FORM A
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SPECIAL COURT UNDER EC & NDPS ACT CHENNAI.
PRESENT: Tmt.C.THIRUMAGAL, M.L., Principal Special Judge, EC & NDPS Court, Chennai.
Date of Judgment: 30.07.2024
Calender Case No.148/2021 in
CNR.No.TNCH0A-001755-2021
in
Crime No.6/2021 in
(On the file of NIB-CID, Kancheepuram.)
COMPLAINANT State Represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
NIB-CID,
Kancheepuram.
REPRESENTED BY Thiru. K.J.Saravanan,
Special Public Prosecutor.
ACCUSED 1.Ravibabu, M/A 45 yrs (2021),
S/o.Venkatasamy,
No.80. 9th Block,
K.K.D.Nagar, Kodunkaiyur, Chennai.
2.Jayaprakash, M/A 20 yrs,
S/o.Jayaraj,
No.41.J.J.Nagar,
E-Cross Street, Korukkupettai, Chennai.
REPRESENTED BY M/s.P.Anandrao and R.Harinath
FORM B
Date of Offence 13.02.2021
Date of FIR 13.02.2021
Date of Charge sheet 21.04.2021
Date of Framing of Charges 09.02.2022
Date of commencement of evidence 06.02.2024
Date on which Judgment is reserved 29.07.2024
Date of the Judgment 30.07.2024
Date of the Sentencing Order, if any 30.07.2024
Accused Details:
Rank of the
Accused Name of the Accused Date of Arrest Date of release on bail Offences charged with Whether acquitted or convicted Sentence Imposed Period of detention undergone during the trial for the purposes of Section 428
Cr.P.C.
- Ravibabu,
S/o.Venkatasamy 13.02.21 Released on bail in Crl.M.P.
No.1128/ 2021,
dt.17.04.21 U/s.8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii)(B) and
29(1) of
the NDPS Act. convicted Mentioned below Mentioned below - Jayaprakash, S/o.Jayaraj 13.02.21 Released on bail in Crl.M.P.
No.1161/ 2021,
dt.17.04.21 U/s.8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii)(B) and
29(1) of
the NDPS Act. convicted Mentioned below Mentioned below
FORM C
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES
A. Prosecution:
RANK NAME NAME OF EVIDENCE
PW1 Tr.Selvam Duty Officer/Occurrence witness
PW2 Tmt.Vishalatchi Expert Witness
PW3 Tr.Saravanan Mahazar/Confession/Occurrence Witness
PW4 Tr.Raja Investigation Officer
B. Defence Witnesses :
RANK NAME NAME OF EVIDENCE
DW1 Tr.Ravibabu Accused No.1/Defence Witness
C. Court Witnesses, if any: NIL
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS
A. Prosecution:
Sr.No Exhibit Number Description
1 Exhibit P-1/PW1 Information
2 Exhibit P-2/PW1 Search notice to A1
3 Exhibit P-3/PW1 Search notice to A2
4 Exhibit P-4/PW1 Seizure mahazar
5 Exhibit P-5/PW1 Arrest intimation to A1
6 Exhibit P-6/PW1 Arrest intimation to A2
7 Exhibit P-7/PW1 Inspection memo for A1
8 Exhibit P-8/PW1 Inspection memo for A2
9 Exhibit P-9/PW1 Special Report u/s 57 of NDPS Act
10 Exhibit P-10/PW2 This court’s letter
11 Exhibit P-11/PW2 Lab Report
12 Exhibit P-12/PW4 First Information Report
13 Exhibit P-13/PW4 Form-91
B. Defence:
Sr.No Exhibit Number Description
1 Exhibit D-1/DW1 Copy of mark sheet of A1 (verified with original)
2 Exhibit D-2/DW1 Copy of transfer certificate of A1 (verified with original)
C. Court Exhibits: NIL
D. Material Objects:
Sr.No MO Number Description - MO1/PW1 S1 – Sample
- MO2/PW1 S2 – Sample
3 MO3/PW1 Remaining Bulk contraband-P1
This case came up for final hearing before me, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Thiru.K.J.Saravanan, Learned Special Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and upon hearing the arguments of M/s.P.Anandrao and R.Harinath and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :
JUDGMENT
The Charge Sheet has been filed by the Inspector of Police, NIB CID,
Kancheepuram that on 13.02.2021 at 09.00 hours near Kancheepuram Bus Stop, A1 and A2 were found in illegal possession of 16 Kgs of ganja in the bag for the purpose of selling and thereby accused A1 and A2 have committed an offence u/s. 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act. - The prosecution case is as follows :
On 13.02.2021 at 07.30 hours, PW1/Mr.Selvam, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, NIBCID, Kancheepuram had received an information from the informant while he was at station on duty that on 13.02.2021 in between 08.30 and 09.30 hours near Kancheepuram Bus Stop, two persons namely Ravibabu, aged 45 yrs old, belongs to Kodungaiyur, Chennai and Jayaprakash, aged 22 yrs old, belongs to Korukkupettai, Chennai, known to him are going to involve illegal transportation of ganja for the purpose of selling. PW1 reduced the said information into writings in
Ex.P.1 and submitted the same to his Superior PW4/Mr.Raja, Inspector of Police,
NIBCID, Kancheepuram and got permission from him. After getting permission,
PW1 proceeded to the Spot along with police party namely PW3/Mr.Saravanan,
Head-constable(158) and LW3/Mr.Pandiyan, Head-constable(1578) with NDPS Kits. They reached the spot and on identification made by the informant, they intercepted suspected persons. At the time of enquiry, both were revealed their names and address as told by the informant. PW1 requested two persons namely Mr.Yuvaraj, S/o.Mani, Kancheepuram and Mr.Suresh, S/o.Ramasamy, Kancheepuram to be the independent witnesses for search and seizure. Both the persons refused to be the witnesses for search and seizure. PW1 conveyed the information, which already been received from the informant to the said two suspects. After then PW1 informed about their rights u/s. 50 of the Act to the said two persons for which they have rights to be conducted a search before any Judicial Magistrate or any Gazetted Officer. They gave consent to PW1 to conduct the search by himself. PW1 requested PW3/Mr.Saravanan, Head-constable(158) and LW3/Mr.Pandiyan, Head-
constable(1578), who accompanied him to be the witnesses for search. PW1 issued search notices to them separately. The search notices to A1 and A2 are marked as Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3. The search notices were signed by the accused persons, witnesses and PW1 also. While searching, white colour bag was produced by them, which having two handle and which was holding one handle by A1 and another handle by A2. PW1 opened the said bag. Inside the said bag, white colour mica gunny bag was there and same contained contraband appears to be ganja. The contraband was weighed by using weighing machine. The weight of the contraband is 16 Kgs. PW1 lifted out two samples each weighing 50 grams and put them separately in plastic cover and the same put into khakhi colour cover, pasted and tied up with thread and put the seal on the knot of the thread. The remaining contraband was packed in the same bag and tied up with thread and the same was sealed. The samples were marked as S1 and S2 and the remaining contraband was also marked as P1. Later, the said S1 and S2 are marked as MO1 and MO2 and the P1 is also marked as MO3. All were seized by PW1 under mahazer in the presence of witnesses at 09.45 hours at the
Spot. The seizure mahazar is marked as Ex.P.4. After completion of the seizure,
PW1 had given arrest intimation to A1 and A2 and arrest intimation were also prepared by PW1, which are marked as Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 respectively. The inspection memos for A1 and A2 were also prepared by PW1. The inspection memos are also marked as Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 respectively. The voluntary confession of A1 was recorded by PW1 in the presence of witnesses. All were signed by accused persons, witnesses and PW1. Then PW1 returned to the station along with accused and seized properties. He submitted a report u/s.57 of the NDPS Act before his Superior PW4/Mr.Raja, Inspector of Police, NIBCID, Kancheepuram. The said report is marked as Ex.P.9. PW4 registered the FIR in Crime No.06/2021, u/s.8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii)(B) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act. The said FIR is marked as Ex.P.12. PW4 produced the accused before the Magistrate for remand along with properties under From-91. The form 91 is marked as Ex.P.13. Then, the Magistrate had remanded the accused A1 and A2 to judicial custody at 06.15 p.m. on the same day and ordered to be produced the contraband to the concerned court. Thereafter PW4 produced the seized properties before this court in A.No.120/2021 along with requisition for sending sample to Lab. The sample was sent to the Lab by this court’s letter on the same day. The court letter is marked as Ex.P.10. After receiving the contraband along with letter and after completion of the chemical analysis, PW2/Mr.Visalakshi, Chemical Examiner had sent the lab report to this court. The lab report is marked as Ex.P.11. PW4 enquired PW1, PW2 and other witnesses and recorded their
statements. On completion of the investigation, PW4 had laid the final report before this court on the accused A1 and A2 u/s. 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act. - After hearing the arguments of both the Learned Special Public prosecutor, the Learned Counsel for the accused and on perusal of records, having found that there were prima facie materials available to frame charges against the accused, this court framed charges against the accused U/s. 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
- The prosecution side evidence was closed by the Learned Special Public Prosecutor with the examination of PW1 to PW4. When the accused was questioned u/s 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C as to the incriminating evidence on them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the same as false. On the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 were marked through them. M.O.1 to M.O.3 were also marked on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the accused, DW1 was examined and Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 were marked on their side. Heard the arguments of both sides.
- POINT FOR CONSIDERATION:
Whether the prosecution had proved the charges U/s. 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act against A1 and A2.? - THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
- The accused A1 and A2 were charged under section u/s.8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)
(B) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act. On the date of arrest ie 13.02.2021, PW1/Mr.Selvam, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, NIBCID, Kancheepuram had received an information at 07.30 a.m. mentioning about the persons names, time and place in detail which was reduced in writing submitted the same and it was placed before his immediate superior Mr.Raja, Inspector of Police, NIBCID, Kancheepuram and after obtaining permission, PW1 had proceeded to spot along with his team police personal. The said information is marked as Ex.P.1. The Inspector of Police/Mr.Raja/PW4 of NIBCID, Kancheepuram also had endorsed in writings for granting permission. Hence, the ingredients u/s.42(2) of the NDPS Act was clearly complied. - PW1 had left the office along with his team and had proceeded to the incident place ie.near Bus Stop, Kancheepuram. At 09.00 a.m. the two accused persons were identified by the informant and they were correctly intercepted and caught hold of two persons. A1/Ravibabu and A2/Jayaprakash were carrying one white colour bag. A1 was holding one handle of that bag and A2 was also holding another handle of the same bag.
Both two accused persons were served search notices u/s.50(1) of the NDPS Act in a separate manner and both the two accused persons upon understanding the content had signed in the search notices Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 respectively. So, sec.50(1) of the NDPS Act was also correctly complied. - Next upon search, A1 and A2 were said to be in possession of 16 Kgs of ganja and samples S1 and S2 were drawn. The remaining contraband was packed and marked as P1. S1, S2 and P1 were labelled wherein accused, witnesses and seizure officer/PW1 had signed in all those documents. The said document was clearly and neatly emphasized. At the same time, on perusal of the said document, the contraband was seized from both the accused persons under mahazar at the spot in the presence of witnesses at 09.45 hours. The seizure mahazar is marked as Ex.P.4. The contraband was seized properly from accused person under Ex.P.4 by PW1 in the presence of witnesses. PW1 had clearly deposed in his evidence about the seizure and PW3, who is one of the mahazar witness had also corroborated the evidence of PW1 in regarding with seizure.
- The arrest was made by PW1. Arrest intimations were also issued by PW1.
Inspection memos were also prepared by PW1 in the presence of witnesses. The arrest memos of A1 and A2 are marked as Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 and the inspection memos of A1 and A2 are marked as Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8. In Ex.P5 and Ex.P.6/Arrest intimations and Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8/Inspection memos, the signatures of accused A1 and A2 and witnesses were obtained.
PW1 also signed in Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.8. The voluntary confession of accused A1 was recorded by PW1 in the presence of witnesses at the spot. The arrest formalities u/s.52(1) of the NDPS Act was also complied and the same was found in documents and PW1 and PW3 had clearly deposed in their evidence about the arrest of accused persons. There is no
contradictions in their evidence. - PW1 returned to station along with accused and seized property. He had submitted a report u/s.57 of the NDPS Act before his superior PW4/Mr.Raja, Inspector of Police, NIBCID, Kancheepuram. PW1 also handed over the accused and seized property to PW4. The report u/s.57 of the NDPS Act is marked as Ex.P.9. The FIR was registered by PW4 in
Cr.No.06/2021, u/s.8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act. The FIR is marked as Ex.P.12. PW4 had also produced the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram along with property under forms-91. The learned Magistrate had remanded the accused person on the very same day. The said form-91 is marked as Ex.P.13. PW4 produced the contraband before this court in A.No.120/2021 along with requisition for sending samples to Lab. The sample S1 was sent to Lab through this court’s letter dt.18.02.2021. This court’s letter to Lab is marked as Ex.P.10.
The chemical analyser Mrs.Visalatchi/PW2 had examined and given the Report/Ex.P.11 in a clear manner. In that Report/Ex.P.11, it is mentioned as follows:-
,k;khjphpapy; bfdgpdha;Lfs; ,Ug;gJ fzl; wpag;gll; J/ ,k;khjphp f”;rh/ - PW1 had clearly deposed before this court about the compliance of provisions under this Act. PW3/Mr.Saravanan, who is one of the seizure and confession witness had also corroborated the evidence of PW1.
Another mahazar witness was not examined on the side of prosecution. But PW3, who is one of the seizure witness had clearly deposed about the search, seizure and arrest in his evidence. PW3 had also corroborated the evidence of PW1 regarding the search, seizure and arrest. Both the accused persons A1 and A2 was caught red handedly at the spot. On going through the Ex.P.1 to Ex.P13 and other relevant documents and evidence of PW1 to PW4, the facts deposed in evidence and the date and time of arrest, seizure, confession statement and filing of FIR were very cogent and
reliable. - So, from the aforesaid evidence, it is very clear that the act, proceeding and document which were before the court were very cogent and reliable.
- The defence counsel for A1 and A2 during his argument had pinpointed the fact that PW1 had clearly deposed in his cross examination that accused persons were coming from Visakhapatnam to Thirupathi and from Thirupati to Kancheepuram. The another witness PW3, who accompanied
PW1 had deposed in his cross examination that the accused persons were coming from Visakhapatnam to Kancheepuram Bus Stop. But no
documents was produced by the prosecution about the travelling place of accused either from Visakhapatnam or from Thirupathi. If the accused persons had stated that they had come from Visakhapatnam, definitely they would have carried some cloth bag, but such cloth bag was not seized and produced before this court. Originally the accused persons were going to
Nellor for Marriage and both the accused persons were arrested at Adampakkam Check-post. No tickets for travel was seized from the accused persons. No cell phones or cash was seized from them. PW4, who had laid charge sheet had deposed in his cross examination that vjphpfs; v’;fpUe;J te;jhhf; s; ve;j tptuk; brhy;ytpiy vd;why; rhpjhd;/ vd;W
Twpa[s;shh;/ From the said contradictions, it is clear that police people have created all the documents at the station and the signatures of the accused persons were obtained on the documents and both the accused persons are innocents and they deserve for acquittal. On perusal of Ex.P.1/information, which was reduced by PW1, it is clearly mentioned that ///,d;W 13/02/2021k; njjp fhiy 08/30 kzp Kjy; 09/30 kzpf;Fs; fh”;rpg[uk; ngUe;J epiyak; mUfpy; jdf;F milahsk; bjhpe;j egh;fshd 46 taJ kjpf;fj;jf;f brd;id bfhL’i; fa{iu nrh;e;j utpghg[ kw;Wk; 22 taJ kjpf;fj;jf;f brd;id bfhUf;Fg;ngl;ilia nrh;e;j b$agpufh&; vd;gth;fs; nghijg;bghUshd f”;rhit tpw;gid bra;a flj;jp tUtjhf////////// vd;W fzL; s;sJ/ The place and time were clearly mentioned in Ex.P.1. It is not an encyclopedia. It is just a clue to proceed further by police people. On identification made by the informant only, PW1 and his team had intercepted the accused person at the place of occurrence, which was clearly mentioned in Ex.P.1. In this regard, PW1 had clearly deposed in his evidence that //////////jftyhsp Rl;of; fhl;oa jpiria fz;fhzpj;J bfhz;oUe;jnghJ 08/30 kzpf;F ,uz;L egh;fs; xU bts;is ikf;fh nfhzp igapy; Msf;F xU gf;fk; ,U ifg;gpoia gpoj;J te;J bfhz;oUe;jth;fis jftyhsp milahsk; fhll; eh’;fs; nghyP!; ghh;l;o klf;fp gpoj;J//////////// vd;W Twpa[s;shh;/ In this regard, PW2, who accompanied PW1 as well as one of the mahazar witness had deposed in his evidence that ////////jftyhsp Rl;of;fhl;oa jpirapy; fz;fhzpj;Jf; bfhz;oUe;jnghJ 09/00 kzpf;F mtt; Hpahf ,uz;L ifg;gpofs; bfhzl; bts;is igapid Msfb; fhU ifg;gpofis gpoj;Jf;bfhz;L te;j ,uzL; egh;fis jftyhsp milahsk; fhll; eh’;fs; nghy!P ; ghh;l;oa[ld; Rw;wp tisj;J klf;fp epWj;jp/////////// vd;W Twpa[s;shh;/
Therefore, there is no contradiction about the identification of the accused. The non-production of the documents to show that the accused persons had come from where? does not affect the case of the prosecution in any way and the accused persons had caught red handedly at the spot on identification made by the informant and after compliance of the mandatory u/s.50(1) of the NDPS Act only, the seizure was made by PW1 in the presence of PW3 and LW3 under mahazar/Ex.P.3. At the spot, 16 Kgs of ganja was seized from A1 and A2 under mahazar. On perusal of records, Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3/Search notices to A1 and A2 were served independently and it is found that the right of the accused persons was clearly explained. After that only, PW1 had seized 16 Kgs of ganja under mahazar/Ex.P.3 in the presence of witnesses from A1 and A2. Therefore, the said argument by the defence counsel is rejected. - The defence counsel for A1 and A2 during his argument had pinpointed the fact that as per prosecution, the contraband was seized in the presence of PW3/Saravanan, Head-constable and LW3/Pandiyan, Head-constable, but the said LW3 was dispensed by the prosecution. The said witness was not examined before this court on the side of the prosecution. Both the accused persons belong to Andhra Pradesh and does not know Tamil, but all the documents prepared by the prosecution at the spot are in Tamil. They know Telugu only and as per rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the mandatory provision u/s.50(1) of the NDPS Act must be explained to accused persons tin their understanding language, but in this case, Search notices/Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 to A1 and A2 respectively were prepared in Tamil only and hence the mandatory provision u/s.50(1) of the NDPS Act was not complied by PW1 and the same is fatal to the prosecution case and hence the accused persons deserve for acquittal. On perusal of records, A1 belongs to Kodunkaiyur, Chennai and A2 belongs to Korukkupettai, Chennai. To prove their defence, the learned counsel for A1 had examined the A1/Ravibabu as DW1. Two documents were marked through him ie.
Ex.D1/copy of mark sheet of SSLC of A1 and Ex.D2/Copy of TC of A1.
On perusal of Ex.D1, it is seen that A1/Ravibabu was completed SSLC Examination during the year 1991 at Andhra Pradesh. On perusal of evidence of DW1/A1/Ravi Babu, he had also admitted that in his cross examination that vdf;F jkpH; vGj gof;f bjhpahJ/ Mdhy; ngr bjhpa[k;/ jkpHpy; brhd;dhy; g[hpe;J bfhs;s Koa[k;/ ifg;gw;Wjy; kfrhpy; ehd;jhd; ifbahg;gkpl;nld;/ vd;W Twpa[s;shh;/ Further, on perusal of records, during the trial of this case, both A1/Ravibabu and A2/Jayaprakash had not appeared before this court and hence this court had issued NBW against both the accused persons and then both accused persons A1 and A2 had surrendered before this court and had filed petitions u/s.70(2) of the Cr.P.C. to recall the warrant. At that time, both A1 and A2 had produced the copies of their Rations cards and Aadhaar cards. On perusal of copy of ration cards, which belongs for the period from 2005 to 2009, it has clearly been mentioned that the address of A1/Ravibabu is Korukkupettai, R.K.Nagar, Chennai-21 and the address of A2/Jayaprakash is Royapuram, North Chennai. Therefore, the accused persons A1 and A2 are known Tamil. The mandatory provision u/s.50(1) of the NDPS Act was clearly explained by
PW1 through Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3/Search notices to the both accused persons A1 and A2 in their understanding language. . Therefore, the said argument by the defence counsel is rejected.
10.The defence counsels for A1 to A3 argument is that all the witnesses are police officials and no independent witnesses are enquired by the prosecution. Non-production of independent witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case and hence the accused deserves for acquittal. Admittedly, no such independent witness was produced by PW1 in this case. Generally, for these type of offence under NDPS Act, public would not come forward to be the witnesses for the search, seizure, arrest and other procedure. The prosecution also had not taken any action against the independent witnesses, who refused to be the witnesses under the procedure of NDPS Act. That is entirely different. At the same time, it is not fatal to the prosecution case and the said argument by the defence counsel is rejected. - During the argument, the defence counsel for A1 and A2 had also cited the below mentioned rulings to support his argument as
➢ Arif Khan @ Agha Khan Vs. State of U.P. (2018)
➢ State of Pubjan Vs. Balbir Singh (1994)
➢ Saiyad Mohd. Saiyad Umar Saiyad & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat (1995)
➢ NCB Vs. Sukh Dev Raj Sodhi(2011)
➢ Rajendran Vs. State (2002) 2 LW (Cri.)453
➢ Shiv Kumar @ Sushil Kumar Vs. State of Haryana(2007)
➢ Jitendra and another Vs. State of M.P.(2003)
The facts of the case in the aforesaid citation was entirely different. In our case, the information was received by PW1, while he was at station on duty on 13.02.2021 at 07.30 hours and the same was reduced into writings, which is Ex.P.1 and the same was produced before his superior/PW4. Ex.P.1 was seen by PW4 at 08.15 hours and had given permission for further proceedings on the same day. Prior that PW1 had also conveyed the said information through mobile to his superior/PW4 and also had obtained permission through mobile too. After that only PW1 had proceeded to the spot along with his team. On identification made by the informant only, PW1 and his team had intercepted the accused persons A1 and A2 at the spot. Both were holding one bag, which contained 16 Kgs of ganja. Since the public had refused to be the independent witnesses for search and seizure, after compliance of mandatory provisions u/s.50(1) of the NDPS Act, which is Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3, PW1 had seized 16 Kgs of ganja in the presence of PW3 and LW3 under seizure mahazar/Ex.P.4 at the spot. After completion of seizure only, arrest intimations/Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 were given and inspection memos/Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 were prepared by PW1 in the presence of said witnesses at the spot. Therefore, A1 and A2 were caught red handedly at the spot and 16 Kgs of ganja was seized at the spot under mahazar/Ex.P.4 in the presence of witnesses. At the same time, both A1 and A2 had hailed from same area, Chennai. From the evidence and documents by the prosecution, it is found that the accused A1 and A2 were found in illegal possession of 16 Kgs of ganja. A1 and A2 were arrested in the place of occurrence and contraband was seized from A1 and A2 on the spot and the illegal possession of contraband was proved through the prosecution evidence and documents also. In such a case the intention or the knowledge is presumed unless contrary is proved. No documents was produced before this court to show that both A1 and A2 were going to marriage during the relevant point of time. The other defence putforth by the learned counsel for the A1 and A2 could not elicit any contra evidence as against the prosecution. Hence, this court is of the view that the accused A1 and A2 were caught by the police while A1 and A2 were in possession of 16 Kgs of ganja and rightly charges was laid by prosecution with available evidence and documents, the prosecution also had proved and substantiated the charges under section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act. Therefore, A1 and A2 are found guilty u/s.8(c) r/w 20(b)
(ii)(B) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act. - The prosecution witnesses had clearly deposed that A1 and A2 was secured at the same Spot and was seized 16 Kgs of ganja from both the accused persons at the spot. Hence, this court finds that A1 and A2 had criminally conspired with each other to commit the said offence and the accused A1 and A2 are found guilty u/s. 8(c) r/w 29(1) of the NDPS Act and hence A1 is found guilty u/s.8(c) r/w 29(1) of the NDPS Act.
- In the result, Accused A1 and A2 are found guilty u/s.8(c) r/w 29(1) and 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
- With regard to the sentence to be imposed, the accused were questioned.
They replied as follows:
A1: bgha; tHf;F/ Fiwe;jgl;r jz;lid tH’;FkhW nflL; f;bfhs;fpnwd;/
A2: bgha; tHf;F/ Fiwe;jgl;r jz;lid tH’;FkhW
nflL; f;bfhs;fpnwd;/ - The plea of the accused considered. There is no previous case against accused. The seized contraband from the accused is of intermediate quantity. It causes deadly impact on the society.
- Accordingly A1 and A2 are convicted u/s. 235(2) Cr.P.C. and A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each for the offence u/s. 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, and in default of payment of fine thereof to undergo further period of 6 months R.I. each. Further A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each for the offence u/s. 8(c) r/w 29(1) of the NDPS Act, and in default of payment of fine thereof to undergo further period of 6 months R.I. each. Total fine amount of A1 is Rs.75,000/- Total fine amount of A2 is Rs.75,000/- Total Fine amount is Rs.1,50,000/-
- The period of remand already undergone by the accused A1 and A2 are ordered to be set off u/s 428 of Cr.P.C.
- Property order: The M.O.1 to M.O.3 (A.No.120/21, dt.18.02.21) are ordered to be destroyed by handing over the same to the destruction committee after the appeal period and if any appeal is preferred, after the disposal of said appeal.
//Dictated by me, typed by Steno – typist directly in the system, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 30th day of July, 2024.//
Principal Special Judge,
EC & NDPS Court, Chennai.
L.B.