 42 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, this court is unable to accept the argument of the learned Page No.21/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) counsel for the appellant that there was no compliance of section 42 of the Act. The considered opinion of this Court is that there was strict compliance of section 42 of the Act.
9.4. For better appreciation, it is relevant to extract the following evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 and also Ex.P.1:-
9.4.1. Evidence of P.W.1:-
mth; $wpaij ehd; clNd fzpzpapy; gjpT nra;J efy;
vLj;J gbj;Jfhz;gpj;Njd;. mij cWjp nra;jgpd; vd; Nky;mjpfhhpahd fz;fhzpg;ghsh; jpU.RNu];Fkhh;> mthplk; jftiy vOj;J%ykhf rkh;g;gpj;Njd;.
9.4.2. Evidence of P.W.3:-
fle;j 11.6.2018 md;W ehd; mNj mYtyfj;jpy;
fz;fhzpg;ghsuhf gzpapy; ,Ue;j rkaj;jpy; vdf;F fPo; gzpGhpAk;
Ez;zwpT mjpfhhp rutzd; mth;fs; xU jftiy Rkhh; khiy 5.30 kzpastpy; gjpT nra;J vd;dplj;jpy; nfhLj;jhh;. me;j jftypy; 11.6.18 md;W ,uT Rkhh; 10.30 kzpastpy; mUz;> utp kw;Wk; =uhk; Mfpa %tUk; tj;jyFz;L mUNf yl;RkpGuk; Nlhy;Nfl; mUfpy; itj;J mth;fSila ehd;F rf;fu thfdk; vz;.b.vz;.72 vN[ 9000 vd;w thfdj;jpy; mjpf msT fQ;rh vd;Dk; Nghij nghUis nfhz;Lte;J tpw;gid nra;a ,Ug;gjhfTk; me;j jftypy;
njhptpj;jpUe;jhh;. me;j jftiy gphpT 42d; fPo; vd;dplk; rkh;g;gpj;ij ehd; ngw;Wf; nfhz;L chpa eltbf;if vLf;Fk;gb cj;juT gpwg;gpj;Njd;.
Ex.P.1 is as follows :-
Page No.22/41
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) Page No.23/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) 9.5. From the above, it is clear that there was compliance of section 42 of the Act.
10. Proof of recovery :-
10.1. After the receipt of information, about the illegal possession and trafficking of the huge quantity of ganja on the Kodaikanal, Batlagundu Road, near Anjaneya Hotel, P.W.1 to P.W.3 officers assembled in the said place and made surveillance along with the independent witness P.W.4. It is not the case of D.W.2 and D.W.3 that P.W.4 was not working in Anjaneya Hotel, when the independent witness P.W.4, P.W.1 to P.W.3 clearly deposed about the arrival of 3 accused in the car and the officials nabbed 3 accused with huge quantity of ganja and the samples were taken in 'homogenic method' and also samples were intact and the remaining contraband was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate at the time of remand itself, this Court has not hesitation to hold that the recovery was clearly proved in this case. Once, recovery was proved, the presumption under Sections 54 and 35 of the Act comes into force. As per Sections 54 and 35 of the Act, if huge quantity of contraband was found in possession of accused in the car in which they had travelled, the burden is upon the accused to disprove the same. In this case, A1 took a stand that he was not available in the car and A2 & A3 stated that A1 asked them to come to the car at the Anjaneya Hotel.Page No.24/41
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) A1 and A3 also stated that the officer came to their house at 08.00 p.m on 11.06.2018 and took them to the Anjaneya Hotel. The consistent plea of all the accused is that they were illegally taken from their own house. But, none of the house members of the appellants made a complaint against any of the officers. Therefore, they projected a false story to escape from the legitimate punishment for the possession of huge quantity of ganja. Hence, the prosecution clearly proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
11. Discussion on the material evidence:-
11.1. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 is that the vehicle was found with possession of huge quantity of contraband. Even though, they were subjected to incisive cross-examination, nothing was elicited to disprove the evidence relating to the recovery. Their evidence clearly proved the presence of the accused in the car along with the contraband. Their mobile phones were seized by NCB department and CDR report also obtained with necessary certificate and the same was marked under Ex.P.85. The said documents clearly proved that there was communication between the cell phones used by each accused. That apart, there was cash transaction from the account of A1 to the account of A2 in Andhra Pradesh and the same was proved by marking of the said documents i.e.,, the transfer of amount from the account of A1 to the account of A2. A1 was absent in his duty and he being the Page No.25/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) government servant in the position of Public Relations Officer, his attendance was marked. His unauthorised absence during the material point of time and all the facts clearly show about the involvement of the accused in illegal transportation of contraband from Andhra Pradesh to Batlagundu and it is clearly proved and hence, the prosecution clearly proved the case of prosecution of trafficking of the huge quantity of ganja in accordance with law.
12. Discussion on compliance of section 50 of the NDPS Act:-
Firstly, Section 50 of the Act is not applicable to the present case on the ground that the recovery was made from the dicky of the car. The Hon'ble Supreme Court its judgment has held that if the recovery was made from the car, application of section 50 of the Act will not arise. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that Section 50 of the Act is not complied with is not accepted.
13. Discussion on non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act:-
13.1. In this case, P.W.1 seized the huge quantity of 251.500 kg of ganja. The said huge quantity of ganja was immediately produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate at the time of the remand itself. The learned Judicial Magistrate verified the same and thereafter, returned to the Page No.26/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) department to keep in safe custody. The entire contraband was kept in the godown of NCB. The godown receipt was duly produced before the Court and the same was marked as Ex.P.23. The entire contraband was also marked as MO.1 to MO.6 at the time of the trial. All the marked contraband were properly sealed and intact. In the above circumstances, the non-compliance of Section 52A of the Act, is not material. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India v. Mohanlal reported in 2012 7 SCC 712 at page 715 stated that in the case of the huge quantity of ganja, even non-production of the entire contraband before the court is not a material against the prosecution case. So far as compliance of 52A of the Act is concerned, when the entire contraband was produced before the court at the time of the trial, non-compliance of Section 52A of the Act is not a ground to acquit the accused when the recovery was proved through legal evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Aambale Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2025 INSC 78, has held as follows:-
“(V) Mere non-compliance of the procedure under Section 52A or the Standing Order(s) Rules thereunder will not be fatal to the trial unless there are discrepancies in the physical evidence rendering the prosecution's case doubtful, which may not have been there had such compliance been done. Courts should take a holistic and cumulative view of the discrepancies that may exist in the Page No.27/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) evidence adduced by the prosecution and appreciate the same more carefully keeping in mind the procedural lapses.
((vI) If the other material on record adduced by the prosecution, oral, or documentary inspires confidence and satisfies the court as regards the recovery as-well as conscious possession of the contraband from the accused persons, then even in such cases, the courts can without hesitation proceed to hold the accused guilty notwithstanding any procedural defect in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
(IX) The initial burden will lie on the accused to first lay the foundational facts to show that there was non-
compliance of Section 52A, either by leading evidence of its own or by relying upon the evidence of the prosecution, and the standard required would only be preponderance of probabilities.
(X) Once the foundational facts laid indicate non-
cmpliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the onus would thereafter be n the prosecution to prove by cogent evidence that either(i) there was substantial compliance with the mandate of Section 52A of the NDPS Act OR (ii) satisfy the court that such non-compliance does not affect its case against the accused, and the standard of proof required would be beyond a reasonable doubt.” Page No.28/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) 13.2. Further, another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Kashif reported in 2024 NSC 1045, has held as follows:-
“24. Section 52A was inserted only for the purpose of early disposal of the seized contraband drugs and substances, considering the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, constraint of proper storage space etc. There cannot be any two opinions on the issue about the early disposal of the contraband drugs and substances, more particularly when it was inserted to implement the provisions of International Convention on the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, however delayed compliance or non-compliance of the said provision by the concerned officer authorised to make application to the Magistrate could never be treated as an illegality which would entitle the accused to be released on bail or claim acquittal in the trial, when sufficient material is collected by the Investigating Officer to establish that the Search and Seizure of the contraband substance was made in due compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act.
13.3. This Court also declined to accept the similar contention of the learned counsel for the appellants in Crl.A(MD)No.492 of 2022 that the accused are entitled to get acquittal on the ground of non-compliance of 52A of the Act by making elaborate discussion.Page No.29/41
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) 13.4. In view of the above circumstances, this court is unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that non-compliance of Section 52A of the Act creates a doubt over the prosecution case and therefore, the same deserves to be rejected.
14. Lapse on the part of the Investigating Agency:-
14.1. The learned counsel for appellants would submit that the Investigating Agency failed to recover CCTV camera available near the occurrence place, namely, the Anjaneya Hotel. The learned counsel also would submit that D.W.2 was examined on the side of defence to show that the availability of CCTV camera and the same was destroyed by the officers of Department and hence, non-recovery of CCTV camera is fatal to the prosecution.
14.2. This court is unable to accept this explanation, and the delay on the part of the Investigating Agency in recovering CCTV camera is not a lapse and it is not a ground to acquit the accused when the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and the independent witness is cogent. P.W.4 clearly deposed about the recovery of the contraband. This fact is proved as per Section 3 of the Evidence Act which states that the fact can be proved through the oral Page No.30/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) evidence or electronic evidence or through the documents. In this case, the factum of recovery of huge quantity of ganja from the car was proved through the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3. In the said circumstances, mere lapse on the part of Investigating Agency in recovering CCTV camera is not a ground to acquit the accused.
15. Discussion on the defence plea and defence witness:-
15.1. Appellants gave the following explanation during questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,:-
Arun/A1:
Iah> ,e;j tof;fpy; 13.06.2018 Kjy; kJIu kj;jpa
rpiwapy; ,Ue;J tUfpNwd;. Iah 11.6.2018 khiy ehd;
tPl;by; ,Ue;j NghJ ,uT 8.45 kzp mstpy; xU Nghd; miog;G te;jJ> te;j miog;G muR Ntiyf;fhf vd;Dld; Ngr Ntz;Lk;> vdNt tj;jyf;Fz;L mTl;lhpy; cs;s MQ;rNeah Xl;lYf;F tUkhW $wpdhh;fs;. ngah; md;G. ehDk; vd; jk;gp tUZk;
vq;fsJ Ftpl; Fhh; TN 57 BX 3609 njhiyNgrpapy;
njhptpj;j ,lj;jpw;F nrd;Nwhk;.
mq;F kJiu vd;rpgp mjpfhhpfs; vd;idAk; tUizAk;
mbj;J Xl;ly; gpd;Gwk; itj;J gpd;G Rkhh; ,uT 10.00 kzpf;F vd;idAk; tUizAk; kJiu vd;rpgp mYtyfj;jpw;F $l;b nrd;wdh;. gpd;dh; tUiz tpLtpj;Jtpl;ldh;. vd; kPJ ngha; tof;F Nghl;Ltpl;ldh;. =uhk; vd;dplk; muR Ntiy Nfl;L tUk;NghJ gof;fk;. mth; EEE gbj;jth;. mtUf;F cjtl;Lk; vd vd;Dila fhh; Reg.No.TN-72-AJ-9000 nfhLj;Njd;. jdpahf 2017 Kjy; Xl;btUfpwhh;.
rptRg;gpukzpaplk; gzk; thq;fpaJ vd;Dila Nkhl;lhh;Page No.31/41
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) irf;fps; thq;f kl;Lk;jhd; GNuhNehl; kl;Lk; nfhLj;Njd;.
vd;id hpkhz;l; nra;Ak; NghJjhd; fQ;rh tof;F vd njhpe;J nfhz;Nld;. ,e;j tof;F Mtzq;fspYk; nghUl;fspYk; vd;id Jd;GWj;jp kpul;b vd;rpgp mYtyfj;jpy; itj;J ifnaOj;J ngw;whh;fs;.
Ravi/A2:-
Iah vdf;F nry;Nghd; fpilahJ. vd;id 11.6.2018 khiy vd;rpgp mjpfhhpfs; te;jyFz;Ltpy; cs;s vdJ tPl;bw;F te;J khiy 8.00 kzpf;F tprhuizf;F jpz;Lf;fy; Nuhl;by; cs;s MQ;rNeah Xl;lYf;F mioj;J te;jhh;fs;.
kJiuf;F mioj;J te;J vd; kPJ ngha; tof;F Nghl;lhh;fs;. NkYk; vd;id kpul;b vdf;F vjpuhf ifnahg;gk; ngw;W r%fk; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;l Mtzq;fs; nghUl;fs; vdf;F vjpuhf gad;gLj;j $lhJ vd r%fk; mth;fis gpuhh;j;jpf;fpNwd;.
SriramA3:-
vd;id 11.06.2018k; Njjp kJiu NCB mjpfhhpfs; vd;id tj;jyf;Fz;L mTl;lhpy; nrk;gl;b Nuhl;by; cs;s MQ;rNeah Xl;lYf;F tUkhW mioj;jdh;. mjd; Nghpy; ehd; vdf;F nrhe;jkhd ];Nfhlh fhh;; vz;.TN-72-AJ-9000 nrd;Nwd;. fhiu MQ;rNeah Xl;lypy; epWj;jp nrd;wNghJ vd;id mth;fs; kJiu NCB mYtyfj;jpw;F ,uT 9.30 kzpf;F mioj;J nrd;wdh;.
vd;id vdJ mYtyj;jpy; itj;J vd;id kpul;b vdf;F vjpuhf vd;dplNk ifnahg;gk; ngw;W r%fk; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;l Mtzq;fSk;> nghUl;fSk; vdf;F vjpuhf gad;gLj;j $lhJ vd r%fk; mth;fsplk; gpuhh;j;jpf;fpNwd;.
15.2. According to the prosecution, the appellants travelled in a private car bearing Reg.NoTN-72-AJ-9000. In the car, all the persons were the Page No.32/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) occupants. The huge quantity of ganja was recovered from the said car. Now, the case of the appellants is that A1, A3 and D.W.2 called by the NCB officers to the Hotel Anjaneya and false case was registered. The defence witnesses were examined on the side of the appellants to prove that they were not available at the scene of occurrence. D.W.1 is the wife of A1 namely, Shri.Vaitheeswari. D.W.2 is the brother of A1 namely, Thiru. A.D.Varun.
D.W.3 is the worker of the Anjaneya Hotel. According to D.W.2, he deposed that he and A1 was called by the officers at 08.15 p.m on 11.06.2018 and both went to the occurrence place namely, the Anjaneya Hotel at 11.15 p.m on the same day. Thereafter, NCB officers took both of them to NCB office and assaulted them and subsequently, the officers allowed D.W.2 to go to home and remanded A1. The said evidence of D.W.2 is utter false. He was working in HR & CE as officer. If the version of the person is true, the minimum requirement on his part is to make a complaint either to his higher officer of the department or at the local police station. According to his version, he was in illegal custody for more than 2 days. In these circumstances, either D.W.2 or D.W.1 never made any complaint against the officer for the illegal custody of A1. Therefore, the evidence of D.W.2 is unbelievable one. The officer has no motive against either D.W.2 or A1 and the other accused. Therefore, the version that the officer illegally took D.W.2 and A1 is stage managed one and the same cannot be accepted. Page No.33/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) 15.3. D.W.1, who is the wife of A1 also deposed that at 8.30 pm, both her husband and D.W.2 went to the scene of the occurrence upon receiving a call from the police department. Thereafter, at 12.30 pm, when she was tried to contact him, both cell phones were switched off. The local police came to her house and enquired about her husband and told her to go to the NCB office and her husband would be taken to the Court. Hence, she made the complaint to the Chief Minister's cell under Ex.D.1 i.e. on 20.06.2018 after the remand of the accused. So, the evidence of D.W.1 is also not believable. After the arrest, they created a record to escape from the legitimate prosecution.
15.4. D.W.3 was examined on the side of defence to show that there was CCTV camera available in the Anjaneya Hotel and there was a footage that A1 and D.W.2 came in a red colour car and the officers nabbed them. According to D.W.3, on the date of occurrence, he was working as cashier in the Anjaneya Hotel. To prove his Employment Certificate was marked as Ex.D.4. The Employment Certificate stated that he is the employee of 'Eden Garden'. This Court perused the document and it contains the name of 'Jai Anjaneya Restaurant'. But, there is no evidence relating to the date of issuance of said certificate. Subsequent to the occurrence, the 'Jai Anjaneya Page No.34/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) Restaurant' was renamed as 'Eden Garden Restaurant'. There is no evidence to show that he was the employee of the Anjaneya Hotel. If it is the case of P.W.4 that he was working in the Anjaneya Hotel and the officer seized CCTV camera and destroyed it, it is the duty of the manager of the said hotel to make a complaint against the concerned officer. Therefore, this Court is unable to accept that P.W.4 was a planted witness to prove the concocted story of the presence of A1 and D.W.2 in the Anjaneya Hotel. D.W.3 was the cashier of the Anjaneya Hotel. P.W.4 deposed that he was working as the manager in the said hotel at the time of occurrence. In the cross examination of P.W.4, nothing was elicited about the employment of D.W.3 in the hotel. There was no question relating to the employment of D.W.3 in the said hotel. He specifically denied the suggestion that the officer insisted him to destroy the evidence of CCTV camera. In view of that, this Court finds no reason to believe the evidence of D.W.3.
15.5. The accused namely, the appellants after the arrest for the possession of huge quantity of contraband, set up a false case that D.W.2 and A1 was illegally taken to the Anjaneya Hotel. A1 is a gazetted officer namely, Public Relations Officer, Collectorate, Dindigul. For his involvement of the offence, he was arrested. If it is the case of D.W.2 that he and A1 were called by the NCB officers, it is the duty of the officer to report the same within Page No.35/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) reasonable time. But, there were no such steps. At the time of arrest and remand, there was no reference about this fact. A1 never disclosed the fact of illegal custody, unlawful beating at the Anjaneya Hotel and no injury is shown in the medical memo.
15.6. In view of that, the case of the defence is false and even in the statement of A1 recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it was stated that he was called by the officers.
15.7. From the above, it is clear that A1 was present in the scene of occurrence. Both A1 and D.W.2 are the government servants. There was no explanation on what basis they went to the scene of occurrence without even verifying call from the officers. Both A1 and D.W.2 never made any complaint about the illegal custody. Hence, this Court is unable to accept the evidence of defence and the defence case that false case was registered against the appellants by implanting a huge quantity of ganja.
16. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that after acquittal from the offences under Sections 27A and 28 of the Act, conviction under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act r/w 34 IPC, Sections 25 and 29 of the Act is not maintainable.
Page No.36/41https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm )
17. As per the NDPS Act, each Section is an independent offence.
There is no bar to convict the appellants Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act r/w 34 IPC, Sections 25 and 29 of the Act after acquitting the appellants from the offence 27A and 28 of the Act.
17.1. For better appreciation of the facts and law, this Court extract the language of Section 25 of the NDPS Act:
“Section 25. Punishment for allowing premises etc., to be used for commission of an offence :-
“Whoever, being the owner or occupier or having the control or use of any house, room, enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance, knowingly permits it to be used for the commission by any other person of an offence punishable under any provision of this Act, shall be punishable with the punishment provided for that offence.” 17.2. The prosecution in order to sustain the conviction under section 25 of the NDPS Act “can prove any” of the following facts:
17.2.1. The accused is owner of the property 17.2.2. Either the vehicle or the place is in the occupation of the accused.
17.2.3. The accused is having control over the vehicle or place.Page No.37/41
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) 17.3. From the above, it is clear that to convict the appellants under Section 25 of the Act, it is enough to prove the possession, custody and control over the vehicle with conscious possession of the contraband. Once the conscious possession was established by the prosecution, the presumption under Sections 54 and 35 of the Act comes into operation. “Having control over” demands lesser proof than the proof of ownership. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principle that while interpreting the provision of the NDPS Act, principle of purposing interpretation has to be applied. Any interpretation which leads to the unworkable situation has to be rejected. The same is being applied in order to control the drug menace which affected the whole society.
17.4. This Court perused the entire records. “Having control over” the vehicle was clearly proved through the prosecution evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 clearly deposed about the appellants' possession, custody and control over the vehicle with conscious possession of the contraband. Therefore, this court rejects the argument of the Learned counsel for the appellant that the ingredients of the 25 are not established to convict the appellant under section 25 of the NDPS Act.
18. So far as Section 29 of the Act is concerned, the unusual company Page No.38/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) of all the accused in the car and the phone transaction at the material point of time and the transfer of amount from A1's account to A2's account have all clearly proved that they conspired together in trafficking the huge quantity of ganja from the State of Andhra Pradesh . Therefore, conviction under Section 29 of the Act is clearly proved in accordance with law. In all aspects, the prosecution clearly proved the case.
19. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeals are dismissed and the judgment passed by the I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, in C.C.No.20 of 2019 dated 25.01.2022, is hereby confirmed.
15.05.2025.
NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No dss To:
1.The I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.
2.The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Madurai Sub Zone, Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Page No.39/41
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm )
4.The Section Officer, Criminal Section(Records), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Page No.40/41
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm ) K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
dss Crl.A.(MD).Nos.126 of 2022 and 880 of 2023 15.05.2025 Page No.41/41 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/05/2025 05:41:52 pm )