Tmt.C.THIRUMAGAL, M.L.,Principal Special Judge, EC & NDPS Court, Chennai/Ndps order

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: 09-07-2024
Calender Case No.169/2022 in
CNR.No.TNCH0A-004399-2022
in
Crime No.252/2021
(On the file of Inspector of Police, T15/J11.Kannagi Nagar P.S.)
COMPLAINANT Rep. by:
The Inspector of Police, T15/J11.Kannagi Nagar P.S. Chennai
REPRESENTED BY Thiru.K.J.Saravanan,
Special Public Prosecutor.
ACCUSED Dhanalakshmi @ Dhanam, F/A 32 yrs (2021),
W/o.Manikandan,
Block No.01, House No.04,
Tsunami Quarters, Kannagi Nagar, Chennai-97.
REPRESENTED BY M/s.D.Manojkumar and R.Ram Kumar
FORM B
Date of Offence 13.05.2021
Date of FIR 13.05.2021
Date of Charge sheet 17.08.2022
Date of Framing of Charges 03.05.2023
Date of commencement of evidence 29.04.2024
Date on which Judgment is reserved 05.07.2024
Date of the Judgment 08.07.2024
Date of the Sentencing Order, if any 08.07.2024

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.

  1. Dhanalakshmi
    @ Dhanam,
    W/o.Manikandan 13.05.21 Released on
    bail in
    Crl.M.P.No. 1517/2021, dt.28.06.21 U/s.8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii)(B) of the Act Convicted Mentioned below Mentioned below
    FORM C
    LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES
    A. Prosecution:
    RANK NAME NAME OF EVIDENCE
    PW1 Tmt.Divya Duty Officer/Occurrence Witness
    PW2 Tmt.Sivaranjani Mahazar/Confession/Occurrence Witness
    PW3 Tmt.Visalatchi Expert Witness
    PW4 Tr.Hariharan Investigating Officer
    PW5 Tr.Albinraj Investigating Officer
    PW6 Tr.Murugan Investigating Officer
    B. Defence Witnesses : NIL
    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
    3 Exhibit P-3/PW1 Seizure Mahazar
    4 Exhibit P-4/PW1 Inspection memo
    5 Exhibit P-5/PW1 Report u/s.57 of the NDPS Act
    6 Exhibit P-6/PW3 This court’s letter to Lab
    7 Exhibit P-7/PW3 Lab Report
    8 Exhibit P-8/PW4 First Information Report
    9 Exhibit P-9/PW4 Form-91
    B. Defence: NILC. Court Exhibits: NIL
    D. Material Objects:
    Sr.No MO Number Description
  2. MO1/PW1 S1-Remnant Sample
  3. MO2/PW1 S2-Sample
  4. MO3/PW1 P1-Remaining Ganja
    This case came up on 05.07.2023 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.D.Manojkumar and R.Ram Kumar, Counsel for the accused 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, T15/J11.Kannagi
    Nagar Police Station that on 13.05.2021 at 10.00 a.m., at the backside of 1st Block,
    Tsunami Quarters, Kannagi Nagar, the accused was found in illegal possession of 1.500 Kgs of Ganja along with packing materials for the purpose of selling and thereby the accused committed an offence u/s.8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
  5. The prosecution case is as follows :
    On 13.05.2021 at around 10.00 a.m. Mrs.Divya(PW1), Sub-Inspector of Police, T15/J11.Kannagi Nagar Police Station had received an information from the informant on 13.05.2021 in between 11.00 hours and 12.30 hours at the backside of 1st Block, Tsunami Quarters, Kannagi Nagar that one person namely Dhanalakshmi was going to be sold ganja. PW1 reduced the said information under Ex.P.1 and submitted to his Superior Inspector of Police, T15/J11.Kannagi Nagar Police Station and got permission from him and proceeded to the spot along with police party LW2/Mr.Sriramadurai, Head-Constable (36425) and PW2/Mrs.Sivaranjani, WPC(42752) with NDPS Kits. They reached the spot and on identification made by the informant, PW1 along with her police party intercepted the suspected person. PW1 introduced herself and also introduced others who accompanied her. PW1 informed him about the information which already received from the informer and enquired the suspected person. She revealed her name and address as already told by the informant. After that PW1 conveyed her that she wanted to search her and she informed her about her right u/s. 50 of the Act for which she has the right to conduct a search before any Judicial Magistrate or any Gazetted Officer. PW1 requested the public to be the witnesses for search. Since the public refused to be the witnesses for search, PW1 requested LW2/Mr.Sriramadurai, Head-Constable (36425) and PW2/Mrs.Sivaranjani, WPC(42752) to be the witnesses for the said search. PW1 had issued search notice/Ex.P.2 to accused and the accused person consented to conduct search by PW1 and her party. At the time of search, the suspected person had produced one pothys polythene cover, which kept in her right hand before the PW1. PW1 opened the same and it found a khakhi colour cover, which contained the contraband appears to be ganja. She weighed the same as 1.500 Kgs. and she lifted two samples weighing 50 grams each for chemical analysis and put them separately and sealed them separately. P1 was repacked separately and sealed it and then pasted detailed labels on them. The samples are marked as S1 and S2. The remaining ganja 1.400 Kgs was marked as P1. The detailed labels signed by accused, witnesses and PW1. All were seized under mahazar in the presence of witnesses. Apart from the contraband, 32 Nos. of big polythene covers, 55 Nos. of small polythene covers for packing ganja, used candle and match box was also seized under mahazar, which is marked as Ex.P.3. After completion of seizure, voluntary confession of accused was recorded by PW1 at the spot at 12.50 hours. Inspection memo was also prepared by PW1 at 13.35 hours. The said Inspection memo is marked as Ex.P.4. Then PW1 reached the police station with accused and seized properties. Then PW1 submitted a report u/s.57 of the NDPS Act before her superior Mr.Hariharan(PW4), Inspector of Police, T15/J11.Kannagi Nagar P.S. along with seized property and accused. The report u/s.57 of the NDPS Act is marked as Ex.P.5. PW4 registered an FIR in Crime No.252/2021 at 14.00 hours. The FIR is marked as Ex.P.8. PW4 produced the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Alandur for remand along with property under Form-91. The learned Magistrate remanded the accused to judicial custody at 04.40 p.m. on the same day and also ordered to be produced the property before this special court. The above said Form-91 is marked as Ex.P.9. PW4 submitted the case property in A.No.381/2021 through Mr.Aravind PC(37504) on
    04.08.2021 along with requisition to send the sample to Lab for chemical analysis. The sample was sent to Lab by this court on the same day.PW4 enquired PW1, PW2 and LW2 and recorded their statements. PW3/Mrs.Vijayalakshmi, Chemical Examiner had received the sample along with this court’s letter. After completing the chemical analysis by PW3, she prepared a Lab Report and sent the same to this court. This court’s letter is marked as Ex.P.6 and the Lab Report is marked as Ex.P.7. The remnant sample-S1 is marked as M.O.1 and the other sample -S2 is marked as M.O.2 and the remaining ganja-P1 is marked as M.O.3. At that time PW4 had transferred to some other station and PW5/Mr.Alvinraj, Inspector of Police, T15/J11.Kannagi Nagar P.S. had taken received the entire case records and had investigated the matter further. PW5 examined PW3 and recorded her statement. After then PW5 had transferred to some other station and PW6/Mr.Murugan, Inspector of Police, T15/J11.Kannagi Nagar P.S. had received the entire case records and after completion of investigation, PW6 had filed the Charge Sheet before this court on the accused u/s.8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
  6. On appearance of the accused, free copies were furnished to the accused. On 03.05.2023, the charges u/s.8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act were framed against the accused. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
    5.On completion of the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution side evidence was closed by the Learned Special Public Prosecutor with the examination of PW1 to PW6. On the side of the prosecution PW1 to PW6 were examined. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 were marked and M.O.1 to M.O.3 were also marked. When the accused was questioned u/s.313(i)(b) of Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating evidence against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, she denied the same as false. On the side of the accused, no witness was examined and no exhibit was marked. Both sides were heard.
  7. Whether the prosecution had proved the charges of 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act?
  8. THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
  9. The accused was said to be in illegal possession of 1.500 Kgs of ganj for the purpose of selling. The learned Special Public Prosecutor had argued that all the formalities were done by the police under the provisions of NDPS Act. After receiving the information of selling ganja by the accused from the informant, PW1 reduced the information/Ex.P.1 in writing and submitted the same to his Superior PW4/Mr.Hariharan, Inspector of Police, T15/J11.Kannagi Nagar P.S. and got permission from him and proceeded to the spot along with police party with NDPS Kits. On identification by the informant at the spot, PW1 enquired the accused and after issuing search notice/Ex.P.2, PW1 conducted search in the presence of police witnesses LW2/Mr.Sriramadurai, Head-Constable (36425) and PW2/Mrs.Sivaranjani, WPC(42752), since the independent witnesses had refused to be the witnesses for search. The contraband of 1.500 Kgs of ganja seized under mahazar/Ex.P.3 in the presence of said witnesses. After completing the seizure under the procedure, PW1 arrested the accused and recorded his voluntary confession. PW1 complied the mandatory provisions which provides under NDPS Act while searching and arresting the accused. PW1 produced the accused for remand along with property under Form-91 and then he submitted the report u/s.57 of the NDPS Act/Ex.P.5 before the PW4 and then PW4 registered an FIR and produced the property before this court through Mr.P.Aravind, PC-37504 along with requisition to send
    the sample to Lab for analysis. The sample was sent to Lab by this court along with letter. After completing chemical examination,
    PW3/Mrs.Visalatchi had submitted the Lab Report/Ex.P.7 before this court. In Ex.P.7, it is found that the seized contraband is gnaja. All the formalities were complied under this Act by the prosecution and hence the prosecution had proved the charge against the accused.
  10. On contrary, the defence counsel contention is that the prosecution evidence are not cogent and all the witnesses are police officials and no independent witnesses are enquired by the prosecution. PW1 had not spoken in proper manner with regard to secret information about the commission of offence. In Ex.P.1/information, there is no word mentioned about the identification. The prosecution has not complied the mandatory provisions u/s.42(1), 42(2), 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act. All documents were prepared only at Police Station. It was a pre-planned arrest and fake recovery was done by the police people The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused was found in illegal possession of ganja hence the accused find not guilty and the accused deserves for acquittal.
  11. From the over all perusal of records, the prosecution had laid charge against the accused Dhanalakshmi @ Dhanam u/s.8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The Sub-Inspector of Police/PW1, received an information on 13.05.2021 at 10.00 a.m. and she had reduced the same in writing. The said written information submitted to her Superior officer/PW4 through Ex.P.1, wherein there is clear recital of place, time that ehd; ,d;W 13/05/2021k; njjp fhiy 10/00 kzpf;F epiya mYtypy; ,Ue;jnghJ ufrpa jftyhsp vd;id bjhiyngrpapy; bjhlh;g[ bfhzL; ,d;W 13/05/2021k; njjp gfy; 11/00 kzpKjy; kjpak; 12/30 kzptiu Rdhkp FoapUg;g[. 1tJ gpshf; gpd;g[wk; bgz;kzp jdylR; kp (v) jdk; /////////////////kdpj capUf;Fk; lYf;Fk; jP’;F tpistpwf;f Toa f”;rh vDk; nghijg;bghUis tpw;gid bra;a vLj;J tUfpwhh;/* vd;W fz;Ls;sJ/ It was submitted to the
    Inspector of Police/PW4, J11/T15. Kannagi Nagar P.S. The said PW4 also had given written permission to PW1 to proceed to the spot along with team. Hence, in this case, Sec.42(2) of the NDPS Act is clearly complied.
  12. After then, the accused Dhanalakshmi @ Dhanam was intercepted and notice u/s.50 of the NDPS Act, which is marked as Ex.P.2 was served to her furnishing the details of personal search before Gazetted Officer, where the two police witnesses PW2 and LW2, PW1 and the accused too had signed in the said document. Hence, Sec.50 of the NDPS Act also was complied.
  13. Next on going to the aspect of seizure mahazar, it was prepared on the spot on 13.05.2021 at 12.00 hours where the two police witnesses had signed and PW1 too had signed. Usually for these type of NDPS Act, public people will be always reluctant to stand as witness. Hence, PW2 and LW2, who are the police had stood as a witness and had signed in the mahazar Ex.P.3. During trial the police witnesses PW2 had clearly deposed about the procedure done by PW1 on 13.05.2021 at the spot. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 are very cogent and reliable and the documents Ex.P.1 to
    Ex.P.4 and Sec.57 of the NDPS Act report/Ex.P.5, FIR/Ex.P.8, Form-91/Ex.P.9 are very clear, cogent, legible and reliable regarding to identification of accused, issuing notice u/s.50(1) of NDPS Act and seizure of contraband from the accused.
  14. Further, arrest was made by PW1 and inspection memo was also prepared by PW1. Since accused is a lady, PW2/Mrs.Shivaranjani was made inspection, she has examined as prosecution witness before this court. She has clearly deposed in her evidence about the search, seizure and arrest and inspection of the accused at the spot by PW1 in the presence of witnesses PW2 and LW2. The contraband was seized on 13.05.2021 and the contraband along with samples, packing materials was produced before this court and the sample-S1 was sent to Lab and the Lab Report/Ex.P.7 was received by this court. In Ex.P.7/Lab Report, it is clearly mentioned that the seized contraband is ganja.
  15. The defence counsel argument is that as per prosecution case, the contraband was found in pothys bag, which was kept by the accused in her right hand. But the said bag was not seized by PW1 and the same was not produced by this court. As per seizure mahazar/Ex.P.3, 32 Nos. of big size polythene covers, 55 Nos. of small size polythene covers, used candle and used match box was seized from the accused at the spot, but the said materials was not produced before this court and was not marked as material objects on the side of the prosecution and hence the non production of said pothys bag and packing material, which was seized from the accused at the spot is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Admittedly on perusal of Ex.P.5/Report u/s.57 of the NDPS Act as well as the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the accused had kept a pothys polythene cover in her hand. In that cover, a brown colour cover as well as packing materials such as polythene covers, used candle and used match box were found. In that brown colour cover, the contraband was found. In this regard, PW1, who is the seizure officer had deposed in her evidence that “/////////jdyl;Rkp (v) jdk; mtuJ tyJ ifapy; itj;jpUe;j igia vLj;J M$h; bra;jnghJ mjpy; f”;rh vDk; nghijg;bghUs; ,Ue;jJ////////////** /////////////kfrhpy; 32 bghpa ghypj;jPd; fth;fs;. 55 rpwpa ghypj;jPd; fth;fs;. gad;gLj;jg;gll; bkGFth;j;jp xd;W kw;Wk; jPg;bgl;o xd;W ifg;gw;wg;gl;lJ////////// vd;W Twpa[s;shh;/ PW2, who accompanied PW1 as well as mahazar witness had deposed in her evidence that //////////////mtuJ ifapypUe;J nghjP!; vd;w vGj;J bghwpf;fg;gl;l bts;is epw igia nrhjid bra;J ghh;j;jnghJ mjpy; cjphp f”;rh ,Ue;jJ/////// vd;W Twpa[s;shh;/ But the said Pothys cover was not seized under mahazar and was not produced before this court. At the same time, the packing materials such as 32 Nos. of big size polythene covers, 55 Nos. of small size polythene covers, used candle and used match box was also seized along with 1.500 Kgs of ganja under seizure mahazar/Ex.P.3 at the spot in the presence of witnesses on 13.05.2021 at 12.00 hours. The contraband and the said packing materials was also produced before the remand magistrate under Form-91/Ex.P.9 on the very same day ie.13.05.2021. The remand magistrate had also made an endorsement in From-91/Ex.P.9. The contraband-P1, samples-S1, S2 and packing materials were also produced before this court by PW4 in A.No.381/2021, dt.04.08.2021. The Sample-S1 was sent to Lab on the very same day. The another sample S2, remaining bulk contraband-P1 and the packing materials were returned to PW4 for safe custody. At the time of evidence, S1, S2 and P1 were produced before this court and the same was marked as material objects MO1 to MO3 respectively, but the said packing materials was not produced before this court at the time of evidence. The non-production of packing materials and non-seizure of Pothys cover does not affect the case of the prosecution in any manner. For this type of case, the ganja which was seized if produced before the court, that itself sufficient, the other materials though it was seized by police at the spot is immaterial. The accused was caught red handedly and 1.500 Kgs of ganja was seized at the spot under mahazar in the presence of witnesses and hence the the said argument by the defence counsel is rejected.
  16. The defence counsel argument had pinpointed the fact that as per prosecution case, S1-Sample weight is 50 grams, but Lab witness/PW3 had deposed in her evidence that she had received 42.1 grams of contraband. There is huge contradiction regarding the weight of sample-S1 and the same is also fatal to the prosecution case. On perusal of records, as per prosecution, two samples were drawn by PW1. The weight of each sample was 50 grams. After lifting out, the sample was packed and sealed. Automatically, the sample’s weight along with cover and seal was increased. The sample-S1 was sent to Lab by this court through this court’s letter/Ex.P.6. In Ex.P.6, it is clearly mentioned by this court that “one sealed sample pocket with court seal and marked as S1 and weighed about 0.058 Kgs with cover sent to your lab for chemical analysis.” After removing the seal and cover, PW3 had weighed the sample alone. It is clearly mentioned in Ex.P.7/Lab Report that ////////////////nygps; vGjp xll; g;gl;L Kj;jpiuaplg;gl;l xU clothlined bghll; yj;jpy; ,Ue;j ghypj;jPd; ciwapDs; ,Ue;j cyh;e;j epiyapy; gRik fye;j gGg;g[ epwKs;s rpW ,iyfSld; Toa fjph;fs;. tpijfs; kw;Wk; behW’;fpa ,iyfSld; Toa khjphpapd; epfu vil 42/1 fpuhk;/ vd;W fz;Ls;sJ/ This is the minor contradiction and the same does not affect the flow of the prosecution case in any manner and hence the said argument by the defence counsel is rejected.
  17. The defence counsel argument is that all the witnesses are police officials and no independent witnesses are enquired by the prosecution. Nonproduction 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.
  18. The defence counsel had pinpointed the fact during the argument that the arrest intimation was not given to accused. On perusal of records, after completion of search and seizure, the accused person was arrested by PW1 and admittedly, a separate arrest intimation was not given, but the inspection memo was prepared by PW1 at the spot, which is Ex.P.4. On perusal of Ex.P.4/Inspection memo, it is clearly mentioned that ///////////f”;rh vDk; nghijg; bghUis murpd; mDkjpnah vt;tpj chpknkh ,y;yhky; tpw;gid bra;a vLj;J te;j Fw;wj;jpw;fhf ifJ bra;jnghJ c’;fsJ clypy; bgz;/K/ep/fh/42752 jpUkjp/rptu”;rdp vd;gth; K:yk; jpnur ghpnrhjid bra;a g[jpa fha’;fs; VJk; ,y;iy////////////// vd;W fzL; s;sJ/ The arrest was clearly made by PW1 and the inspection was also made by PW1 through PW2/Mrs.Sivaranjani, since the accused is a lady. Therefore,
    the said argument by the defence counsel is rejected.
  19. The defence counsel had pinpointed the fact during the argument that the crime number was mentioned on the label, which was affixed on SampleS1. On perusal of label, which was affixed on S1-sample, at the time of production of S1, S2 and P1 before this court, the crime number was usually mentioned while sending the sample to the label for identification purpose and hence the same does not affected the case of the prosecution in any manner and the benefit of doubt that the sample was taken in the police station for the purpose of case could not be given and that ground such aspect of argument by the defence counsel is rejected.
  20. The defence counsel argument had pinpointed the fact that the contraband was produced before this court after lapse of 82 days. The seizure was made on 13.04.2021 by PW1, but the contraband was produced before this court only on 04.08.2021. The prosecution had not produced any register to show that the contraband was in safe custody and the same is the valid ground for acquittal. On perusal of Ex.P.3/Seizure Mahazar from accused, 1.500 Kgs of ganja was seized at the spot. After lifting two samples-S1, S2 each weighing 50 grams, the remaining bulk contraband-P1 was also packed separately. S1, S2 and P1were packed separately and sealed separately. The detailed labels were also pasted on S1, S2 and P1, which singed by accused, witnesses and PW1. PW1, who is the seizure officer and PW2, who accompanied PW1 as well as mahazar witness had clearly established the said fact in their evidence. Apart from that the said packing of contraband was clearly mentioned in Form-91/Ex.P.9 and the same was produced before the remand magistrate during the remand ie on the same day 13.05.2021. The Remand Magistrate signature was also there. Admittedly the contraband was produced before this court on 04.08.2021. While production of contraband P1, samples S1, S2 before this court by PW1, the entire seal was intact and the same was verified by this court and the same was sent to Lab. PW3/Mrs.Visalatchi, who is an Expert evidence as well as who received the contraband from this court had deposed in her evidence that //////fzz;fp efh; fhty; epiya Fw;w vz;/252-2021 tHf;fpy; rk;ke;jg;gl;l xU fpyhj;iyd; fhfpj bghl;lyk; fhtyh; jpU/mutpe;j; vd;gth; K:yk; 04/08/2021 njjpapl;l ePjpkd;w foj vz;/2019/2021/HC II fojj;Jld; v’f; s; Ma;tfj;jpw;F bgwg;gl;lJ/ mtw;wpw;F nghijg;bghUs; vz;/ NAR 389/2021 tH’f; g;gl;lJ/ xU fpyhj;iyd; fhfpj bghl;lyj;jpd; kPJs;s ePjpkd;w Kj;jpiu ePjpkd;w fojj;jpy; bfhLff; g;gl;l khjphp Kj;jpiua[ld; xg;gpl;L ghh;j;jjpy; rhpahf ,Ue;jJ/ vd;W Twpa[s;shh;/ In the Lab
    Report/Ex.P.7, PW3 has clearly mentioned that the contraband good is ganja, eventhough there is delay in production of ganja before the court, it
    is highly sealed and packed and the nature of ganjae would be same and the same would not be ground to give benefit of doubt to accused. Therefore, the above said argument by the defence counsel are not accepted and the same are rejected. So, on careful perusal of evidence of PW1 and PW2 and prosecution documents, this court is of the view that all are very clear, cogent, legible and reliable.
  21. On the overall perusal of document and evidence, they are very coherent, cogent and reliable and time, date were correctly found in all those documents. Further the defence counsel could not elicit any contra evidence as against the prosecution. Hence, this court is of the view that the accused was caught by the police which she was in possession and selling of 1.500 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) of the NDPS Act.
  22. Finally, on going through all the prosecution documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 and prosecution evidence PW1 to PW6, this court is of the view that prosecution had clearly proved the charge of Sec.8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act as against the accused and the accused is found guilty and she is convicted for the aforesaid offence.
  23. In the result, Accused is found guilty u/s.8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
  24. With regard to the sentence to be imposed, the accused was questioned. He replied as follows:
    bgha; tHf;F/ Fiwe;jgl;r jz;lid tH’;FkhW nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/
  25. The plea of the accused considered. The seized contrabands from the accused is intermediate quantity. It causes deadly impact on the society.
  26. Accordingly accused is sentenced u/s. 235(2) Cr.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- 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.
  27. The period of remand already undergone by the accused is ordered to be set off u/s 428 of Cr.P.C.
  28. Property order: The M.O.1 to M.O.3 (A.No.381/21, dt.04.08.21) 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 09th day of July, 2024.// Principal Special Judge, EC & NDPS Court, Chennai. L.B.

You may also like...