MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN Crl.A.(MD).Nos. 212 of 2020, 172 of 2023, 293 of 2021, 331 of 2023, 396, 397, 399 & 400 of 2023, 507 of 2023 and 94 of 2024, 534 of 2022, 551 of 2023, 588 of 2023, 724 of 2023, 773, 953 of 2023, 265 of 2024, 322 of 2023, 269 and 558 of 2023 Crl.A.(MD).No.212 of 2020: Ganesan … Appellant/Sole Accused Vs. The State rep by its, The Deputy Superintendent of Police, NIB-CID, Dindigul,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 12.09.2025
Pronounced On : 15.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A.(MD).Nos. 212 of 2020, 172 of 2023, 293 of 2021, 331 of 2023,
396, 397, 399 & 400 of 2023, 507 of 2023 and 94 of 2024, 534 of 2022, 551 of 2023, 588 of 2023, 724 of 2023, 773, 953 of 2023, 265 of 2024,
322 of 2023, 269 and 558 of 2023
Crl.A.(MD).No.212 of 2020:
Ganesan … Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
The State rep by its,
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
NIB-CID, Dindigul,
(In Crime No.42 of 2019) … Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.C.No.365 of 2019 dated 16.06.2020 on the file of the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, and set aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Robinson
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor Crl.A.(MD).No.172 of 2023:
P.Murugan @ PoliMurugan … Appellant/Accused
Vs. The State rep by its,
The Inspector of Police,
NIB-CID, Theni,
(In Crime No.101 of 2019) … Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.C.No.429 of 2019, dated 12.03.2021 on the file of the I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, and to set aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.T.A. Ebenezer
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.A.(MD).No.293 of 2021:
Tamilselvan … Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
The State rep by,
The Inspector of Police,
NIB CID, Theni Theni District.
Crime No.85 of 2019 … Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to allow this appeal and acquit the appellant from all the charges by setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned I Additional Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, in C.C.No.428 of 2019 dated 29.06.2021.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Selvam
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.A.(MD).No.331 of 2023:
Periyakaruppan … Appellants/ Sole Accused
Vs. The State rep by its,
The Inspector of Police,
NIB-CID, Dindigul,
(In Crime No.14 of 2021) … Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.C.No.337 of 2021, dated 22.11.2022 on the file of the I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, and to set aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Balachandran
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.396, 397, 399 and 400 of 2023:
1.Priya … Appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No.396 of 2023
/Accused No. 4
2.Raman … Appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No.397 of 2023
/Accused No. 1
3.Pandi … Appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No.399 of 2023
/Accused No. 2
4.Pandiammal … Appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No.400 of 2023
/Accused No. 3
Vs. The Inspector of Police, Madurai NIB-CID Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No.139 of 2015)
… Respondent in all Crl.As./Complainant
COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Appeals have been filed under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the judgment passed by the learned II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, in C.C.No.160 of 2016 vide his judgment dated 29.03.2023 convicting the appellants under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, and sentencing them to undergo 10 year RI and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default to undergo 12 months SI and to set aside the same and consequently, acquit the appellants.
For appellant : Mr.M.Pitchai Muthu
For respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
(in all cases)
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.507 of 2023 & 94 of 2024:
Sankar … Appellant/Accused No.2 (In Crl.A.(MD).No.507 of 2023)
Vigneshwaran @ Vicky … Appellant/Accused No.1
(In Crl.A.(MD).No.94 of 2024)
Vs. The State rep by its,
The Inspector of Police, Kenikkarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
(In Crime No.919 of 2021) …. 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 in C.C.No.
30 of 2022, dated 26.05.2023 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court/Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, and set aside the same by acquitting the appellants.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian
(In Crl.A.(MD).No.507 of 2023)
Mr.K.Jeyaraman (In Crl.A.(MD).No.94 of 2024)
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.A.(MD).No.534 of 2022:
V.Radha … Appellant/ Sole Accused
Vs. The State rep by its,
The Inspector of Police,
NIB-CID,
Theni District.
(In Crime No.22 of 2020) … Respondent /Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal have been filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and to allow the above appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the judgment dated 25.07.2022 in C.C.No.138 of 2020 of the learned I Additional District Judge for NDPS Act Cases at Madurai, and acquit the appellant herein of all the charges.
For Appellant : Mr.Karupasamy Pandian
for Mr.NA.Manimaran
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.A.(MD).No.551 of 2023:
1.Pownthai
2.Lakshmi … Appellants/Accused No.1&2
Vs. The State rep by its,
The Inspector of Police,
NIB-CID, Madurai,
(In Crime No.81 of 2016) … Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.C.No.333 of 2016 relating to the judgment dated 20.01.2023, passed by the District and Sessions Court for Communal Clash Cases, Madurai, and to set aside the conviction imposed on the appellants/Accused No.1&2.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Kanagaraj for Mr.R.Alagumani & Mrs.G.Prabhahari,
Legal Aid Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.A(MD).Nos.588 of 2023:
1. C.Prabhakaran
2. S.Ramkumar … Appellant/Accused Nos.1&2
Vs.
The State rep by,
The Inspector of Police, Allinagaram Police Station, Theni District.
(In Crime No.621 of 2021)
… Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER : This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the conviction and sentence passed against them by the learned Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, dated on 31.05.2023 in C.C.No.403 of 2022 by allowing the present appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.A.(MD).No.724 of 2023:
1. Duraipandi
2. Prabu … Appellants/Accused No.1 & 2
Vs. The State rep by its,
The Inspector of Police,
NIB-CID, Theni,
(In Crime No.636 of 2016) … Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in connection with
C.C.No.192 of 2017 on the file of the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, dated 18.11.2022, and set aside the same.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Ramsundarvijayraj
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.773 & 953 of 2023 and 265 of 2024:
Amaresan … Appellant/Accused No.2
( In Crl.A(MD)No.773 of 2023 )
Petchiammal … Appellant/Accused No.3
( In Crl.A(MD)No.953 of 2023 )
1.Sivanesh @ Sivaneshwaran
2.Amaithikannan … Appellants/Accused Nos.1 & 4)
( In Crl.A(MD)No.265 of 2024 )
Vs. State through,
The Inspector of Police,
NIB CID, Theni, Theni District.
Crime No.42 of 2020 … Respondent/Complainant ( In all 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 order in C.C.No.308 of 2020, dated 05.06.2023, on the file of the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, by allowing the appeals.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Samidurai (In Crl.A(MD)No.773 of 2023)
: Mr.R.Alagumani
(In Crl.A(MD)No.953 of 2023)
: Mr.V.K.Sathiamurthy
( In Crl.A(MD)No.265 of 2024 )
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
(In all Appeals)
Crl.A.(MD).No.322 of 2023
Chinnadurai … Appellant/Sole
Accused
Vs.
State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
NIB-CID,
Dindigul
(Crime No.122 of 2015) … Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.C.No.59 of 2016 relating to the judgment dated 01.09.2022 passed by the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai and set side the judgment of conviction passed against the appellant.
For appellant : Mr.K.Madhu
For respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.A(MD)No. 269 & 558 of 2023
Andichamy @ Andi … Appellant
in Crl.A.(MD).No.269 of 2023
Sivanammal @ Sivamalar … Appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No.558 of 2023
Vs.
State rep by
The Inspector of Police, Karimedu Police Station, Madurai.
(Crime No.368 of 2013) … Respondent in all Crl.As.
COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Appeals are filed under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside the impugned judgment passed in C.C.No.228 of 2013, dated 24.02.2023, by the learned Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.
For appellant : Mr. M. Jegadeesh Pandian
For respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
*****
COMMON JUDGMENT
Summary of discussion:
Sl.
No Summary of Discussions Paragraph Nos
1 Prelude 1-1.5
2 Brief facts of Crl.A.(MD).No.212 of 2020 2.1 – 2.1.3
(i) Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant 2.2 – 2.2.3
(ii
) Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 2.3 – 2.3.4
3 Brief facts of Crl.A.(MD).No.172 of 2023 3.1 – 3.1.4
(i) Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant 3.2 – 3.2.4
(ii) Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 3.3 – 3.34
4 Brief facts of Crl.A.(MD).No.293 of 2021 4.1 – 4.1.4
(i) Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant 4.2 – 4.2.2
(ii) Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 4.3 – 4.3.3
5 Brief facts of Crl.A.(MD).No.331 of 2020 5.1 – 5.1.4
(i) Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant 5.2 – 5.2.2
(ii) Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 5.3
6 Brief facts of Crl.A.(MD).Nos.396, 397, 399 and 400 of 2023 6.1 – 6.1.5
(i) Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants 6.2 – 6.2.5

(ii) Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 6.3 – 6.3.3
7 Brief facts of Crl.A.(MD).Nos.507 of 2023 and 94 of 2024 7.1 – 7.1.4
(i) Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants 7.2 – 7.2.9
(ii) Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 7.3 – 7.3.4
8 Brief facts of Crl.A.(MD).No.534 of 2022 8.1 – 8.1.5
(i) Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant 8.2 – 8.2.2
(ii) Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 8.3 – 8.3.2
9 Brief facts of Crl.A.(MD).No.551 of 2023 9.1 – 9.1.3
(i) Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant 9.2 – 9.2.8
(ii) Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 9.3 – 9.3.4
10 Brief facts of Crl.A.(MD).No.588 of 2023 10.1 – 10.1.6
(i) Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant 10.2 – 10.2.5
(ii) Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 10.3 – 10.3.2
11 Brief facts of Crl.A.(MD).No.724 of 2023 11.1 – 11.1.4
(i) Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant 11.2 – 11.2.3
(ii) Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 11.3 – 11.3.2
12 Brief facts of Crl.A.(MD).No.773, 953 of 2023 and 265 of 2024 12.1 – 12.1.4
(i) Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant 12.2 – 12.2.9

(ii) Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 12.3 – 12.3.6
13 Brief facts of Crl.A.(MD).No.322 of 2023 13.1 – 13.1.4
(i) Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant 13.2 – 13.2.9
(ii) Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 13.3 – 13.2.9
14 Brief facts of Crl.A.(MD).No.269 & 558 of 2023 14.1 – 14.1.5
(i) Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant 14.2 – 14.2.2
(ii) Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 14.3 – 14.3.1
15 Further argument about recovered contraband without flowering or fruiting tops would come under the definition of Ganja under Section 2(iii) (b) of the NDPS Act 1985 15
16 Points for determination 15.A
17 General Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act 16 – 16.5
18 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.212 of 2020 16.6 – 16.6.6
19 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.172 of 2023 16.7 – 16.7.2
20 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.293 of 2021 16.8 – 16.8.4
21 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.331 of 2023 16.9 – 16.9.2
22 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.396, 397, 399 & 400 of 2023 16.10
23 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.507 of 2023 & 94 of 2024 16.11-16.11.2

24 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.534 of 2022 16.12-16.12.2
25 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.551 of 2023 16.13
26 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.588 of 2023 16.14-16.14.2
27 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.724 of 2023 16.15-16.15.2
28 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.773, 953 of 2023 & 265 of 2024 16.16-16.16.3
29 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.322 of 2023 16.17-16.17.3
30 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.269 & 558 of 2023 16.18-16.18.2
31 General Discussion on the compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 17-17.4.4
32 Consideration of the precedents 17.5-17.7
33 General Discussion on the presence of the Crime Number in the sample or arrest memo 18-18.6
34 Discussion on the Non-Examination of the independent witnesses 19-19.3
35 Discussion on the Non-Examination of the independent witnesses in Crl.A.(MD).No.172 of 2023 19.3.1
36 Discussion on the Non-Examination of the independent witnesses in Crl.A.(MD).No.551 of 2023 19.3.2
37 Discussion on the Non-Examination of the independent witnesses in Crl.A.(MD).No.588 of 2023 19.3.3

38 Discussion on the Non-Examination of the independent witnesses in Crl.A.(MD).Nos.773, 953 of 2023 and 265 of 2024 19.3.4
39 Discussion on the delay in producing the contraband 20-20.3
40 Discussion on the delay in producing the contraband in Crl.A.(MD).No.212 of 2020 20.3.1
41 Discussion on the delay in producing the contraband in Crl.A.(MD).No.293 of 2021 20.3.2
42 Discussion on the delay in producing the contraband in Crl.A.(MD).No.588 of 2023 20.3.3
43 Discussion on the compliance of Section 52 A of NDPS Act 20.4 – 20.4.3
44 Discussion on maintainability of the conviction under Section 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act after acquittal under Section 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. 21 – 21.2
45 Discussion on the maintainability of conviction in all cases under Section 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act without proof of recovered contraband with flowering or fruiting tops of Ganja 23 – 23.1
46 Submission of the appellant counsel 23.2 – 23.2.2
47 Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 23.3 – 23.3.3
48 Reply argument by the learned counsel for the appellants 23.4 – 23.4.2
49 Discussion on the Taxonomy 23.5 – 23.5.3.4
50 Discussion on Pharmacology of Hemp 23.6 – 23.6.8
51 History of Penal provision of the Hemp cultivation 23.7 – 23.8.6
52 Principles to interpret the provision of NDPS Act 1985 23.9 – 23.9.2
53 Discussion on the definition of Ganja 23.10 – 23.10.12

54 Burden of proof 23.11 – 23.11.6
55 Calculation of the weight 23.12 – 23.12.5
56 Parity 23.13
57 Discussion on the merits of the case 23.14-23.14.8
58 Discussion on the principle of Hirasingh Case 23.15 – 23.18
59 Conclusion on conviction 24 – 24.2
60 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment 25
61 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in Crl.A.(MD).No.212 of 2020 25.1
62 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in Crl.A.(MD).No.172 of 2023 25.2
63 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in Crl.A.(MD).No.293 of 2021 25.3
64 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in Crl.A.(MD).No.331 of 2023 25.4
65 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in Crl.A.(MD).Nos.396, 397, 399 and 400 of 2023 25.5-25.5.4
66 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in Crl.A.(MD).Nos.507 of 2023 and 94 of 2024 25.6-25.6.2
67 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in Crl.A.(MD).No.534 of 2022 25.7
68 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in Crl.A.(MD).No.551 of 2023 25.8
69 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in Crl.A.(MD).No.588 of 2023 25.9
70 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in Crl.A.(MD).No.742 of 2023 25.10
71 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.773, 953 of 2023 and 265 of 2024 25.11-25.11.3
72 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in Crl.A.(MD).No.322 of 2023 25.12
73 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in Crl.A.(MD).Nos.269 and 558 of 2023 25.3 – 25.3.2
74 Details of the modified conviction and sentence of imprisonment 26
75 Final conclusion in each appeal 27- 27.13
Prelude:
Allowing illegality to be perpetuated by confining in prison without bail, conviction and sentence of imprisonment for ten years and minimum fine of one lakh under the NDPS Act of various accused for the possession of the commercial quantity of Ganja without weighing psychoactive parts of the hemp mentioned in the definition of Ganja under section 2(ii)of NDPS Act and weighing the whole hetero-genic mixture of flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, luxuriant leaves, seeds, stems and stalks, amounts to deprivation of the fundamental right of the accused of a fair trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases has held that if the perpetual illegality is brought to the knowledge of the court, it is the duty of the Constitutional Court, to obliterate such illegality by bringing the remedial measures and not allowing the illegality to continue. This proposition is fortified in the following decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2015 (2) SCC 591, 2010 (11) SCC 455 and 2011 (3) SCC 436
1.1. It is the duty of this court to recall the following ever living concept of LORD DIPLOCK while interpreting the provision of the “Misuse of Drugs Act 1971” in the case of Directorate of Prosecution
(Respondent) and Goodchild (Appellant) reported in 1978 (1) WLR 578, “A
man should not be gaoled upon an ambiguity”.

1.2. Similar circumstances are faced by this Court in these appeals to maintain the conviction for the possession of the Ganja under the category of commercial quantity.
1.3. All these appeals are not related to the same occurrence. In each appeal, the appellant was either nabbed while the appellant was in illegal possession of “Ganja” in the occurrence place or during transit in a vehicle. The quantity of Ganja also varies from the limit of commercial quantity i.e., ranging from 20 kg to 30 kg. The date, place of occurrence and crime number are different. But in all cases, vehement argument is made by the Learned Respective Counsel for the Appellants about the ongoing illegality in convicting the appellants like accused persons as if committing offences under section 8 (c) r/w 20(2) (b) (ii) (c) of the NDPS Act for possession of commercial quantity of “Ganja” without proof of the constituents of definition of Ganja as stipulated under section 2(ii) of NDPS Act. Since, this court is going to make a detailed discussion, there is no need to extract the definition of Ganja as defined under NDPS Act. On one side, the issue has wider ramification over pending cases either in the trial stage or at the appellate stage and on the other side is the on-going practice of convicting accused with such harsh punishment even when the definition of Ganja was not proved. Therefore, situation demands clubbing of all cases to examine on the issue of sustainability of conviction under section 8(c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (C) of NDPS Act for possession of Ganja and the minimum punishment of 10 years and fine of Rupees one Lakh without any bail by virtue of section 37 of NDPS Act. To address and decide once for all and also to give prospective guidelines to the investigating agency and prosecuting agency and also reminding the conscious duty of Learned Judges of Special Court dealing with such cases, to avoid further infraction of fundamental right of the accused for fair trial, as enshrined under Article
21 of the Constitution of India.
1.4. In all cases, Learned Additional Public Prosecutors namely Thiru.Meenakshisundaram and Thiru.Senthil Kumar fairly addressed the issue without disputing the factual aspect after perusing the entire records and they only argued for upholding the conviction by treating the recovered contraband as commercial quantity on the basis of the object of NDPS Act and interpreting various provision of NDPS Act and argued that the recovered Ganja satisfied the constituents of the definition of
Ganja.

1.5. With this prelude, this Court dispassionately likes to addresses the remaining points raised by the Learned Counsel for all appellants and Learned Additional Public Prosecutors in all aspects apart from the core issue of maintainability of conviction for possession of Ganja either under the category of commercial quantity or under the category of below commercial quantity.
Sl.N o Criminal Appeal No. Subject matter of appeal

1 Crl.A.(MD).No.212 of 2020 The appellant/sole accused in C.C.No.365 of 2019 on the file of the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, has filed this appeal, challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act for the alleged illegal possession of 21 kg of ganja and sentencing him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in default, to undergo, 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment.
2 Crl.A.(MD).No.172 of 2023 The appellant/Sole Accused in C.C.No.429 of
2019 on the file of the I Additional Special
Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, dated
12.03.2021, has filed this appeal, challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act for the alleged illegal possession of 24 kg of ganja and sentencing him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in default, to undergo, 6 months Simple Imprisonment
3 Crl.A.(MD).No.293 of 2021 The appellant/sole accused in C.C.No.428 of
2019 on the file of the I Additional Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, has filed this appeal, challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act for the alleged illegal possession of 22 kg of ganja and sentencing him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in default, to undergo, 6 months Simple Imprisonment

4 Crl.A.(MD).No.331 of 2023 The appellant/Sole Accused in C.C.No.337 of
2021 on the file of the I Additional Special
Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai dated
22.11.2022, has filed this appeal, challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act for the alleged illegal possession of 22 kg of ganja and sentencing him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only) in default, to undergo,
12 months Simple Imprisonment
5 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.396,
397, 399 & 400 of
2023 The accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.160 of 2016 on the file of the learned II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, have filed these Criminal Appeals before this Court challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act for the alleged illegal possession of 30 kg of ganja and sentencing them to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 12 months Simple Imprisonment.
6 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.507 of 2023 and 94 of
2024 The appellants/A2 & A1 in C.C.No.30 of 2022 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court/Special Court for EC and
NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, dated
26.05.2023, have filed this appeal, challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act for the alleged illegal possession of 22 kg of ganja and sentencing them to undergo 12 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Twenty Thousand only) each in default, to undergo, 6 months Simple Imprisonment.

7 Crl.A.(MD).No.534 of 2023 The appellant/Sole Accused in C.C.No.138 of 2020 on the file of I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, has filed this appeal, challenging the conviction for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act for the alleged illegal possession of 22 kg of ganja and sentencing him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in default, to undergo, 1 year Simple Imprisonment.
8 Crl.A.(MD).No.551 of 2023 The appellants/Accused No.1&2 in C.C.No.333 of 2016 on the file of District and Sessions Court for Communal Clash Cases, Madurai, have filed this appeal, challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act for the alleged illegal possession of 22 kg of ganja and sentencing them to undergo 10 years Rigorous
Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 1 year Simple Imprisonment each.
9 Crl.A.(MD).No.588 of 2023 The appellants/A1 & A2 in Crl.A(MD)No.588 of
2023 are the accused in Special C.C.No.403 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, have filed this appeal challenging the conviction for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act for the alleged illegal possession of 21kg of ganja and sentencing them to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 6 months Simple Imprisonment.

10 Crl.A.(MD).No.724 of 2023 The appellants/A1 & A2 in Spl.C.C.No.192 on the file of the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, dated 18.11.2022, have filed this appeal, challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act for the alleged illegal possession of 21 kg of ganja and sentencing them to undergo 10 years Rigorous
Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 1 year Simple Imprisonment each.
11 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.773
& 953 of 2023 and
265 of 2024 The appellants/A2, A3, A1 & A4 in C.C.No.308 of 2020 on the file of the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, have filed these appeals, challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act, for the alleged illegal possession of 23 kg of ganja and sentencing them to undergo 10 years Rigorous
Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 1 year Simple Imprisonment.
12 Crl.A.(MD).No322 of 2023 The appellant in C.C.No.59 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai have filed these appeals, challenging the conviction for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985, for the alleged illegal possession of 25 kg of ganja and sentencing them to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 1 year Simple Imprisonment.
13. Crl.A.(MD).No269 & 558 of 2023 The accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.228 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai have filed these appeals, challenging the conviction for the offence under sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act, 1985 for the alleged illegal possession of 25 kg of ganja and sentencing them to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 1 year Simple Imprisonment.
2. The brief facts, submission of the appellants and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor in Crl.A.(MD).No.212 of 2020:
2.1.The brief facts of the case are as follows:
2.1.1.When P.W.2 was working as Sub-Inspector of Dindigul NIB CID office, on 30.03.2019, at 08.30 am, he received a secret information from his informant through phone about the appellant’s illegal possession and transportation of 21 kg of ganja near Athoor Junction on the Sempatty to Ottanchatram Main Road. He recorded the said information in the General Diary at 08.45 a.m, and reduced it in writting under Ex.P.6 and informed the same to his Immediate Superior, namely, Inspector of Police. Thereafter, at about 09.30 a.m, P.W.1, P.W.2 and other police officers went to the spot with necessary equipment and keeping the surveillance. The appellant was carrying one gunny bag on his shoulder near the said Athoor Junction Road. The informant identified the appellant. P.W.1 and P.W.2 intercepted the appellant and introduced themselves as police officers and he was informed about his right to be searched before the Judicial Magistrate or the Gazetted officer as required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The appellant consented to conduct search by the officer himself and hence, P.W.2 conducted search in the gunny bag, which was carried by the appellant in the presence of P.W.1 and other police officers. He found ganja in the said bag and weighed entire contraband and took the sample of S1, S2 from the said bag and properly sealed the same. He also properly sealed the remaining contraband. Thereafter, he arrested the appellant. The appellant also gave a confession and the same was reduced into writing by P.W.2 and he brought the accused to the police station along with the entire contraband and sample and registered a case in Crime No.42 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act and submitted a detailed report under Section 57 of NDPS Act. Following the same, P.W. 2 entrusted the custody of the accused to P.W.3 along with the contraband, sample and report under Section 57 of the Act. The Inspector of Police produced the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Dindigul, along with the recovered contraband and samples which were taken from the said contraband on 30.03.2019 itself at 08.30 p.m and made a request to remand him. After completing all the formalities, the learned Judicial Magistrate remanded the appellant to judicial custody on 30.03.2019. Thereafter, P.W.3 conducted the investigation and filed the final report before the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.365 of 2019.
2.1.2. The learned trial Judge issued summon to the accused and on his appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and framed the necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and stood for trial.
2.1.3. The prosecution, to prove the case examined P.W.1 to P.W.3, exhibited 12 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P12 and produced 3 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.3. The learned trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., proceedings by putting the incriminating evidence available from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and documents. The accused denied the same as false and the case was posted for examination of the witnesses on the side of the appellant. On the side of the defence, no one was examined as witness and no document was marked. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, and sentenced him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in default, to undergo, 1 year
Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act. Challenging the same, present appeal has been
filed.
2 .2.The learned counsel for the appellant made the following
submissions :-
2.2.1. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no strict compliance as required under Section 42 of NDPS Act. P.W.
3 admitted in the cross examination that during his investigation, the Inspector of Police, namely, Mrs.Selvi never disclosed about the receipt of the written information from P.W.2 through the phone and her permission to conduct search. Similarly, P.W.3 deposed that P.W.2 never gave the statement about his submission of the written information to the higher officer. He would further submit that according to Ex.P.6, the Inspector of Police is said to have received the information at 08.45 a.m.
But, P.W.2 deposed that she was not available at the Station on that day at the time of receipt of information. But, the document, Ex.P.6 contains the permission granted by her. Therefore, the document produced before the Court to prove the compliance of Section 42 of the Act is a concocted one. Therefore, he seeks for acquittal.
2.2.2. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that there was a delay of 4 days in producing the contraband before Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai, and the same was not properly explained. Therefore, there was reasonable doubt over the seizure of contraband and taking of samples from the contraband from the
recovered material. Therefore, he seeks for acquittal.
2.2.3. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the place of recovery was busy area and no independent witness has been examined in order to believe the story of recovery of 21 kg of ganja from the appellant.
2 .3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor made the following submissions:-
2.3.1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that
Ex.P.6 was marked to prove the compliance of Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act and the same was marked without any objection, the minor contradiction relating to the receipt of the information is not material when Ex.P.6 was submitted before the Court along with the accused at the time of remand itself on 30.03.2019. Due to the passage of time, this type of minor contradictions would normally occur.
2.3.2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also submit that the sample was produced before Forensic Scientific Laboratory, Madurai, on 03.04.2019 itself and hence, there was no delay. Even otherwise, the delay in sending the sample to the Forensic Scientific Laboratory is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence of recovery.
2.3.4. He would further submit that the non-examination of the independent witness is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. In this regard, he also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukesh Singh Vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) reported in (2020) 10 SCC 120. The said judgment reiterated the principle that the non-examination of the independent witnesses is not a circumstance to disbelieve the evidence regarding recovery, when the other evidence are cogent and trust worthy. In this case, the learned trial Judge has considered the entire evidence to hold that the recovery from the appellant was proved in accordance with law.
3.The brief facts, submission of the appellants and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor in Crl.A.(MD).No.172 of 2023:
3.1.The brief facts of the case are as follows:
3.1.1. On 21.08.2019, at 9.30 a.m, when P.W.1 was working at Theni, as Sub-Inspector/2 NIB-CID, Theni Wing, he received a secret information from the informer about the appellant’s illegal possession of ganja at Annanchivilakku By-Pass Road, Near Palam Marticulation School, Theni. Thereafter, P.W.1 reduced the same in writing under Ex.P.
1 and informed the same to his Immediate Superior, PW3 Inspector of Police, NIB-CID, Theni. Thereafter, at about 10.10 a.m, P.W.3 along with P.W.1 and other police officials went to the spot with necessary equipment. After arrival at the occurrence place, the informant identified the appellant, who carried the contraband in a gunny bag over his head and thereafter, P.W.1 and other police officials intercepted the appellant and introduced themselves as police officers and he was informed about his right to be searched before the Judicial Magistrate or the Gazetted officer as required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The appellant consented to conduct the search by the officer himself and hence, P.W.1 conducted search and found that he was in possession of 24 kg of Ganja in a gunny bag. Thereafter, P.W.1 recovered the contraband after following the proceedure and took the samples of (each 50 grams) S1 and S2 and properly sealed the same. Thereafter, P.W.1 arrested the appellant. The appellant also gave a confession and the same was also recorded and he was brought to the police station and FIR was registered in Crime No.
101 of 2019 for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act. After that, P.W.1 handed over the custody of accused to P.W.3 along with the contraband with a detailed report under Section 57 of NDPS Act. P.W.3 took the accused along with contraband to learned Judicial Magistrate requesting for remand and after completing all the formalities, the learned Judicial Magistrate remanded the appellant. Thereafter, P.W.3 conducted investigation and he entrusted the investigation with Deputy Superintendent of Police PW4 and PW4 continued the investigation and filed the final report before the I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.429 of 2019.
3.1.2. The learned trial Judge issued summons to the accused and
on his appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and framed the necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial.
3.1.3. The prosecution, to prove the case examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and exhibited 12 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P12 and produced 3 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.3. The learned trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., proceedings by putting the incriminating evidence available from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and documents. The accused denied the same as false and the case was posted for examination of the witnesses on the side of the appellant. On the side of the defence, no one was examined as witness and no document was marked.
3.1.4. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, and sentenced him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in default, to undergo, 6 months
Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Challenging the same, present appeal has been filed.
3.2.The learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:-
3.2.1. The arrest intimation had contained crime number while the case of the prosecution was that FIR was registered at 12.15 hours. Before registration of FIR, how crime number could have been mentioned in the arrest intimation. Therefore, there was a serious doubt over the recovery and arrest of the accused.
3.2.2. According to PW1, he received the secret information, but
PW3 deposed that the information was received by Karuppiah (PW2) and Rajesh and therefore, there is a material contradiction relating to the receipt of information and hence, there was a doubt over the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. According to P.W.2, three persons have conducted raid. But, only two persons were examined before the Court below and the non-examination of the other person, creates a doubt over the recovery.
3.2.3. The occurrence place was densely populated area and hence, non-examination of the independent witnesses creates a doubt over the recovery of the contraband as alleged by prosecution in the occurrence place.
3.2.4. In Form-91, it is referred as “to be produced along with property”. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the contraband was not produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate on the date of remand. The contraband was produced before the Special Court only on 22.08.2019 with day delay of one day and hence, there was a doubt over the recovery of the contraband.
3.3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor made the following submissions:-
3.3.1. After the arrest, as per “D.K.Basu’s case guidelines”, the arrest intimation was sent to the family members. Therefore, after registration of case, crime number was mentioned in the intimation. Therefore, the case of the appellant that there was suspicion over the mentioning of crime number in the arrest intimation, is not legally sustainable.
3.3.2. When the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are cogent and trustworthy, the examination of independent witnesses is not necessary and the same is not a material in this case when all the recovery witnesses clearly deposed about the recovery without any infirmity.

3.3.3. P.W.2 received the information and he duly informed the same to P.W.3 and the same was acknowledged by P.W.3. To prove the same document under Ex.P.1 also was marked. In the said circumstances, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no compliance under Section 42 of the Act, is not legally correct.
3.3.4. The contraband was produced before the Court and the same was received by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, he also gave a direction that “to be produced along with property on the next day before the Court’. The interpretation made by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the word ‘to be produced’ is not correct. It means that after producing the contraband before the learned Judicial Magistrate, the police had been directed to produce the same before the
Special Court.
4. The brief facts, submission of the appellants and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor in Crl.A.(MD).No.293 of 2021:
4.1.The brief facts of the case is as follows:
4.1.1. When P.W.1 was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, NIB CID, Theni, Theni District, on 05.06.2019, at 04.00 pm, he received a secret information from the informant, who appeared in person at the Police Station, about the appellant’s illegal possession and transportation of 22 kg of ganja near Upparpatti on Theni – cumbam Road. He recorded the said information in the General Diary and reduced it in writting under Ex.P.1 and informed the same to his Immediate Superior, P.W.3, the Inspector of Police, NIB CID, Theni and got permission. Thereafter, at 04.20 pm, P.W.1, P.W.2 and another police officer went to the spot with necessary equipment along with the informant and were mounting surveillance. At about 05.30 p.m, the appellant was found carrying a white colour fertilizer sack on his head. The informant identified the appellant. P.W.1 and the other police officials intercepted the appellant and introduced themselves as police officers and he was informed about his right to be searched before the Judicial Magistrate or the Gazetted officer as required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The appellant consented to conduct search by the officer himself and hence, P.W.1 conducted search of the sack carried by the appellant, in the presence of P.W.2 and other police officers. He found possession of ganja in the said sack and weighed the entire contraband and took samples S1, S2 from the said sack and properly sealed the same. He also properly sealed the remaining contraband. Thereafter, he arrested the appellant. The appellant also gave a confession and the same was recorded by P.W.1. P.W.1 brought the accused to the police station along with the entire contraband and sample and registered a case in Crime No.85 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act and prepared a detailed report under Section 57 of NDPS Act. Following the same, P.W.1 entrusted the custody of the accused to P.W.3 along with the contraband, sample and report under Section 57 of the Act. The Inspector of Police produced the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate, along with the recovered contraband and samples taken from the said contraband on 10.06.2019 and requested to remand him. After
completing all the formalities, the learned Judicial Magistrate remanded the appellant to judicial custody and conducted the investigation. Thereafter, P.W.4 continued the investigation and filed the final report before the learned I Additional Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases,
Madurai, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.428 of 2019.
4.1.2. The learned trial Judge issued summons to the accused and on his appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and framed the necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial.
4.1.3. The prosecution, to prove the case, examined P.W.1 to P.W.4, exhibited 12 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P12 and produced 3 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.3. The learned trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., proceedings by putting the incriminating evidence available from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and documents. The accused denied the same as false and the case was posted for examination of the witnesses on the side of the appellant. On the side of the defence, no one was examined as witness and no document was marked.
4.1.4. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, and sentenced him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in default, to undergo, 6 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Challenging the same, present appeal has been filed.
4. 2.Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant :-
4.2.1. According to the prosecution, P.W.1 received a secret information and sent the same to his Immediate superior and thereafter, he proceeded to the spot and made a search and recovered the contraband. According to P.W.1, he received the secret information and made entry in the General Diary and the same was not produced and only Ex.P.1 was produced with delay. Therefore, there was doubt over the compliance of Section 42 of the Act. There were discrepancies between the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 about the receipt of the information. Further, no material was produced to prove that the immeidate superior acknowledged the said information. Therefore, there was non-compliance of the mandatory procedure stated in the Section 42 of the Act.
4.2.2. The recovered contraband was produced before the Court with delay and there was no explanation on the side of the prosecution and hence, recovery is doubtful.
4.3. Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor :-
4.3.1. The compliance of section 42 of the Act was clearly deposed by P.W.1 and P.W.3. The relevant document was also marked under Ex.P.
1. It contains the strict compliance as mandated under Section 42 of the Act. When the examination of the witness took place after number of years from the date of recovery, some minor discrepancies would always tend to occur in the prosecution evidence.
4.3.2. He would submit that the entire contraband and the sample were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate at the time of the remand without any delay. The learned Judicial Magistrate verified and directed to produce the same before the Special Court. Therefore, the delay in producing the contraband before the Special Court is immaterial when the materials were properly sealed and the same is intact.
4.3.3.Therefore, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in all aspects, the prosecution clearly proved the case and hence, he prayed for dismissal of appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge.
5. The brief facts, submission of the appellants and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor in in Crl.A.(MD).No.331 of 2023:
5.1.The brief facts of the case are as follows:
5.1.1. On 20.03.2021, at 06.00 a.m, when P.W.2 was working as Inspector police, Incharge Officer of Dindigul, NIB-CID, Dindigul, she received a secret information from the informant about the appellant’s illegal possession of ganja at Rajathanikottai Bus Stop, Nilakkottai Taluk, Dindigul District. Thereafter, P.W.2 reduced the same in writing under Ex.P.4 and informed the same to her Immediate Superior namely, Deputy Superintendent of Police, NID-CID, Dindigul. Thereafter, at about 06.40 a.m, P.W.2 along with P.W.1 and other police officials went to the spot with necessary equipment. During the surveillance the informant identified the appellant and thereafter, P.W.2 and other police officials intercepted the appellant and introduced themselves as police officers. The appellant was informed about his right to be searched before the Judicial Magistrate or the Gazetted officer as required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The appellant consented to conduct the search by the officer himself and hence, P.W.2 conducted search and found that he was in possession of 22 kg of Ganja in a white colour plastic gunny bag. Thereafter, P.W.2 recovered the contraband after following the proceedure and took the samples of (each 50 grams) S1 and S2 and properly sealed the same. Thereafter, P.W.2 arrested the appellant. The appellant also gave a confession and the same was also recorded. After that, P.W.2 handed over the accused along with contraband and the detailed report prepared under Section 57 of NDPS Act to P.W.3. P.W.3 sent the accused for remand along with contraband and FIR was registered in Crime No.14 of 2021 for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act. After completing all the formalities, the learned Judicial Magistrate remanded the appellant. Thereafter, P.W.3 conducted investigation and filed the final report before the I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.337 of 2021.
5.1.2. The learned trial Judge issued summons to the accused and on his appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C., framed the necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial.
5.1.3. The prosecution, to prove the case examined P.W.1 to P.W.3, exhibited 10 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P10 and produced 3 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.3. The learned trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., proceedings by putting the incriminating evidence available from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and documents. The accused denied the same as false and the case was posted for examination of the witnesses on the side of the appellant. On the side of the defence, no one was examined as witness and one document was marked as Ex.D1.
5.1.4. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, and sentenced him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in default, to undergo, 12 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Challenging the same, present appeal has been filed.
5.2. The learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:-
5.2.1. According to the prosecution, P.W.2 received a secret information and sent the same to P.W.3, the Immediate superior and thereafter, she proceeded to the spot and made a search and recovered the contraband. The said evidence of P.W.2 is not corroborated by P.W.3 and the material documents and hence, there is total non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act.
5.2.2.The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that there is non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act. According to him the contraband was recovered in two gunny bags and the total quantity of recovery is 22 kg and there was no weighing of the bags, leaves and seeds separately.

5.3. Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor :-
P.W.1 received the secret information and he reduced it in writing and sent the information to P.W.3. P.W.3 also affirmed the said fact under Ex.P.4. It is clearly stated that he received the secret information. It shows the strict compliance under Section 42 of the Act. When the examination of the witness took place after a number of years from the date of recovery, some minor discrepancies would always tend to occur in the prosecution evidence. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, in all aspects, the prosecution clearly proved the case and hence, he prayed for dismissal of appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge.
6. The brief facts, submission of the appellants and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor in Crl.A.(MD).Nos.396, 397, 399 and
400 of 2023:
6.1.The brief facts of the case are as follows:
6.1.1.The appellants in Crl.A.(MD).Nos.397, 399 and 400 of 2023 are family members and the appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No.396 of 2023 is the relative of the above said appellants. They all purchased the contraband from Andra Pradesh to sell the same in Tamil Nadu. According to the prosecution, on 07.08.2015, at about 17.45 hours, P.W.2 received the secret information that all the appellants were in possession of 30 kgs of Ganja. After receipt of the said information, he recorded the same and reduced it in writing under Ex.P.4, in the General Diary and informed the same to his superior/P.W.3 and obtained permission and went to the occurrence place along with P.W.1, and other team members besides the informer. The informer identified all the appellants and went away and they enquired them and they disclosed their names and address. Thereafter, the police team rounded up the appellants and made a search on them under Ex.P1/Search Consent Letter. All the appellants were found in possession of two travel bags and one gunny bag with Ganja. The police team recovered the contraband of 30 Kgs of Ganja from the travel bags and one gunny bag DPS Act and properly sealed the contraband and the bag and the remaining contraband and they prepared Seizure Mahazar under Ex.P2. Thereafter, they arrested the accused under Ex.P3/Arrest Intimation Letter and took them to the Station and registered the case in Crime No.139 of 2015 under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 27A and 29(1) of NDPS Act, and produced the accused along with the contraband before the learned Judicial Magistrate. P.W.3 continued the investigation and he filed the final report after obtaining the chemical analysis report and examining number of witnesses. The learned trial Judge has taken the same on file in C.C.No.160 of 2016.
6.1.2. After appearance of the accused, copies of records were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Judge, on perusal of records and on hearing both sides and being satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the accused/appellants, framed charges under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act 1985 and the same was read over and explained to them and on being questioned, the accused/appellants denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood
trial.
6.1.3.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined 3 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.3, exhibited 14 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 and marked fourteen material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.14.
6.1.4.When the accused was examined under Section 313(1) (b) of Cr.P.C., by putting incriminating materials available against them, they denied the evidence as false. On the side of the accused, two witnesses were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 to prove that there was Outpost police station at the Arappalayam Police Station, but no one was examined from there.
6.1.5.The learned Trial Judge, considering the materials and circumstances found that accused in C.C.No.160 of 2016 were guilty and passed the conviction and sentence as against the appellants as stated above.
6.2.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in in Crl.A.(MD).Nos.6, 397, 399 and 400 of 2023 made the following submissions:-
6.2.1. In this case, because of the contradictory evidence of P.Ws.
1, 2 and 3, the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, is doubtful. According to the learned counsel, Section 42 was not complied with and hence, the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants are liable to be set aside.
6.2.2. The learned counsel further contended that PW2 claims to have received the secret information and informed the same through cellphone, but the evidence on record shows that they informed in writing. According to P.W.2, they received the information and informed the same to the higher officer/P.W.3. But, there was no corresponding endorsement to prove the same.
6.2.3.There was inordinate delay in producing the contraband from the Magistrate to the Special Court and the same was not properly explained and hence, there is a doubt over the recovery of the contraband.

6.2.4.Even though the occurrence took place in the bus stand, no independent witness was examined. Apart from that, even when the outpost police station was there, no police officer was examined from there. Therefore, there is a doubt over the recovery of the contraband.
6.2.5.Except A1, all the accused are illiterate. In the Athatchi/Ex.P2, they obtained signature and thumb impression of the accused without reading over the contents of Athatchi to them. Even as per the allegation, A1 brought the huge quantity of Ganja from Andra Pradesh and handed over to A2 to A4 and hence, there is no conscious possession on the part of A2 to A4. Hence, he seeks for acquittal.
6.3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police made the following submissions:
6.3.1.Each accused had bags. In each bag, contraband was
available.
6.3.2.All the appellants jointly came and they were found in possession of contraband.
6.3.3.P.W.1 and P.W.2 clearly deposed about the recovery. Hence, the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants under Section 8(c) r/c 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act is legally correct. Hence, he seeks to confirm the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge.
7. The brief facts, submission of the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in Crl.A.(MD).Nos.507 of 2023 and 94 of 2024:
7.1.The brief facts of the case are as follows:
7.1.1. On 01.12.2021, at 09.00 a.m, when P.W.1 was working as Sub-Inspector of police, In-charge Officer, Ramanathapuram, he received a secret information from the informant through phone about the appellant’s illegal transportation of ganja for sale in a car bearing Reg.No.TN-55-Q-1508 near Amma Poonga, Sethupathi Nagar.
Thereafter, P.W.1 reduced the said information in writing under Ex.P.1 and informed the same to his Immediate Superior. Thereafter, at about 10.15 a.m, P.W.1 along with P.W.2 to P.W.4 went to the spot with necessary equipment. After arrival at the occurrence place, the informant identified the car and the appellants who came in a car from the North direction of Amma Poonga, and left the place. Thereafter, P.W.1 and other police officials intercepted the car. On seeing the Police party, the first appellant/A2 tried to escape from the car and during such attempt, he sustained injuries on his both thighs. However, P.W.1 and his team nabbed him and introduced themselves as police officers 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 the search by the officer himself and hence, P.W.1 conducted search and found that they were in possession of 24 kg of Ganja in a gunny bag. Thereafter, P.W.1 recovered the contraband after following the proceedure and took the samples S1 and S2 (each 50 grams) and properly sealed the same. Thereafter, P.W.1 arrested the appellants. The appellants also gave confession and the same was also recorded and he brought the accused to the police station and registered the FIR in Crime No.919 of 2021 for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 of NDPS Act. After that, P.W.1 handed over the custody of the accused with P.W.6 along with the contraband and submitted a detailed report under Section 57 of NDPS Act. P.W.6 produced the accused along with contraband before the Learned Judicial Magistrate and after completing all the formalities, the learned Judicial Magistrate remanded the appellant. Thereafter, P.W.6 conducted investigation and filed the final report before the Additional District and Sessions Court/Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.30 of 2022.
7.1.2. The learned trial Judge issued summons to the accused and on his appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and framed the necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial.
7.1.3. The prosecution, to prove the case examined P.W.1 to P.W.6, exhibited 10 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P10 and produced 4 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.4. The learned trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., proceedings by putting the incriminating evidence available from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and documents. The accused denied the same as false and the case was posted for examination of the witnesses on the side of the appellant. On the side of the defence, no one was examined as witness and no document was marked.
7.1.4. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 25 of the NDPS Act and convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, and sentenced him to undergo 12 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Twenty Thousand only) in default, to undergo, 6 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Challenging the said conviction and sentence imposed against them, present appeal has been filed.
7.2.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in all appeals made the following submissions:-
7.2.1. There was no compliance under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. According to them, P.W.1 who claims to have received a secret information has admitted that he has not made entry in the General Diary and also not recorded the said information. In the said circumstances, without recording the information, there was no strict compliance under
Section 42 of the Act.
7.2.2. The learned counsels for the appellants also submitted that there is non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act. According to him, contraband was recovered in a gunny bag and the total quantity of recovery is 22 kg and there was no weighing of the bag, leaves and seeds separately.
7.2.3. There is a delay in producing the contraband before the
Court and the same was not properly explained.
7.2.4. The presence of the crime number in the material objects before registration of the case creates doubt over the recovery at the spot.
7.2.5. There was no compliance under Section 52(A) of the Act. As per Section 52A of the NDPS Act, all narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances should have been disposed of. To prove the same, no document was produced before this Court and hence, he seeks acquittal.
7.2.6. A2 is a driver and he has no knowledge about the possession of ganja in the car and there is no material to connect him.
7.2.7. He has sustained injuries and the same was not properly explained. Hence, his specific case that he was arrested much earlier to the occurrence is a probable.
7.2.8. The learned trial Judge, acquitted the appellants under Section 25 of the NDPS Act and there was no appeal filed on the side of the prosecution. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that the appellants conspired and carried the contraband, which comes under the commercial quantity, is not correct.
7.3 . The learned Additional Public Prosecutor made the following submissions:-
7.3.1. The presence of crime number is immaterial and the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the appellant was subsequently clarified by this Court in subsequent judgments and no question was put-forth relating to that aspect. Hence, the submission is not legally valid.
7.3.2. The recovery was made from the car of the appellant. In the said circumstance, Section 50 of the Act is not applicable even assuming that there was oral communication given to the each accused about the right under Section 50 of the Act which is permissible as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwinder Singh (BINDA) vs. The Narcotic control Bureau reported in 2023 INSC 852 and State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar reported in (2005) 4 SCC 350. Therefore, there is no violation of Section 50 of the Act.
7.3.3. He further submitted that in this case, the entire contraband seized was separately packed and was in the proper custody of the police. The same were produced before the Court at the time of trial and also marked as MO.1 to MO.3 and the same was identified by P.W.1 and P.W.
2 to P.W.4. The same was also deposed by P.W.1 and P.W.2 to P.W.4 also. When P.W.1 and P.W.2 to P.W.4 deposed about the remaining contraband and identified the same before the Court, requirement of compliance under Section 52A of the NDPS Act does not arise in this case.
7.3.4. A2 has sustained injuries and the same was clearly explained
in the report and also through the evidence of P.W.1. When he made an attempt to escape from the scene of occurrence, he fell down and sustained injuries and there was no contrary evidence adduced on the side of the accused. The accused/A2 was the driver and he drove the vehicle with contraband. Therefore, his claim of innocense has to be rejected. Hence, he prayed to confirm the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge by dismissing the appeal.
8. The brief facts, submission of the appellants and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor in Crl.A.(MD).No.534 of 2022:
8.1.The brief facts of the case are as follows:
8.1.1. On 29.02.2020, at 10.00 a.m, P.W.2 received the secret information about the possession and transit of Ganja by the appellant in Old Railway Station road Theni. P.W.2 recorded the information in the General Diary and reduced the same in writting under Ex.P.5 and submitted the same to his Superior Officer. P.W.3, the Inspector of Police acknowledged the same and directed to conduct search and report. Hence, P.W.2 along with his team members went to the place of occurrence at about 11.00 a.m and mounted surveilance. The informant identified the person, who went to the said place of occurrence at about
12.00 p.m, carrying two travel bags on his head. P.W.2 and his team intercepted the appellant and introduced themselves as police officers and he was informed about his right to be searched before the Judicial Magistrate or the Gazetted officer as required under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The appellant consented to conduct the search by the officer himself and hence, P.W.2 conducted search and found a Black and Brown Colour Travel Bags. They opened the two bags and found that there was 22 kg of Ganja. Thereafter, they recovered the contraband after following the proceedure and took the samples S1 and S2 (each 25 grams) and properly sealed the same. Thereafter, he arrested the appellants.
8.1.2. The appellant also gave confession and the same was recorded. After that, P.W.2 handed over the accused along with contraband and a detailed report under Section 57 of NDPS Act, to P.W.3. P.W.3 produced the accused along with contraband after FIR was registered in Crime No.22 of 2020 for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act before the jurisdictional magistrate. After completing all the formalities, the learned Judicial Magistrate remanded the appellant. Thereafter, P.W.3 conducted the investigation and P.W.4 continued the investigation and filed the final report before the I Additional District Court for NDPS Act Cases at Madurai, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.138 of 2020. The learned trial Judge issued summons to the accused and on his appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and framed the necessary charges and questioned him. The accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial.
8.1.3. The prosecution, to prove the case examined P.W.1 to P.W.4, exhibited 14 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P14 and produced 8 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.8. The learned trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., proceedings by putting the incriminating evidence available from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and documents. The accused denied the same as false and the case was posted for examination of the witnesses on the side of the appellant. On the side of the defence, no witness was examined and no document was marked.
8.1.4. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, and sentenced him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in default, to undergo, 1 year Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.
8.1.5. The learned trial Judge, on considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as stated supra. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
8.2 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted the following submissions:-
8.2.1. According to the prosecution, P.W.2 received the secret information and he made an entry in the General Diary and thereafter, he reduced the same in writting and obtained permission from P.W.3 through phone to conduct search and recovery of contraband from the appellant. General Diary is a material document and the same was not produced. Even P.W.2 & P.W.3 never deposed about the compliance of section 42 of the Act. More particularly, P.W.3 never deposed about the receipt of the information furnished by P.W.2 and his endorsement was made in Ex.P.5, intimation to raid and search. Hence, the prosecution never proved the requirements of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Hence, without any substantive evidence before the Court, there was no compliance of Section 42 except mere marking of Ex.P.5.
8.2.2. The learned counsel further submitted that the sample is packed with a slip containing crime number. Therefore, the recovery of the sample at the spot is suspicious.
8.3 Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor:
8.3.1. The prosecution proved the compliance of Section 42 of the
NDPS Act, as per the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in 2009 8 SCC 539 through the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and Ex.P5.
8.3.2 The presence of the Crime number in the sample slip is not a circumstance to disbelieve the evidence of the recovery witness. At the time of the production of the samples before the Court, in order to identify the samples of particular criminal case, the slip would be affixed on the sample with crime number. As per the Criminal Rules of Practice, It is the duty of the investigating officer to affix the particular crime number to the samples to make safe custody to avoid mixing up with the other case properties. It is not the evidence that the crime number was affixed in the occurrence place itself at the time of taking the sample. Therefore, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
9. The brief facts, submission of the appellants and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor in Crl.A.(MD).No.551 of 2023:
9.1.The brief facts of the case are as follows:
9.1.1. P.W.1 received a secret information from the informant on 07.05.2016, at 10.00 am. Thereafter, P.W.1 reduced the same into writting under Ex.P.1 and informed the same to his Immediate Superior/P.W.3. Thereafter, at about 10.40 a.m, P.W.1 along with P.W.2 went with necessary equipment to place called Paramathevar Garden situated at Usilampatti – Elumalai Road. In the said circumstances, the informant identified the appellants and thereafter, P.W.1 and P.W.2 intercepted the appellants and introduced themselves as police officers 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 the search by the officer himself and hence, P.W.1 conducted search and found 100 plastic bags, two gunny bags and two cell phones. They recovered the same and opened the gunny bags and found that there was 22 kg of Ganja. Thereafter, they recovered the contraband after following the proceedure and took the samples S1 and S2 (each 50 grams) and properly sealed the same. Thereafter, he arrested the appellants. The appellants also gave confession and the same was recorded. After that, P.W.2 handed over the accused along with contraband and a detailed report under Section 57 of NDPS Act, to P.W.3. P.W.3 produced the accused along with contraband after FIR was registered in Crime No.81 of 2016 for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 27(A) and 29(1) of NDPS Act before the jrisdictional magistrate. After completing all the formalities, the learned Judicial Magistrate remanded the appellants. Thereafter, P.W.3 conducted the investigation and filed the final report before the District and Sessions Court for Communal Clash Cases, Madurai, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.333 of 2016.
9.1.2. The learned trial Judge issued summons to the accused and on their appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and framed the necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial.
9.1.3. The prosecution, to prove the case examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 exhibited 12 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P12 and marked 6 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.6. The learned trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., proceedings by putting the incriminating evidence available from prosecution witnesses and documents. The accused denied the same as false and the case was posted for examination of the witnesses on the side of the appellants. On the side of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was let in. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, and sentenced them to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 1 year Simple Imprisonment each for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.
Challenging the same, present appeal has been filed.
9.2. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant :9.2.1. Mr.S.Kanagaraj, the learned counsel for Mr.R.Alagumani and Ms.G.Prabhahari, the learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the appellants jointly made the following submissions:-
9.2.2. According to the prosecution, P.W.1 received a secret information and proceeded further and made a search and recovery of the contraband. In the said circumstances, there was no strict compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act.
9.2.3. There was contradictions relating to the place of the occurrence between the evidence of witnesses.
9.2.4. The contraband was belatedly produced before the Court without any explanation.
9.2.5. According to the prosecution, they recovered two gunny bags mixed. But, they produced only one bag before the Court and there was no explanation in this aspect.
9.2.6. There was no examination of the independent witnesses.
9.2.7. As per the prosecution, 50 grams of sample was taken on the spot. But, in the Chemical Analysis Report, it was mentioned as ’43 grams’ and hence, it creates doubt over the samples produced before the Court and the sample taken in the place of occurrence.
9.2.8. Apart from that, the appellants are ladies and also aged about more than 63 years. Therefore, they prayed for the reduction of sentence by converting the conviction from the Section 8(c) r/w 20(2)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, to 8(c) r/w 20(2)(ii)(b) of the NDPS.
9.3. Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor:-
9.3.1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the compliance of section 42 of the Act was clearly deposed by P.W.1 and P.W.3. The relevant document was also marked under Ex.P.1. It proves the strict compliance under Section 42 of the Act. When the examination of the witness took place after a number of years from the date of recovery, some minor discrepancies would naturally occur.
9.3.2. He further submitted that the difference in the weight of
sample is immaterial when the seal of sample was intact and also the contraband was recovered on 04.05.2016 and it was entrusted in the lab on 08.05.2016. Therefore, due to the passage of time, the weight might have reduced.
9.3.3. He further submitted that in the Lab, the measurement was taken by using a sophisticated Machine or an Advanced Machine. But, in the spot, they took the measurement in the ordinary scale. Therefore, there may be subtle difference and hence, it is immaterial.
9.3.4. He further submitted that the learned trial Judge, correctly relied the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Slyammal Ghosh Vs, State of West Bengal reported in 2012 7 SCC 646. Therefore, in all aspects, the prosecution clearly proved the case and hence, he prayed for dismissal of appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge.
10. The brief facts, submission of the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in Crl.A.(MD).Nos.588 of 2023:
10.1. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-
10.1.1. P.W.2 received the secret information on 08.12.2021, about the illegal possession of huge quantity of Ganja under a bush situated at Pandikovil, Vallinagar, Allinagaram, Theni District. He reduced it in writting and informed the same to the superior/P.W.3. P.W.3 received the information and granted permission to conduct search. Hence, P.W.1, P.W.2 and other police officers reached the occurrence place and the informant identified three persons. Thereafter, P.W.1, P.W.2 and other police officers attempted to nab the accused. However, one of the accused (A1)/respondent in Crl.A(MD)No.939 of 2024 fled away from the scene of occurrence and the remaining accused/appellants in Crl.A(MD)No.588 of 2023 were caught by the police officers. P.W.2 introduced themselves as police officers and the accused 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 accused consented to conduct the search by the officer and hence, P.W.2 conducted search and found 21 kg of ganja in a gunny bag. Thereafter, they recovered the contraband after following the proceedure and took samples from the gunny bag and properly sealed the same. Thereafter, the arrested accused also gave a confession and the same was recorded. After that, P.W.2 handed over the accused along with contraband and submitted a detailed report under Section 57 of NDPS Act, to P.W.3. P.W. 3 produced the nabbed accused along with contraband, after FIR was registered in Crime No.621 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act before the jurisdictional magistrate. After completing all the formalities, the learned Judicial Magistrate remanded the appellants. Thereafter, P.W.3 conducted investigation and P.W.4 continued the investigation and filed final report before the Principal Special Court for EC & NDPS Act cases, Madurai, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.403 of 2022.
10.1.2. Since A1 in C.C.No.403 of 2022 was absconding, the trial was commenced as against the remaining accused/appellants in Crl.A(MD)No.588 of 2023.
10.1.3. 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. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial.
10.1.4. The prosecution, to prove the case examined P.W.1 to P.W.4
and exhibited 14 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P14 and marked 2 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.2. The learned trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., proceedings by putting the incriminating evidence available from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and documents. The accused denied the same as false and the case was posted for examination of the witnesses on the side of the appellants. On the side of the appellants, no witness was examined and no document was marked.
10.1.5. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, and sentenced them to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 6 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act.
10.1.6. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge, the appellants filed the said Crl.A(MD)No.588 of 2023.
10. 2.Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in
Crl.A.(MD).No.588 of 2023:
10.2.1.There was total non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Ex.P8 produced only at the time of the chief examination of P.W.2 and the same has been marked with objection for the reason that the same reached the Court belatedly.
10.2.2.There was a delay in producing the contraband before the Special Court and hence, there was chance of manipulation and hence, the learned counsel seeks acquittal.
10.2.3.The presence of the crime number in the arrest memo and recovery mahazar before the registration of the case would create a doubt over the recovery in the occurrence place.
10.2.4.The contraband and samples were produced before the Special Court with considerable delay and hence, serious doubt arises in taking of sample at the occurrence place.
10.2.5.The recovered contraband, namely, Ganja did not contain flowering or fruiting tops and hence, conviction under Section 20(b)(ii) (c) of the NDPS Act is not legally maintainable and hence, he seeks acquittal.
10. 3.Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in
Crl.A.(MD).No.588 of 2023:
10.3.1.P.W.2 received the information and recorded in general diary and reduced the same in writing and submitted to P.W.3. The same is clear from Ex.P.8. Therefore, there is no question of non-compliance.
10.3.2. Presence of the crime number is not material when there was no question raised by the defence counsel about the presence of the crime number either in the occurrence place or at the time of producing the same before the learned trial Judge at the time of remand, during cross examination. Only to identify the property the crime number is mentioned after seizure. The contraband was produced with seal intact and hence, there is no question of tampering. The chemical analysis report clearly stated that the presence of cannabinoid and hence, there is no question of absence of flowering or fruiting tops. Therefore, he seeks to confirm the conviction.
11. The brief facts, submission of the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in Crl.A.(MD).No724 of 2023:
11.1.The brief facts of the case are as follows:
11.1.1. On 17.11.2016, at 12.30 p.m, when P.W.2 was working as
Sub-Inspector of Police, Cumbum North P.S.at Theni, NIB-CID, Theni Wing, he received a secret information from the informer about the appellant’s illegal possession of ganja Near Naga Kaliamman Temple, Kombai Road, Theni. Thereafter, P.W.2 reduced the same in writing under Ex.P.6 and informed the same to his Immediate Superior P.W.4 Inspector of Police, NIB-CID, Theni. Thereafter, at about 01.00 p.m, P.W.2 along with other police officials went to the spot with necessary equipment and mounted surveillance. At that time, they found an Auto bearing Reg.No.TN-60-S-6026, which was coming from North to South direction and the informant identified the appellant and left from the place. Thereafter, P.W.2 and other police officials intercepted the Auto and found two persons in that Auto. P.W.2 and other police officials introduced themselves as police officers 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 the search by the officer himself and hence, P.W.2 conducted search and found 21 kg of Ganja in a white coloured bag in the backside seat of the Auto. Thereafter, P.W.2 recovered the contraband after following the proceedure and took the samples S1 and S2 (each 50 grams) and properly sealed the same. Thereafter, P.W.2 arrested the appellants. The appellants also gave a confession and the same was also recorded. The accused were brought to the police station and registered an FIR in Crime No.636 of 2016 for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act. After that, P.W.2 handed over the accused along with contraband and a detailed report under Section 57 of NDPS Act to PW3. P.W.3 produced the accused along with contraband before the Learned Judicial Magistrate and after completing all the formalities, the learned Judicial Magistrate remanded the appellant. Thereafter, P.W.3 conducted investigation and he entrusted the investigation with PW4 and PW4 continued the investigation and filed the final report before the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.192 of 2017.
11.1.2. The learned trial Judge issued summons to the accused and on their appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and framed the necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial.
11.1.3. The prosecution, to prove the case examined P.W.1 to P.W. 5, exhibited 13 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P13 and marked 4 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.4. The learned trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., proceedings by putting the incriminating evidence available from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and documents. The accused denied the same as false and the case was posted for examination of the witnesses on the side of the appellants. On the side of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was let in.
11.1.4. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, and sentenced them to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 1 year Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Challenging the same, present appeal has been filed.
11.2. The learned counsel for the appellants made the following submissions:-
11.2.1. According to the prosecution, one Mr.Bharathan recorded the information but he was not examined and in Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7, there is no mentioning of name of the accused. Therefore, there is no compliance of Section 42 of the Act
11.2.2. There was no explanation for the mentioning of different crime number in the material object namely, MO.4 and the same creates doubt.
11.2.3.P.W.5, Investigating Officer stated in the final report that 18 white coloured gunny bags of ganja were recovered. Therefore, there is suspicion over the recovery. In the said circumstances, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he seeks acquittal.
11.3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor made the following submissions:-
11.3.1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on instructions and upon perusal of the records would submit that it is the specific case of P.W.2 that he received a secret information on 17.11.2016, at 12.30 p.m, and made an entry in the General Diary. Further, he sent the said information to his Immediate Superior namely, P.W.4 and the same was marked as Ex.P.6 and he also acknowledged the same and that was also marked as Ex.P.7. Hence, compliance under Section 42 of the Act was clearly proved.
11.3.2. The conviction under Section 8(C) r/w 20(2)(ii)(C) of the NDPS is maintainable when the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.1 are cogent and trustworthy in respect of the recovery of the contraband in the Auto, in which the convicted appellants were the occupants. He also submitted that there is no bar to convict the appellants under Section 8(C) r/w 20(2)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, and the same is an independent provision.
Hence, he prayed to dismiss the appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge.
12. The brief facts, submission of the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in Crl.A.(MD).Nos.773 & 953 of 2023 and 265 of 2024:
12. 1.The brief facts of the case are as follows:
12.1. 1.When P.W.1 was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, NIB CID, Theni, on 16.06.2020, at 06.00 am, he received a secret information from his informant in person about the appellants’ illegal possession and transportation of 23 kg of ganja near new By-Pass Road Junction, Kattupallivasal Road, Cumbum, Theni District. He recorded the said information in the General Diary and reduced it in writting under Ex.P.1 and informed the same to his Immediate Superior, namly, Inspector of Police Cumbum Police Station (North), Theni, Theni District, and got permission. Thereafter, at 06.30 am, P.W.1 & P.W.2 and other police officers went to the spot with necessary instruments along with the informant and mounted surveillance. At about 07.00 a.m, they intercepted a TATA Indica car bearing Reg.No.TN-60-E-2841 and a bike bearing Reg.No.TN-60-V-0419 , which were proceeding from North to South and the informant identified the appellants. P.W.1 and P.W.2 found that four persons were present in the car including a woman and two persons in the two wheeler. When P.W.1 and P.W.2 tried to nab them, one person fled away from the scene of occurrence. However, they caught of the remaining accused and introduced themselves as police officers 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 and hence, P.W.1 conducted search in the car in the presence of P.W.2 and other police officers. He found ganja in two white coloured fertiliser sacks in the dicky of the car and took the weight of entire contraband and drew the samples S1 and S2 from the said bag and properly sealed the same. He also properly sealed the remaining contraband. Thereafter, he arrested the appellants. The appellants also gave confessions and the same were recorded by P.W.1 and he brought the accused to the police station along with the entire contraband and sample and registered a case in Crime No.42 of 2020 for the offence under Sections 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, and 269 of IPC and prepared a detailed report under Section 57 of NDPS Act. Following the same, P.W.1 entrusted the custody of the accused to P.W.3 along with the contraband, sample and report under Section 57 of the Act. The Inspector of Police produced the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate, along with the recovered contraband and samples taken from the said contraband on 20.07.2020 and requested to remand them. After completing all the formalities, the learned Judicial Magistrate remanded the appellants in judicial custody. Thereafter, P.W.3 conducted investigation and P.W.3 continued the investigation and the case has been transferred to NIB-CID Police, and P.W.6, P.W.7 conducted investigation and P.W.7 filed the final report before the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.308 of 2020.
12.1.2. The learned trial Judge issued summons to the accused and on their appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and framed the necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial.
12.1.3. The prosecution, to prove the case examined P.W.1 to P.W.7, exhibited 24 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24 and marked 4 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.4. The learned trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., proceedings by putting the incriminating evidence available from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and documents. The accused denied the same as false and the case was posted for examination of the witnesses on the side of the appellants. On the side of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was let in.
12.1.4. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the appellants from the charges under Sections 25 & 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 269 of IPC and convicted them for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, and sentenced them to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 1 year Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Challenging the same, present appeal has been filed.
12.2 . The learned counsel for the appellants made the following submissions:-
12.2.1. According to the prosecution, P.W.1 received a secret information and proceeded further and made a search and recovery of the contraband. But, P.W.5 admitted that he has not received any written communication and therefore, there was no strict compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act.
12.2.2. There was contradictions relating to the place of the occurrence between the evidence of witnesses.
12.2.3. The contraband was belatedly produced before the Court without any explanation.
12.2.4. According to the prosecution, the contraband was recovered from two gunny bags containing 12 kg in one bag and 11 kg in another bag, and were mixed together each other. But, they produced only one bag before the Court and there is no explanation for nonproduction of another bag.
12.2.5. There was no examination of the independent witnesses.
12.2.6. P.W.4 admitted that a detailed report under Section 57 of the Act is not submitted to him and Ex.P.24 was not filed along with the final report. Therefore, there was suspicion over the compliance of Section 57 of the Act.
12.2.7. According to the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6, the occurrence took place during the covid period and hence, number of check posts were in place and therefore, there was no possibility of recovery of contraband from the car.
12.2.8. The learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused under
Sections 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act and whileso, conviction under Section 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, is not legally maintainable. Further, the learned trial Judge has committed error in convicting A1 to A4 under Section 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, after acquitting A5 to A7.
12.2.9. Considering the age of the appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.953 of 2023 and being a lady there is no evidence to prove her conscious possession and the learned counsel seeks to reduce the sentence by altering the conviction under Section 8(C) r/w 20(2)(ii)(B) of the NDPS. They relied on 2001 (1) MWN (Crl) 41, 2020 9 SCC 202, 2017 15 SCC
684 and un-reported judgment of this Court, in Crl.A.No.90 of 2012 and Crl.A.No.70 of 2016.
12.3. The submission of the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor:-
12.3.1. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 clearly deposed about the compliance of Section 42 of the Act and also Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 were marked to prove the compliance. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is liable to be rejected.
12.3.2. The conviction under Section 8(C) r/w 20(2)(ii)(C) of the NDPS is maintainable even after the acquittal under Section 25, 29(1) of the NDPS Act when the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are cogent and trustworthy in respect of the recovery of the contraband in the car, in which convicted appellants were the occupants. He also submitted that there is no bar to convict the appellants under Section 8(C) r/w 20(2)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act, as the same is substantive provision.
12.3.3. The non-production of one of the bag is not a material lapse on the part of the prosecution when the entire contraband was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate at the time of the remand and before the trial Court.
12.3.4. The compliance of section 57 of the Act was proved through the document under Ex.P.24 and therefore, submission of noncompliance of Section 57 of the Act, is not correct. Even otherwise as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2001 (3) SCC 28, compliance of provision under Section 57 of the Act, is directory and the same would not vitiate the prosecution case when the recovered contraband and FIR were sent to the Immediate Superior immediately.
12.3.5. The non-examination of the independent witness is immaterial when P.W.1 and P.W.2’s evidence are cogent and trustworthy.
12.3.6. The contraband was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate on the date of the remand. Subsequently, due to the corona lockdown, the contraband was kept in the custody of the police and produced after the lifting of the corona lockdown and hence, there is no intentional delay. A1 to A4 are the occupants of the car and they were found in possession of 23 kg of ganja in 2 bags and hence, the prosecution proved the conscious possession. Therefore, their conviction under Section 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act, is legally maintainable. In all aspects, the prosecution clearly proved the case and hence, he prayed for dismissal of appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge.
13.The brief facts, submission of the appellants and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor in Crl.A.(MD).No.322 of 2023:
13.1.The brief facts of the case are as follows:
13.1.1 According to the prosecution, on 08.09.2015 at about 08.30 am., P.W.2 received secret information regarding the smuggling of Ganja. He recorded the said information under Ex.P1, and informed the same to his superior officer, obtained permission and went to the occurrence place along with his team and the informer. The informer identified the accused who was coming along with the white colour plastic gunny bag. Thereafter, P.W.2 caught the appellant and made a search on him under
Ex.P1/Search Consent Letter and recovered the contraband of 25 Kgs of Ganja in the white colour plastic Gunny Bag and took the sample following the procedure stated under the NDPS Act. Thereafter, he arrested the accused and brought him to the Station and registered the case and produced the accused for remand along with the contraband before the learned Judicial Magistrate and the investigation was continued by the investigating officer and he filed the final report after obtaining the chemical analysis report and examining number of witnesses. The learned trial Judge has taken the same on file in C.C.No.
59 of 2016.
13.1.2. After appearance of the accused, copies of records were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Judge, on perusal of records and on hearing both sides and being satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the accused/appellant, framed charges under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act 1985 and the same was read over and explained to him and on being questioned, the accused/appellant denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood
trial.
13.1.3.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined 3 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.3, exhibited 10 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 and marked three material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.3. When the accused was examined under Section 313(1) (b) of Cr.P.C., by putting incriminating materials available against him, he denied the evidence as false and further stated that a false case was foisted against him. The accused neither produced any documents nor examined any witness on
his side.
13.1.4.The learned Trial Judge, considering the materials and circumstances found that accused in C.C.No.59 of 2016 was guilty under section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and passed the conviction and sentence against the appellant as stated above.
Challenging the same the present appeal came to be filed.

13.2.The learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:
13.2.1.The learned counsel for the appellant has filed a detailed written argument and would submit that there was no strict compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there was discrepancy relating to the receipt of the information between the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3.
13.2.2.He would further submit that there are discrepancies relating to the receipt of the information from the informant between the evidence of P.W.2 and the contents of Ex.P4. P.W.2 recorded the information in the General Diary and he had not recorded the information in a separate paper and he has not produced the CD (Case Diary) file either before the Court or sent it to the superior officer.
13.2.3.The secret information did not contain the time of the illegal transportation of the contraband by the appellant. In view of the above circumstances, there was no strict compliance of section 42 of the NDPS Act.
13.2.4.As per the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.2 has not made the statement about the compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, 1985. There are material discrepancies relating to Ex.P2/Seizure Mahazar and Ex.P7/Form 91 relating to the enclosure cover of the material object. Therefore, there is a suspicion relating to drawing of samples at the place of occurrence.
13.2.5.Even though, in the occurrence place number of private individuals were available, non examination of the private individual vitiates the recovery.
13.2.6.There was total non compliance of Section 52(A) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Simarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2024) 14 SCC 222 and Mohd. Khalid v. State of Telangana reported in (2024) 5
SCC 393 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Mareeswaran vs. The Inspector of Police reported in 2023 (2) L.W. Crl. 893and hence the appellant is entitled for acquittal.
13.2.7.There was no compliance of Section 55 of the NDPS Act,
1985. There was a delay of 48 days in sending the sample to the FSL. In Ex.P2, S1 and S2, namely, the samples weight was mentioned as 25 grams each and in the FSL report/Ex.P10 the weight of the sample was stated as 23 grams and 20 grams. Therefore, there is a doubt over the recovered samples sent to the FSL office and hence, he seeks benefit of doubt to be given to the accused.
13.2.8.Further, he would submit that all the mahazar witnesses, namely, police officers were not examined and hence, adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the prosecution.
13.2.9.In the FSL report, there was no specific mentioning about the presence of the tetrahydrocannabinol and in the absence of specific percentage of the tetrahydrocannabinol, the conviction under Section 22 (b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 treating the contraband as commercial quantity is not legally maintainable, for which, he relied upon number of judgments of various Courts.
13.3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor made the following submissions:
13.3.1.The discrepancy whether the information received either through phone or in person is immaterial and will not affect the receipt of the information and recording of the information when it was duly intimated to the superior officer and the superior officer also acknowledged the same. When all the documents reached the Court at the time of remand of the accused without any delay, the minor discrepancies relating to the evidence of the witnesses is not a ground to hold that the prosecution failed to prove the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The evidence of P.W.2 is cogent relating to the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and the corresponding document, Ex.P4 also was marked and produced before the Court and when the genuineness of the document is also not disputed, learned trial Judge has correctly held that there was compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
13.3.2.He would further submit that it is not necessary to produce the General Diary when Ex.P4 is produced to prove strict compliance of the procedure stated in Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
13.3.3.He further submitted that the non-compliance of Section 52 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is not fatal, when the entire contraband was produced before the Court and marked as material objects and there was no dispute over the marking of remaining Ganja M.O.3 as a material object and the same was identified by the occurrence witnesses.
13.3.4.This Court in Mareeswaran vs. The Inspector of Police reported in 2023 (2) L.W. Crl. 893 made a detailed consideration of Section 52(A) of the NDPS Act and held that when the entire contraband was produced, the compliance under Section 52 of the NDPS Act, 1985, is not necessary and hence, he seeks to reject the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant.
13.3.5.The non examination of the independent witness is not material when the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are cogent and trustworthy and reliable one. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukesh Singh Vs. State (Narcotic Branch, Delhi) reported in (2020) 10 SCC 120 case has held that non examination of the independent witness is not a matter to disbelieve the evidence of the police witnesses, when there was no legal infirmity in their evidence.
13.3.6.As far as the last submission relating to compliance of Sections 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act, 1985, is concerned, the same is not material. But in this case, the relevant documents were marked to prove the compliance of Sections 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Due to the long interval between the incident and the examination of the witnesses, the witnesses made some statement contrary to the documents and the same is not a ground to disbelieve the same and when the police officers had handled number of cases and other events in their daily law and order duty. Hence, he seeks for the confirmation of the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below.
13.3.7.The strange argument made by the counsel relating to the absence of the tetrahydrocannabinol in the chemical analysis report is misconceived one, especially when the NDPS Act, only required the presence of cannabis. The same was found in the FSL report. Therefore, the said contention can not be accepted.
14.1 The brief facts, submission of the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in Crl.A.(MD).No.269 and 558 of 2023:
14.1.The brief facts of the case are as follows:
14.1.1. According to the prosecution, on 11.04.2013 at 10.30 a.m,
P.W.3 received the secret information about the illegal transportation of Ganja by the accused. He recorded the said information under Ex.P4, in the General Diary and informed the same to his superior and obtained the permission and went to the occurrence place along with the informer. The informer identified auto bearing Registration No.TN 58 W 5600 and they intercepted the auto and enquired them and they told their names and address. Thereafter, police team rounded the appellants and made a search on them under Ex.P1/Search intimation Letter and recovered the contraband of 25 Kgs of Ganja in two gunny bags and took the sample following the procedure stated in the NDPS Act. Thereafter, they arrested the accused and produced them before the Station and registered the case and produced the accused along with the contraband before the learned Judicial Magistrate and the investigation was continued by investigation officer and he filed the final report after obtaining the chemical analysis report and also examined number of witnesses. The learned trial Judge has taken the same on file in C.C.No.228 of 2013.
14.1.2. After appearance of the accused, copies of records were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Judge, on perusal of records and on hearing both sides and being satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the accused/appellants, framed charges under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act 1985 and the same was read over and explained to them and on being questioned, the accused/appellants denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and
stood for trial.
14.1.3.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined 3 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and exhibited 11 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 and marked four material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.4.
14.1.4.When the accused was examined under Section 313(1) (b) of Cr.P.C., with regard to incriminating aspects against them, they denied the evidence as false and further stated that a false case was foisted against them. The accused neither produced any document nor examined any witnesses.
14.1.5.The learned Trial Judge, considering the materials and circumstances found that accused in C.C.No.228 of 2013 was guilty and passed the conviction and sentence as against the appellants as stated above.
14.2.The learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:
14.2.1.There was total non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Ex.P5 was in printed form and therefore, there was doubt over its preparation as alleged by the prosecution and the immediate Superior
Officer was not examined. Therefore, he seeks acquittal.
14.2.2.The recovered contraband, namely, Ganja did not contain flowering or fruiting tops and hence, conviction under Section 20(b)(ii) (c) of the NDPS Act is not legally maintainable and hence, he seeks acquittal. 
14.3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor made the following submissions:
14.3.1.The Non-examination of the immediate Superior is not fatal when Ex.P5 was marked and nothing elicited to discord the same during the examination of P.W.3 and the minor discrepancies between the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 about the compliance is not a ground to disbelieve the recovery. Therefore, he seeks to confirm the conviction and sentence.
15. Further argument about recovered contraband without flowering or fruiting tops would come under the defintion of the ganja under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act:
Earlier this court passed the following order:-
“When the matter was taken up for hearing on
06.06.2025, this Court passed the following order :-
“The case is posted to clarify whether the contraband without ‘flowering tops’ would come under the definition of ganja under Section 2(iii) (b) of NDPS Act under the caption ‘for clarification’.
2.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the above aspect is question of fact and law and the same has not been raised before the trial Court, But, on going through the records, he fairly submitted that the prosecution documents have not revealed about the reference of ‘flowering tops’. But, there is reference that the recovered contraband was found with
“fjph;fSld; Toa rpwpa ,iyfs;” and the said description denotes flowering tops and he seeks time to address the issue in detail.
3.The said issue has its own significance and any decision is likely to have its impact on the pending huge number of cases in Tamil Nadu. Therefore, this Court inclines to give time to address the issue in order to provide opportunity to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
4.Accordingly, the case is adjourned to
27.06.2025 finally. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is hereby directed to get instruction in addition to the argument on the above legal aspects:-
1. Date of the arrest of each accused and their period of incarceration.
2.Relevant portion of the recovery mahazar and the chemical analysis report.
4.It is open to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to get expert’s opinion about the percentage of the offending Narcotic Drug namely, ‘TNC’ in the recovered contraband.
5.Post the matter finally on 27.06.2025.”
2. In continuation of hearing dated 06.06.2025, this case is taken up for hearing today and this Court asked about the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to continue the rehearing as per decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Anil Rai Vs State of Bihar reported in (2001) 7 SCC 318, on the legal issue whether the contraband without flowering tops would come under the definition of ganja under Section 2(iii)(b) of NDPS Act and they have consented to hear the appeal further. After getting their willingness, this Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the appellant.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor made a detailed submission by producing the “manual for use by the National Drug Analysis Laboratories” and producing the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 2 SCC 26, and the judgment of this Court reported in CDJ 2010 MHC
2446 (Ramesh Case) and unreported judgment of this Court in Crl.OP(MD)No.18999 of 2024 that there was no reference about either flowering or fruiting tops. But, there is mentioning of ‘fjph;fs;’ and therefore, the same includes flowering and fruiting tops. Hence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the recovered ganja with leaves, seeds, “fjph;fs;” would come under the definition of ganja. He also submitted that as per Section 2(iii)(c) of NDPS Act, “any mixture other than the flowering tops also would come under the definition of ganja”.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant also cited the various Hon’ble High Courts and this Court and seeks this Court to hold that from the recovered ganja, the luxuriant leaves, stalk, seeds have to be excluded and conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act may be converted into conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and seeks to reduce the sentence of imprisonment.
5. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for both side at length, this Court reserved the matters for judgment.”
15A. Points for determination in all appeals:
i) Whether the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants vide impugned judgments is maintainable or not ?
ii) Whether the case of the appellants that his case is come under
the Section 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act or not? If so what shall be the proportionate punishments?
16. Discussion on the compliance of the Section 42 of the NDPS
Act:
16.1. Section 41(1) of the NDPS Act empowers the jurisdictional learned Judicial Magistrate to issue warrant for arrest of person or for the search of any building, conveyance or place to the officers, who come under the purview of the NDPS Act, who have reason to believe any narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance or controlled substance is illegally acquired or concealed.
16.2. Section 41(2) of the Act empowers the searching officer, who has received the information to search and arrest for the illegal possession, concealment, transportation as mentioned in the NDPS Act relating to the narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance or controlled substance.
16.3. Section 42 of the Act following Section 41 of the Act mandates to follow certain procedures in the case of the arrest and seizure on the basis of the information. The object of the procedure enumerated under Section 42 of the Act either to arrest or search the person and recover the contraband is to safeguard the constitutional right envisaged in the Constitution of India for the reason that the same can be made without obtaining any warrant from the Court.
16.4. As per the Section 42 of the Act, if the empowered officer has received the secret information about the illegal possession, transportation of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance or controlled substance, the empowered officer is duty bound to reduce the said information in writing and shall send the same to his immediate superior before proceeding further to conduct search, nab the accused and recover contraband. 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 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 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.”
16.5. By applying the above principle, this Court proceeds to discuss about the compliance of the Section 42 on the facts of each appeal:
16.6. Discussion on the compliance of the Section 42 in Crl.A.
(MD).No.212 of 2020:-
16.6.1. In Crl.A.(MD).No.212 of 2020, P.W.2 received the secret information about the illegal possession of the contraband, and he reduced the same in writing. He reported the said information to his Immediate Superior. The Immediate Superior also acknowledged the same. To prove the same, the prosecution has produced Ex.P.6. Extract of Ex.P6 is as follows:
16.6.2. From the perusal of Ex.P.6 and appreciation of evidence of
P.W.2, this Court finds there is compliance of mandatory requirements of Section 42 of the Act. The learned counsel for the appellant heavily relied on the discrepancies relating to the recording of information and reducing it in writing and reporting the said reduced information in writing to his superior officer to disbelieve the case of the prosecution about the compliance of the procedure stated in Section 42 of the Act.

The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the Immediate Superior officer who is said to have received the information has not deposed about the receipt of the information from the searching officer. When the document Ex.P.6 is produced and marked without objection and the same was proved through the examination of author of the document and the signature of the officer found in the document is also not disputed and the same reached the Court within reasonable time, the non-examination of the Immediate Superior to depose about the said acknowledgment of information is not a material circumstance to disbelieve the evidence of PW2 by discarding Ex.P6.
16.6.3. The acknowledgment of information submitted by the searching officer to the immediate superior is a material circumstance and the same has to be decided on the fact of each case. The fact i.e., the acknowledgment of information submitted by the searching officer should be proved either through marking of document or examining the witnesses. In this case, Ex.P.6 was produced to prove the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act and the same was not objected by the defence at the time of marking. Ex. P6 contains four material things:-
a. The receipt of information by the P.W. 2
b. he recorded the same in the general diary
c. he has reduced the same into writing and informed to the
immediate superior and
d. The immediate superior also acknowledged the same.
16.6.4. The said Ex. P6 was prepared while discharging the official duty of the searching officer and hence presumption under Section 114 (e) of the Evidence Act could be drawn.
16.6.5.When the evidence of PW2 and Ex P6 sufficiently proved
the factum of the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act it is not necessary to prove the same fact by examining the immediate superior. Therefore, non-examination of the immediate superior can not in any way affect the prosecution case of compliance of requirement of Section 42 of NDPS Act.
16.6.6.The minor discrepancies in the evidence of the P.W.2 and P.W.3 about compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act without affecting the core issue of the prosecution case of receipt of information, are not grounds to disbelieve the compliance. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the principle that unless the discrepancies go to the root of the prosecution version, the same is not a ground to disbelieve the testimony of the witness. Apart from that, police officers had been examined after a lapse of several months and we cannot expect them to keep everything vivid in their memory. Each witness would depose in his own way on his perception of the occurrence. One may say ‘a’ the other may say ‘A’. Therefore, sitting in the armchair, this Court cannot expect the witness to depose before the Court with photographic memory. Therefore, this Court finds that the prosecution clearly established the strict compliance of Section 42 of the Act, on the basis of the evidence of
P.W.2 & Ex.P.6. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has not complied with the requirement of Section 42 of the Act.
16.7. Discussion on the compliance of the Section 42 in Crl.A.
(MD).No.172 of 2023:-
16.7.1 In Crl.A.(MD).No.172 of 2023., P.W.1 received the secret information on 21.08.2019, at 10.00 a.m, about the illegal possession of the contraband with the appellant and he made an entry in the General Diary and reducing it in writting. He clearly deposed about the receipt of information and entry in the General Diary and reduced it in writing under Ex.P.1. Ex.P.1 also has been duly communicated to P.W.3, the
Immediate Superior. The said Ex.P.1 is extracted hereunder:-

16.7.2. P.W.3, the Immediate Superior, also deposed about the receipt of information. This Court perused Ex.P.1 along with the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3. The considered opinion of this Court is that there is meticulous compliance under Section 42 of the Act. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no compliance under Section 42 of the Act cannot be accepted and this Court holds that prosecution proved the complaince of Section 42 of the Act through oral and documentary evidence.
16.8 Discussion on the compliance of the Section 42 in Crl.A.
(MD).No.293 of 2021:-
16.8.1. In this case, P.W.1 received the secret information on 05.06.2019 at 04.00 p.m and he recorded the same in General Diary and reduced it in writing under Ex.P.1 and informed P.W3. P.W.3 acknowledged the same and deposed that he received the information and directed to proceed for search. The said evidence is cogent and trustworthy and the content of Ex.P.1 is as follows:-
16.8.2. Even though the learned counsel for the appellants raised some suspicions about Ex.P.1 on the ground that the same was produced belatedly, this Court is not inclined to accept the same without any material to show that the same was concocted when the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W.2 is clear and when there is no reason to suspect the genuiness of the contemporaneous document containing the signature of the appellant namely, Ex.P.3 at the relevant point of time of recovery i.e., 05.06.2019, at 04.00 pm. This Court is unable to accept the case of the learned

counsel for the appellant that there are suspicion over Ex.P.1. Therefore, this Court finds compliance of Section 42 of the Act by the investigating agency.
16.8.3.In all cases, information reduced in writing and the said document sent to the immediate superior and the same has been produced and each corresponding document contains four material things:
a. The receipt of information by the P.W. 2
b. he recorded the same in the general diary
c. he has reduced the same into writing and informed
to the immediate superior and
d. The immediate superior also acknowledged the
same.
16.8.4.Therefore, this Court declines to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that prosecution has not complied with the requirement of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985 without proof of manipulation of the above documents.
16.9 Discussion on the compliance of the Section 42 in Crl.A.
(MD).No.331 of 2023:-
16.9.1 In Crl.A.(MD).No.331 of 202, P.W.1 received the secret information on 05.06.2019 at 04.00 p.m and he recorded the same in
General Diary and reduced it in writing under Ex.P.1 and informed P.W3. P.W.3 acknowledged the same and deposed that he received the information and directed to proceed for search. The said evidence is cogent and trustworthy and the content of Ex.P.1 is as follows:-
16.9.2. Even though the learned counsel for the appellants raised some suspicion about genuiness of Ex.P.2 on the ground that the same was produced belatedly, this Court is not inclined to accept the same without any material to show that the same was concocted when the

evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 is clear and when there is no reason to suspect the genuiness of the contemporaneous document containing the signature of the appellant namely, Ex.P.2 at the relevant point of time of recovery i.e., 20.03.2021 at 09.30 am. This Court is unable to accept the case of the learned counsel for the appellant that there are suspicion over Ex.P.2. Therefore, this Court finds compliance of Section 42 of the Act.
16.10. Discussion on the compliance of the Section 42 in Crl.A.
(MD).No.396,397,399,400 of 2023:-
In Crl.A.(MD).No. 396, 397, 399, 400 of 2023, P.W.2 clearly deposed about the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. According to P.W.2, he received the secret information and he reduced it in writing and the same was forwarded to his superior/P.W.3. P.W.3 also clearly deposed about the receipt of the said information. The proper endorsement is also available in Ex.P.4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Ex.P.4 served upon the appellants does not contain any endorsement made by P.W.3. Therefore, the said document was concocted one. But, this Court is unable to accept the said argument on the ground that the document is available before the Court with endorsement of P.W.3 to conduct the raid. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that Section 42 was not complied with cannot be accepted. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 cogently deposed about the compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act and contemporaneous document/Ex.P.4 affirmed the said fact. Therefore, the prosecution clearly proved the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act.
16.11.Discussion on the compliance of the Section 42 in Crl.A.
(MD).No. 507 of 2023:-
In Crl.A.(MD).No. 507 of 2023, P.W.1 received the secret information on 01.12.2021, at 09.00 a.m, about the illegal transportation of contraband in the car bearing Reg.No.TN-65-Q-1507. He recorded the said information in the General Diary and reduced it in writting and sent the same to his immediate superior under Ex.P.1. Ex.P.1 clearly mentions about the receipt of information and entry in the General Diary and reduced it in writing under Ex.P.1 and the same was also duly communicated to P.W.3, Immediate Superior and P.W.3 also acknowledged the same with specific endorsement. P.W.3, Immediate Superior has also deposed about the receipt of information. This Court perused Ex.P.1 along with the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3. The considered opinion of this Court is that there is scrupulous compliance under Section 42 of the Act. The said Ex.P.1 is extracted hereunder:-

16.11.2. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no compliance under Section 42 of the Act is misconceived one. This Court concurs with the finding of the Learned Trial Judge that there was strict compliance under Section 42 of the Act.
16.12.Discussion on the compliance of the Section 42 in Crl.A.
(MD).No. 534 of 2022:-
In Crl.A.(MD).No. 534 of 2022, P.W.2 received the secret information on 29.02.2020, at 10.00 a.m, about the illegal transportation of contraband and he recorded the same in General Diary and reduced it in writing under Ex.P.5 and informed to P.W.3, Immediate Superior and P.W.3 also acknowledged the same with specific endorsement. P.W.3, has also deposed about the receipt of information. This Court perused Ex.P.5 along with the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. The considered opinion of this Court is that there is scrupulous compliance under Section 42 of the
Act. The said Ex.P.5 is extracted hereunder:-

16.12.2. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no compliance under Section 42 of the Act is misconceived one. This Court concurs with the finding of the Learned Trial Judge that there was strict compliance under Section 42 of the Act.
16.13. Discussion on the compliance of the Section 42 in Crl.A. (MD).No. 551 of 2023:-
In Crl.A.(MD).No. 551 of 2023, P.W.1 received the secret information on 07.05.2016 at about 10.00 am, about the illegal possession of the contraband by the appellants. P.W.1 reduced it in writing after making the entry in the General Diary. He also sent the information to the Immediate Superior namely, P.W.3. P.W.3 also acknowledged the same by subcribing his signature and granted permission to conduct raid. The said document was marked under Ex.P.1. The same reached the Court on the date of the recovery itself. There was no dispute over the said document. P.W.2 clearly deposed about the said facts in a cogent manner and P.W.3 also deposed about the acknowledgement of the information. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that there is non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act, is misconceived one and the same is against the facts. In this aspect, the prosecution clearly proved the compliance under Section 42 of the Act.
16.14.Discussion on the compliance of the Section 42 in Crl.A. (MD).No. 588 of 2023:-
In Crl.A.(MD).No.588 of 2023, P.W.2 received the secret information on 08.12.2021 and he recorded the same in General Diary and reduced it in writing under Ex.P.8 and informed to P.W.3. P.W.3 acknowledged the same and deposed that she received the information on 08.12.2021 at 05.00 p.m. The said evidence is cogent and trustworthy and the content of Ex.P.8 is as follows:-
…..,d;W 08.12.2021 njjp 17.00 kzpf;F my;yp efuk; fhty;epiya rhh;g[ Ma;thsh; P. KUnfrd; Mfpa ehd; epiya mYtypy; ,Ue;jnghJ vdf;F fpilj;j ufrpa jftypy; bgw;W bghpaFsk; ifyhrg;gl;oiar; nrh;e;j Kd;W egh;fs; btspa{hpypUe;J fQ;rh thq;fp te;J my;ypefuk; ghz;o nfhapy; kiyaothuk; Kl;g[jh; mUnf tpw;gidf;fhf bfhz;L tUtjhft[k; ePq;fs; clnd mq;F brd;why; mth;fis gpoj;Jtplyhk; vd;W bjhptpj;jij bghJehl;Fwpg;gpy; gjpt[ bra;J fhty; Ma;thsh; mth;fSf;F jfty; bjhptpj;njd;.
16.14.2. Even though the learned counsel for the appellants entertained a suspicion about Ex.P.8 on the ground that the same was produced belatedly, this Court is not inclined to accept the same without any material to show that the same was concocted when the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 is cogent and above suspicion. This Court is unable to accept the case of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is suspicion over Ex.P.8. The investigating agency stated that due to the inadvertance, Ex. P8 was not produced at the time of filing final report and the same was in the CD file. The explanation by the officer for belated production of Ex.P.8 is acceptable. The explanation of appellant that he was taken by the police and a false case foisted, was not disclosed by him under 313 Cr.P.C questioning and at the time of remand Moreover, this Court feels that the belated production of Ex.P.8 is not a isolated circumstance to accept the argument of the appellant that the same was concocted one. Therefore, Section 42 of the Act is strictly complied.
16.15.Discussion on the compliance of the Section 42 in Crl.A.
(MD).No. 724 of 2023:-
In Crl.A.(MD).No. 724 of 2023, P.W.2 received the secret information on 17.11.2016, at 12.30 p.m, about the appellants’ illegal possession of the contraband and he made an entry in the General Diary and reduced it in writting. He clearly deposed about the receipt of information and entry in the General Diary and reduced it in writing under Ex.P.6. Ex.P.6 also was duly communicated to P.W.4, the Immediate Superior. P.W.4, Immediate Superior, also acknowledged the same and it was marked as Ex.P.7. This Court perused Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 along with the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The considered opinion of this Court is that there is strict compliance of Section 42 of the Act. The contents of Ex.P.7 are extracted hereunder:-

16.15.2.Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that there was no compliance under Section 42 of the Act cannot be accepted.
16.16. Discussion on the compliance of the Section 42 in Crl.A.
(MD).No. 773 of 2023:-
In Crl.A.(MD).No. 773 of 2023, on 16.06.2020 at 06.00 a.m, P.W.1 received the secret information about the illegal transportation and possession of the contraband, and he reduced the same in writing. He reported the said information to his Immediate Superior. P.W.4, Immediate Superior also acknowledged the same. To prove the same, the prosecution marked Ex.P1 and P2. From the perusal of Ex.P1 and Ex.P.2. and an appreciation of evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 this Court finds that there was strict compliance of mandatory requirements of Section 42 of the Act. The learned counsel for the appellants heavily relied on the discrepancies relating to the recording of information and reducing in writing and reporting the said information reduced in writing to his superior officer to disbelieve the case of the prosecution about the compliance of the procedure stated in Section 42 of the Act. It is argued that there is a material discrepancy between the evidence of the PW4 Immediate Superior and the PW1 searching officer relating to the compliance of Section 42 of the Act. This Court finds no material discrepancies which would discredit the testimony of the witness P.W.1 and P.W.4 in this aspect.
16.16.2. When the Immediate Superior officer comes into the box and deposes about the receipt of the information, there is no further requirement about the compliance of Section 42 of the Act. The minor discrepancies in the evidence of the ‘Immediate Superior’ and the ‘Searching Officer’ which have not affected the prosecution case of receipt of information are not a grounds to disbelieve the compliance. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the principle that unless the discrepancies go to the root of the prosecution version, the same is not a ground to disbelieve the testimony of the witness. Apart from that, most of the witnesses are the police officers and examination was conducted after a lapse of several months and we cannot expect them to keep everything vivid in their memory. Each witness would depose in his own way on his perception of the occurrence. One may say ‘a’ the other may say ‘A’. Therefore, sitting in the armchair, this Court cannot expect the witness to depose before the Court with photographic memory.
16.16.3. Therefore, this Court finds that the prosecution clearly established the strict compliance of Section 42 of the Act, on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 and Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2.
16.17. Discussion on the compliance of the Section 42 of the
NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD) No. 322 of 2023:
P.W.2 received the secret information about the illegal possession of 25 kgms of ganja by the appellant. He reduced the same in writing under Ex.P4 and informed to his immediate superior, namely, P.W.3. P.W. 3 also acknowledged the said fact in his deposition about the receipt of the information. The relevant evidence of P.W.3 is as follows:
fle;j 08.09.2015-k; Njjp ehd; jpz;Lf;fy; Nghij nghUs; Ez;zwpT gphpT Ma;thsuhf gzpapy; ,Ue;j NghJ rpwg;G rhh;G Ma;thsh; nry;tghz;b mtUf;F fpilj;j jftiy ngw;W gjpt nra;J me;j efiy vdf;F mDg;gp itj;jhh;. ehd; ghh;j;Njd;. gpwF mth; rk;gt ,lk; nrd;W vjphp rpd;dj;Jiu kw;Wk; tof;F nrhj;Jf;fSld; 14.00 kzpf;F epiyak; te;Jk; 57 gphpT gb tphpthd mwpf;if jhf;fy; nra;J vd;dplk; xg;gilj;jhh;. me;j 57 mwpf;ifia ehd; ifnahg;gk; nra;Njd; gpd;dh; vjphp ePjpkd;w fhtYf;F mDg;gp
itj;Njd;.”
16.17.2. Ex.P4 also was produced to show that he reduced the same in writing. All the said documents were produced before the Court on the date of remand of the accused itself. Therefore, this Court declines to accept that there was no compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
16.17.3.The discrepancies projected by the learned counsel for the appellant between the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 is not material one to disbelieve the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
Therefore, this Court is unable to accept the said argument.
16.18. Discussion on the compliance of the Section 42 in Crl.A.
(MD).No. 269 & 558 of 2023:-
On 11.04.2013 at about 10.30 am., P.W.3 received the secret information about the illegal possession and transportation of ganja by the appellants. He recorded in the General Diary and reduced the same in writing under Ex.P4 and informed to his immediate superior and he also acknowledged and the said document was marked under Ex.P5, is extracted hereunder:
”

16.8.2. From the above, it is clear that there was a strict compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Further, all the said documents were produced before the Court on the date of remand of the accused itself. The discrepancies noted by the learned counsel for the appellants between the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 is not material one to disbelieve the compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Therefore, this Court is unable to accept the said argument. Therefore, this Court declines to accept that there was no compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
17. Discussion on the compliance of the Section 50 of the NDPS
Act:
17.1. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the searching officer made a search on the body of the accused and also the bag of the accused and the officers should have strictly complied the mandate of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The searching officer has given joint search option to all the accused. In the said alleged search memo, they had not obtained the signature of all the accused. Therefore in this case, there is no compliance of section 50 of NDPS Act.
17.2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that if the contraband was recovered either from the bag of the accused or vehicle of the accused, the compliance of the section 50 of NDPS Act need not be followed. As per the evidence of the searching officer and the member of the searching team, they gave clear option orally about the right to be searched before the Gazetted officer or learned nearby Judicial Magistrate and thereafter they reduced it into writing. Oral option itself is
compliance of section 50 of NDPS Act. Two Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court never insisted to prepare individual consent letter and the only requirement is to inform their right. When the evidence are cogent and trustworthy about the oral information of the right of the accused to be searched in the presence of the Gazetted officer or learned nearby Judicial Magistrate, failure of the searching officer to obtain signature in the joint consent letter is not a ground to hold that section 50 of NDPS Act was not complied with to seek
acquittal.
17.3. To consider the non compliance of section 50 of NDPS Act, this court likes to summarise the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court based on the Hon’ble Constitution Bench in the case of:
1. “State of Punjab Vs Baldev Singh reported in 1999 (6) SCC
172” and 2. In the case of “Ranjan Kumar Chadha Versus State of
Himachal Pradesh” reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1262”.
17.4. To consider the development of the march of law from 1999 (6) SCC 172 to 2023 SCC Online SC 1262, this court divides the case laws into three categories:-
17.4.1. The conflicting decisions between various Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court before 1999 relating to the applicability of Section 50 of NDPS Act to seizure of the contraband from the accused other than his body is settled by the Hon’ble Constitution Bench in the case of “State of Punjab Vs Baldev Singh reported in 1999 (6) SCC 172”.
17.4.2. Inspite of the specific law laid down by the Hon’ble
Constitution Bench, again the issue of applicability of section 50 of
NDPS Act was referred to the Hon’ble Three Judges Bench of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of State of H.P. Vs. Pawan Kumar reported in
2005 (4) SCC 350 to resolve the conflicting decisions and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar case has held as follows:
“11. A bag, briefcase or any such article or container, etc. can, under no circumstances, be treated as body of a human being. They are given a separate name and are identifiable as such. They cannot even remotely be treated to be part of the body of a human being. Depending upon the physical capacity of a person, he may carry any number of items like a bag, a briefcase, a suitcase, a tin box, a thaila, a jhola, a gathri, a holdall, a carton, etc. of varying size, dimension or weight. However, while carrying or moving along with them, some extra effort or energy would be required. They would have to be carried either by the hand or hung on the shoulder or back or placed on the head. In common parlance it would be said that a person is carrying a particular article, specifying the manner in which it was carried like hand, shoulder, back or head, etc. Therefore, it is not possible to include these articles within the ambit of the word “person” occurring in Section 50 of the Act.
12. An incriminating article can be kept concealed in the body or clothings or coverings in different manner or in the footwear. While making a search of such type of articles, which have been kept so concealed, it will certainly come within the ambit of the words “search of person”. One of the tests, which can be applied is, where in the process of search the human body comes into contact or shall have to be touched by the person carrying out the search, it will be search of a person. Some indication of this is provided by sub-section (4) of Section 50 of the Act, which provides that no female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female. The legislature has consciously made this provision as while conducting search of a female, her body may come in contact or may need to be touched and, therefore, it should be done only by a female. In the case of a bag, briefcase or any such article or container, etc., they would not normally move along with the body of the human being unless some extra or special effort is made. Either they have to be carried in hand or hung on the shoulder or back or placed on the head. They can be easily and in no time placed away from the body of the carrier. In order to make a search of such type of objects, the body of the carrier will not come in contact of the person conducting the search. Such objects cannot be said to be inextricably connected with the person, namely, the body of the human being. Inextricable means incapable of being disentangled or untied or forming a maze or tangle from which it is impossible to get free.”

17.4.3. The view taken in the case of Pawan Kumar has been reaffirmed once again by the Hon’ble Constitution Bench in the case of Vijaysingh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat reported in (2011) 1 SCC 609.
17.4.4. Inspite of the clear law laid down by the Hon’ble larger
Bench of Supreme Court, once again there was some cleavage in the Hon’ble two judges bench of Supreme Court with respect to the applicability of section 50 NDPS Act in the case of State of Rajasthan v.
Parmanand reported in (2014) 5 SCC 345 and Hon’ble Three Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.K.Raju @ Abdul Haque @
Jagga V. State of West Bengal reported in 2019 (1) SCC (CRI) 371. The Hon’ble Two Judges Bench of Supreme Court in the case of “Ranjan
Kumar Chadha Versus State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1262” made a detailed discussion upon referring various decisions and formulated guidelines with regard to the circumstances under which section 50 of the NDPS has no application.
17.5. From the consideration of the above precedents, the following principles have evolved:-
17.5.1. Before deciding the issue of compliance of requirement of section 50 of NDPS Act, the court should ascertain whether the recovery of the contraband is from the “body of the person”. If contraband is recovered from the body of the person, strict compliance of section 50 of NDPS Act is necessary. If the contraband was recovered from the “accused’s suitcase, premises of accused, vehicle of accused, bag or any other conveyance”, strict compliance of Section 50 of the Act is not required. Therefore, in the cases where the contraband is recovered from the “accused’s suitcase, accused premises, accused vehicle, accused bag, any other conveyance”, the plea of the accused to acquit them for non compliance of the section 50 of NDPS Act is misconceived and the same cannot be accepted.
“i) In cases involving number of accused, the prosecution had produced evidence to prove the compliance of the section 50 of NDPS Act by giving oral communication in unequivocal terms and the case of the accused that they had been deprived of their right under section 50 of NDPS Act in view of the joint consent letter cannot be accepted for the reason that the Hon’ble Constitution Bench in “Baldev Singh”, “Pawan Kumar” “Vijaysingh
Chandubha Jadeja”and latest detailed judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Ranjan Kumar Chadha” has held that there is no requirement of compliance of section 50 of NDPS Act only through writing and also permissible to convey the right orally.
(ii) In the cases where contraband was recovered from accused’s suitcase, accused’s premisses, accused’s vehicle, accused’s bag, and other conveyance, there is no necesscity to comply the requirement of section 50 of NDPS Act. “
17.5.2. In this case, the recovery was made only from the bag carried by the appellant and hence there was no need to comply the requirement of section 50 of NDPS Act. Even otherwise, on facts, the searching officer and the other members of the team clearly deposed about the oral communication about the right of option of the accused to be searched under section 50 of the NDPS Act. There is no infirmity in their evidence about the oral communication. Even though the subsequent written communication following the oral information has some defect, this court is satisfied with the compliance of the section 50 of the NDPS Act through oral communication. The said part of the evidence is in accordance with the direction given by the Hon’ble Two constitution bench of Supreme Court in the case of “Baldev Singh”, “Vijaysingh Chandubha Jadeja” and the material portion of the judgment is as follows :-
Baldev Singh Vijaysingh Chandubha Jadeja
The question whether or not the safeguards provided in section 50 were observed would have, however, to be determined by the court on the basis of the evidence led at the trial and the finding on that issue, one way or the other, would be relevant for recording an order of conviction or acquittal. Without giving an opportunity to the prosecution to establish at the trial that the provisions of section 50 and particularly, the safeguards provided in that section were complied with, it would not be advisable to cut short a criminal trial. We are of the opinion that the concept of “substantial compliance” with the requirement of section 50 of the NDPS Act introduced and read into the mandate of the said section in Joseph Fernandez and Prabha Shankar Dubey is neither borne out from the language of sub section (1) of section 50 nor it is in consonance with the dictum laid down in Baladev Singh case. Needless to add that the question whether or not the procedure prescribed has been followed and the requirement of section 50 had been met, is a matter of trial. It would neither be possible nor feasible to lay down any absolute formulate in that behalf.
17.5.3. Therefore, in each case it is duty of the court, firstly to ascertain the application of section 50 of NDPS Act and if the recovery was made from other than the body of the person, then section 50 has no application. The following is the table showing recovery in each case:-
Sl. No. Case Number Recovered from No. of Kgs
1. Crl.A.(MD).No.172 of 2023 Gunny bag in his head 24 kg
2. Crl.A.(MD).No. 212 of 2020 One gunny bag in his shoulder 21 kg
3. Crl.A.(MD).No. 293 of 2021 White colour fertiliser sack on his head 22 kg
4. Crl.A.(MD).No. 331 of 2023 White color plastic gunny bag 22kg
5. Crl.A.(MD).No.396,397,399 & 400 of 2023 Two travel bags and one gunny bag 30kg
6. Crl.A.(MD).No. 507 of 2023 Crl.A.(MD).No. 94 of 2024 Car via gunny bag 24kg
7. Crl.A.(MD).No. 534 of 2022 Two travel bags on head 22kg
8. Crl.A.(MD).No. 551 of 2023 100 plastic bags, two gunny bags 22kg
9. Crl.A.(MD).No. 588 of 2023 Ganja in a gunny bag at
Pandikovil,Vallinagar,
Allinagaram, Theni District. 21kg
10. Crl.A.(MD).No. 724 of 2023, White coloured bag in the backside seat of the Auto 21kg
11. Crl.A.(MD).No.773 & 953 of 2023 and 265 of 2024 Two white coloured fertiliser sacks in the dicky of the TATA
Indica car bearing
Reg.No.TN-60-E-2841 23kg
12. Crl.A.(MD).No.322 of 2023 White colour plastic Gunny Bag 25kg
13. Crl.A(MD) No. 269 & 558 of 2023 Sack in an auto bearing Registration No.TN 58 W 5600 25 kg
17.6. In all cases recovery of the alleged contraband were made from the bag either carried or found in the vehicle and in no case recovery was made from the body of the person and hence, in all case there was no requirement to follow the mandate of Section 50. Further, the witnesses also deposed about the compliance of Section 50 in cogent manner. Therefore, this Court inclines to hold that there was no necesscity to follow the mandate of Section 50 and finds no infirmity in the finding of the learned Trial Judge about the compliance of Section 50 on the basis of the cogent evidence of the search officer in each case corroborated by material documents.
17.7 Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants to acquit the appellant for non-compliance of section 50 of NDPS Act deserves to be rejected.
18. Discussion on the presence of the crime number either in the sample or arrest memo before registration of the case:
The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the mentioning of the crime number in the recovery mahazar, arrest memo and label of the sample creates suspicion about the recovery of the contraband in the occurrence place and they produced the judgment of this court in Thangapandi and others Vs. The Inspector of Police (L&O) reported in AIR OnLine 2018 MAD 1132.
18.2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the most of the recovery was made on the basis of the receipt of the secret information. Therefore, the searching officer had knowledge about the last crime number of the particular police station. Further, on the label it is necessary to mention the crime number so as to make the proper identification of the said materials that they belonged to the said case. Therefore, the criminal rules of practice demands the mentioning of the crime number on the label of the material object. Hence, mentioning of the crime number can not be treated as a circumstance to treat the recovery with suspicions eye. He also relied the judgment of the same learned judge in the different cases with finding that mentioning of the crime number need not necessarily affect the testimony of the recovery witness.
18.3. This court considered the said submission of the both learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also the relevant precedent on the said aspect.
18.4. As per the criminal rules of practice framed by the Hon’ble High Court, Madras, it is duty of the Investigating Agency to affix the crime number on the material object in order to keep safe custody of the property in the property room of the trial court and also for proper identification of the material object that it belonged to the corresponding crime number. The labelling of the crime number on the material object might have been written subsequently at the time of the remand of the accused. Further, in most of the cases, the search was made on the basis of prior information received as per section 42 of the NDPS Act. Since, the team had proceeded to the spot on the basis of recording of the information either in the General Diary or sending information through telephone to the higher officers or after reducing the said information in writing, they would know the last crime number of the particular station. Even in the case of the recovery under section 43 of the NDPS act or chance recovery, due to the advantage of the telecommunication facilities, the chance of getting the last crime number of the station is possible one. Therefore, without proper cross examination in the above aspect and in the absence of the supporting material for the manipulation of the records, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the mentioning of crime number created suspicion relating to the recovery of the contraband in the occurrence place, is nothing but myth. Further, it is true that the learned judge of this court in the judgment in the case of Thangapandi and others Vs. The Inspector of Police (L&O) reported in AIR OnLine 2018 MAD 1132. has held that the mentioning of the crime number in the arrest memo, recovery mahazar, label of the material object created doubt considering the other material circumstances of the said case in the process of the recovery of the contraband. But, the learned judge in the subsequent decision based on the earlier decision of the Hon’ble Judge of this court has held that the same cannot be used to suspect the recovery of the contraband.
18.5. Therefore, this court is duty bound to consider both the appeal judgments relied by the learned counsel for the appellants and the argument of the learned additional public prosecutor and the other precedents of the various high court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
18.5.1. In the case of Radhey Sham v. State of Haryana, reported in (2001) 10 SCC 206 a similar contention was raised before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and the relevant paragraphs are as follows:-
“6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that FIR number is mentioned on the recovery memo and therefore it is apparent that FIR was first registered and thereafter the recovery memo was prepared. He has also submitted that sealing of the article seized was also not proper. No independent witness was examined nor was the accused having any injury even though the van turned turtle. In our view, the aforesaid submissions deserve no consideration because with regard to the FIR, FIR number is mentioned on the recovery memo but that would not vitiate the recording of FIR.
7. Lastly, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in view of the evidence of defence witness the Court ought to have considered that as there was some altercation between Pawan Kumar and SI Baljit Singh, the accused has been falsely implicated in the crime. In our view, if there was any altercation or dispute between Pawan Kumar and SI Baljit Singh, there was no reason for the prosecution to involve the appellant. If they wanted falsely to involve Pawan Kumar, who is the owner of the van, they could have done so easily because from the van owned by him 8 bags containing 320 kg of chura-post (poppy husk) were found. Further, it is to be stated that the accused in his statement under Section 313 CrPC has stated that he was falsely implicated at the behest of
Head Constable Om Prakash. As against this, witness Pawan Kumar has stated that there was dispute with Baljit Singh. In this view of the matter, no credence can be given to the defence.
8. In the result, we hold that there is no substance in the appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed.”
18.5.2. The single bench of this Court in Crl.A.No.210 of 2011 wherein the Hon’ble Judge has held in the relevant paragraph as follows:-
“9. Regarding the presence of crime number on the label, it is not a ground to doubt the recovery. It may only add suspicion if not properly explained or there is no plausible reasons inferable through the evidence. Normally, no Court will accept the property to its custody without proper identification and case details. This precaution is in consonance to the Criminal Rules of Practice so as to avoid difficulty in tracing the property in the property room. Therefore, the presence of crime number in the property cannot be suspected merely because label with crime number was affixed prior to registering the case. The crime number might have written subsequently or obtained in advance from the station immediately after the seizure since, the team had proceeded to the spot based on specific information and the Station House Officer been reported about the information as per Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, before proceeding to the spot. That is why in Rangan case, the Court has precisely extracted what, Vasudevan (PW.2), has deposed and proceeded further and stated as follows:
“tHf;F brhj;jpy; cs;s tpgu nygps; rk;gt ,lj;jpy; itj;J jahh; bra;J xl;lgg;l;lJ vd;why; rhp me;j tpgu nygpspy; Fw;w vz; kw;Wk; vd;.o.gp.v]; rl;lg;gphpt[fs; Fwpg;gplg;glLs;sd vd;why; rhp. epiyak; te;j gpwF jhd; Kjy; jftywpf;if gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;lJ vd;why; rhp. tpgu nygpspy; Fww; vz; kw;Wk; vd;.o.gp.v]; rl;lg;gphptf[s; Fwpg;gplg;gl;ljhy; fhty; epiyaj;jpw;F te;J gpd;d;pl;L jahh; bra;ag;gl;lit vd;why; rhpay;y.”
Vasudevan [P.W.2] has clearly admitted that the labels were affixed on the contraband at the place of seizure and he has also admitted that he has given the crime number on the labels. He has also admitted that the FIR [Ex.P.8] was registered only subsequently and he has not given any plausible explanation in his evidence, thereby making the very recovery doubtful, the benefit of which should go to the accused.
10. To make it more clear, this Court add the plausible explanation need not necessarily be in the testimony but it can be also inferred from the other evidences before the Court. In this case, the accused has affixed her LTI in the recovery mahazar. She has also affixed her LTI in the property labels. The properties were sent to the Magistrate under Form 95 (Ex.P.7) on 22.10.2004, the same day of recovery. Therefore mere presence of crime number on the label affixed prior to registering F.I.R is ipso facto will not render the recovery doubtful.”
18.5.3. A similar contention was raised before this Court (Hon’ble Mr.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN) in S.A.Bakrudeen Vs. The Inspector of Police, NIB CID Chennai in Crl.A.No.395 of 2012 wherein the
Hon’ble Judge has held in the relevant paragraph as follows:- “Normally in NDPS cases the seizure officer after
getting permission from the superior officer only he would proceed to occurrence place, some time he would note down the next crime number of the police station. Therefore, mere mentioning the crime number in the arrest memo, search and recovery mahazar will not affect the case of the prosecution.”
18.5.4. A similar contention was raised before this Court (The Hon’ble Dr.Justice G.JEYACHANDRAN) in Sekar @ City Sekar Vs. Inspector of Police, NIB CID in Criminal Appeal No.425 of 2012 wherein the Hon’ble Judge has held in the relevant paragraph as follows:-
“9. Regarding mentioning of crime number in the arrest memo, PW.2 Mr.Annakamu was unable to give satisfactory explanation. Similarly, when wife of the accused was informed and from where she was informed through telegram about the arrest of accused is also not properly explained. However, this discrepancy in the arrest memo at the most, they make the arrest illegal but not the seizure. Insofar as seizure is concerned, the sequence of event has spoken by prosecution witness is that on 16.02.2006 at about 11.30 hours, PW.2 has received the information and placed the information to his superior PW.4 Mr.V.Ashok Kumar, at about 11.45 hours and thereafter, they have proceeded to the spot. The informant has identified the accused at around 13.30 hours which was followed by seizure proceedings. The accused and the seized contraband has been produced before the Magistrate on the same day of seizure and arrest. For producing the contraband before the Regular Court, 20 days delay is admitted. However, on the day of arrest itself, the contraband has been produced before the Judicial Magistrate. The sample received by the chemical examiner for analysis was found intact with seal. Therefore, there is no scope to suspect any manipulation. When the possession of contraband not been explained by the accused, the overall evidence let in by the prosecution, prove the charge of illegal possession of Ganja by the accused. Therefore, this Court finds no error in the finding of the trial Court.”
18.5.5.This Court in the case of Kannan Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police reported in AIR OnLine 2019 MAD 402, has held as follows:-
“20.Not only in this case, in many other cases also, this defence is taken by the counsels representing the accused person. This Court, earlier held in few cases that it is highly improbable of mentioning the crime number in the sample whereas, in the contraband or any other document which were supposed to be prepared prior to registration of F.I.R. Since, in normal practice, crime number is assigned only at the time of registering the F.I.R. However, it is explained by the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) that when a special wing like NIBCID, where the operations are only based on prior intelligence and on information, frequent registration of F.I.R., is very rare. Unless and until there is some chance recovery.
Even in those circumstances, when a team of Police proceeds towards spot based on specific information, or otherwise, it is natural that they will know the last crime number registered in their Station. It is also possible for the Police immediately after seizure to ascertain the crime number over phone from the Station. In some cases, the witnesses are able to explain how the crime number finds place even in the documents which are supposed to have been prepared prior to the registration of the case. In some cases, they omit to explain. In any event, the mentioning of the crime number in contraband and other documents is for the sake of identification. At times, the crime number would have been written subsequently also. The failure on the part of the prosecution witness to explain per se will not render the seizure illegal or vitiate the prosecution. The Court has to look into overall evidence collected by the prosecution and the proof of the same and ‘whether any prejudice caused to the accused otherwise.”
18.5.6. The similar contention was raised before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Parveen Kumar v. State of Delhi reported in 2013 SCC Online 2019 and the observation in the relevant paragraphs is as follows:-
“11. In the context of the fact that Column no. 11 in the FIR mentioned the words “PM conducted”, Ms. Kapoor contended that the words “to be” between the words “PM” and “conducted” appear to have been skipped. The FIR was recorded at 2.25 a.m. on 7.5.2000 and the postmortem was conducted at 12.30 p.m. on the same day and this is borne out by the aforesaid two documents. Merely because the words “Postmortem conducted” appear in the FIR, the contents of the FIR will not be rendered false. It is trite that any act of omission or commission or an irregular act of the Investigating Officer cannot result in throwing out the entire case of the Prosecution, more so as the contents of the rukka and the FIR are identical and both the said documents bespeak of the presence of the eye witness at the time of the incident. Learned APP contended that in any event the aforesaid submission of the defence deserved no consideration for a similar plea made before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Sham v. State of Haryana,
(2001) 10 SCC 206 was not countenanced by the Supreme
Court. In the said case, it was submitted on behalf of the
Appellant that since the FIR number was mentioned on the Recovery Memo, therefore, it was apparent that the FIR was first registered and thereafter the Recovery Memo was prepared. Rejecting this contention, the Supreme Court opined:
—
“In our view, the aforesaid submissions deserve no consideration because with regard to the FIR, FIR number is mentioned on the recovery memo but that would not vitiate the recording of FIR.”
18.5.7. A similar contention was raised before the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana in Mohan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2007 SCC OnLine P&H 95. The relevant paragraph is as follows:-
“11. Counsel for the accused-appellants has next argued that after effecting recovery of the contraband vide recovery memo Ex.PG, Ruqa Ex.PH was sent to the police station for registration of the case and in the meantime, PW-2 Inspector Chuhar Singh prepared the rough site plan Ex.PK and Jamatalasi Memos., Ex. PL, PM and PN and all the said exhibits, namely, Exhibits PG, PK, PL, PM and PN contain FIR numbers and it gives an inference that the FIR was registered prior to the alleged recovery, which creates doubt about the veracity of the prosecution. The contention is again meritless in view of the dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana, (2001) 10 SCC 206, wherein similar argument was advanced and it was held that the same would not vitiate recording of the FIR and the conviction of the accused. Apart from this, a bare perusal of the memos. Exhibits PG, PK. PL, PM and PN reveals that FIR number was initially not filled appearing against those columns and the space was left blank and that FIR number was subsequently added after coming to know of the FIR number, which if seen with a naked eye, is with a different ink. Therefore, the defence cannot derive any benefit from the same.”
18.5.8. A similar contention was raised before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Naushad & Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in
2009 SCC OnLine Del 3520. The relevant paragraph is as follows:-
“47. As regards the submission that the number of FIR registered in the present case is mentioned in the seizure memo Ex.PW-26/C, suffice would it be to state that the investigating officer Inspector Harshvardhan PW-26, has not been crossexamined with respect to said aspect of the matter. No suggestion was given to the investigating officer that seizure memo Ex.PW-26/C was prepared only after the registration of the FIR and for that reason, the number of the FIR came to be mentioned on the top of the seizure memo. Possibility cannot be ruled out that the investigating officer mentioned the number of the FIR on the seizure memo, after the receipt of the formal FIR from the police station. Having given no opportunity to the investigating officer to explain the circumstance pertaining to mentioning of the number of the FIR in the seizure memo Ex.PW-26/C no adverse inference can be taken against the prosecution. In taking the said view, we are supported by the decisions of Supreme Court reported as Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmad AIR 1975 SC 290, State of UP v. Anil Singh
1988 (Supp) SCC 686 andSunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2005) 9 SCC 298.
48. In said regards, it is also relevant to note the decision of Supreme Court reported as Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana (2001) 10 SCC 206 wherein it was observed as under:-
“Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that FIR number is mentioned on the recovery memo and therefore it is apparent that FIR was first registered and thereafter the recovery memo was prepared. He has also submitted that sealing of the article seized was also not proper. No independent witness was examined nor was the accused having any injury even though the van turned turtle. In our view, the aforesaid submissions deserve no consideration because with regard to the FIR, FIR number is mentioned on the recovery memo but that would not vitiate the recording of
FIR….” (Emphasis Supplied)
49. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it cannot be held that the seizure memo Ex.PW-26/C is a manipulated or fabricated document and that the prosecution case is false.” As the Bible says “If the salt has lost its flavour, wherewith shall it be salted?”, or as the ancient Romans used to say, “Who will guard the Praetorian guards?”
18.6. From the above reading of the precedents and also the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is seen that the mentioning of the crime number cannot be considered as an isolated circumstance to disbelieve the evidence of the recovery witnesses.
19.Discussion on the non-examination of the independent witness:
19.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Singh Vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) reported in (2020) 10 SCC 120, reiterated the principles that the non-examination of the independent witnesses could not be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of the police officers when the same was cogent and trustworthy. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:
“11. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the accused that so far as the NDPS Act is concerned, it carries a reverse burden of proof under Sections 35 and 54 and therefore if the informant who himself has seized the offending material from the accused and he himself thereafter investigates the case, there shall be all possibilities of apprehension in the mind of the accused that there shall not be fair investigation and that the officer concerned shall try to prove his own version/seizure and therefore there shall be denial of the “fair investigation” enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is concerned, it is required to be noted that whether the investigation conducted by the informant concerned was fair investigation or not is always to be decided at the time of trial. The informant/investigator concerned will be cited as a witness and he is always subject to cross-examination. There may be cases in which even the case of the prosecution is not solely based upon the deposition of the informant/informant-cuminvestigator but there may be some independent witnesses and/or even the other police witnesses. As held by this Court in a catena of decisions, the testimony of police personnel will be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses his testimony cannot be relied upon. [See Karamjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Karamjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 5 SCC 291 : 2003 SCC
(Cri) 1001] .] As observed and held by this Court in Devender
Pal Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Devender Pal Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2002) 5 SCC 234 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 978] , the presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police officer as of other persons, and it is not judicial approach to distrust and suspect him without good grounds therefor.
11.1. At this stage, reference may be made to Illustration (e) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act. As per the said provision, in law if an official act has been proved to have been done, it shall be presumed to be regularly done. Credit has to be given to public officers in the absence of any proof to the contrary of their not acting with honesty or within limits of their authority. Therefore, merely because the complainant conducted the investigation that would not be sufficient to cast doubt on the entire prosecution version and to hold that the same makes the prosecution version vulnerable. The matter has to be left to be decided on a case-to-case basis without any universal generalisation.
11.2. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in cases where any person empowered under Sections 42, 43 or 44 of the NDPS Act acts vexatiously or maliciously, the statute itself has provided the punishment as per Section 58 and it is an offence under Section 58 which is a cognizable offence and such an offence is required to be investigated by the “officer in charge of a police station” other than the officer who exercised the power of entry, search, seizure or arrest under Sections 42, 43, or 44 as naturally in such a case he would be a proposed accused and therefore he cannot be permitted to investigate and to be a judge in his own cause. However, so far as the investigation against the accused for the offence under the NDPS Act is concerned, the same analogy may not apply for the reasons stated hereinabove.
11.3. Now so far as the observations made by this Court in para 13 in Mohan Lal [Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, (2018) 17 SCC 627 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 215] that in the nature of reverse burden of proof, the onus will lie on the prosecution to demonstrate on the face of it that the investigation was fair, judicious with no circumstance that may raise doubt about its veracity, it is to be noted that the presumption under the Act is against the accused as per Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act. Thus, in the cases of reverse burden of proof, the presumption can operate only after the initial burden which exists on the prosecution is satisfied. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the reverse burden does not merely exist in special enactments like the NDPS Act and the Prevention of Corruption Act, but is also a part of the IPC — Section 304-B and all such offences under the Penal Code are to be investigated in accordance with the provisions of CrPC and consequently the informant can himself investigate the said offences under
Section 157 CrPC.”
19.2. The Hon’ble three judges bench in the case of Union of India vs. Bal Mukund and others reported in (2009) 12 SCC 161 has held that:
“28. Where a statute confers such drastic powers and
seeks to deprive a citizen its liberty for not less than ten years, and making stringent provisions for grant of bail, scrupulous complaince with the statutory provisions must be insisted upon.”
19.3. By applying the principle laid down in the above case this court proceeds to discuss about the non-examination of independent witness in each appeal:
19.3.1 Discussion on the non-examination of the independent witness in Crl.A.(MD).No. 172 of 2023:
In this case, P.W.1 and P.W.2 clearly deposed about the recovery and the arrest of the accused and so also the property was also produced before the Court without any delay.
19.3.2 Discussion on the non-examination of the independent witness in Crl.A.(MD).No. 551 of 2023:
In this case, P.W.1 and P.W.2 clearly deposed about the recovery of the contraband from the appellants’ custody. The recovered contraband, Form-91 and the relevant document namely, athatchi and the report under
Section 57 of the Act reached the trial Court without any delay along with the remand requisition of the accused. Therefore, the nonexamination of the independent witness is immaterial and the same is not a ground to disbelieve the cogent and trustworthy evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2.
19.3.3 Discussion on the non-examination of the independent witness in Crl.A.(MD).No. 588 of 2023:
In this case, P.W.1 and P.W.2 clearly deposed about the recovery of the contraband from the appellants’ custody. The recovered contraband, Form-91 and the relevant document namely, athatchi and the report under Section 57 of the Act reached the trial Court without any delay along with the remand requisition of the accused. Therefore, the nonexamination of the independent witness is immaterial and the same is not a ground to disbelieve the cogent and trustworthy evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. In this case, this Court finds no infirmity in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the other evidence which corroborated with the contemporaneous document namely, Ex.P.10, recovery mahazar.
19.3.4 Discussion on the non-examination of the independent witness in Crl.A.(MD).No. 773, 953 of 2023 and 265 of 2024:
In this case, P.W.1 and P.W.2 clearly deposed about the recovery of the contraband from the appellants’ custody. The recovered contraband, Form-91 and the relevant document namely, athatchi and the report under Section 57 of the Act were reached the trial Court without any delay along with the remand requisition of the accused. Therefore, the nonexamination of the independent witness is immaterial and the same is not a ground to disbelieve the cogent and trustworthy evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2.
19.4. Therefore, the non-examination of the independent witness is immaterial and the same is not a ground to disbelieve the cogent and trustworthy evidence of the other witness.
20.Discussion on delay in producing the contraband before the
Special Court and delay in sending sample to the lab:
20.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hardip Singh Vs. State of
Punjab reported in (2008) 8 SCC 557 has held as follows:-
“it was of No consequence, for the fact of the recovery of the said sample from the possession of the appellant had been proved and established by cogent and reliable evidence and that apart, it had also come in evidence that til the date of parcels samples, were received by the chemical examiner, the seal put on that parcel was intact……. The plea that there was 40 days delay was immaterial and would not dent of prosecution case.”
20.2. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Sahiram reported in (2019) 10
SCC 649 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
“If the seizure is otherwise proved, what is required to be proved is the fact that the samples taken from and out of the contraband material were kept intact, that the report of the forensic experts shows the potency nature and quality of the contraband material and that based on such material the essential ingredients constituting an offence are made out.”
20.3 By applying the above principle, this Court proceeds to discuss about the delay in sending sample on the facts of the each appeal:
20.3.1 Discussion on delay in producing the contraband before the Special Court and delay in sending sample to the lab in Crl.A.
(MD).No. 212 of 2020:
The recovery was made on 08.12.2021 and the same was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate along with the remand report. The same was produced before the FSL Lab on 23.12.2021 without any tampering of seal and there was no question about the tempering of seal. Therefore, the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellants can not be accepted to disbelieve the recovery made from the appellants.
20.3.2 Discussion on delay in producing the contraband before the Special Court and delay in sending sample to the lab in Crl.A.
(MD).No. 293 of 2021:
The contraband was recovered on 05.06.2019. The sample was taken on the same day itself and the same was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate on 05.06.2019 and sent to the lab on 11.06.2019. In the Chemical Analysis Report, it is specifically stated that seal was intact. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is delay in producing the contraband before the FSL lab cannot be accepted.
20.3.3 Discussion on delay in producing the contraband before the Special Court and delay in sending sample to the lab in Crl.A.
(MD).No. 588 of 2023:
The recovery was made on 08.12.2021 and the same was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate along with the remand report. The same was produced before the FSL Lab on 23.12.2021 without any tampering of seal and there was no question about the tempering of seal also. Therefore, the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellants can not be accepted to disbelieve the recovery made from the appellants.
Therefore, the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that there is delay in producing the contraband can not be accepted to disbelieve the recovery made from the appellants.
20.4 Discussion on the complaince of Section 52 A of the NDPS
Act:
The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no compliance of 52(A) of the NDPS Act. In this case, all the recovered contraband apart from the samples taken from each bag were sent to the Court along with the accused at the time of remand. The learned Judicial Magistrate perused the same and directed to produce the same before the said Special Court. Before the Special Court, during the course of trial, the remaining contraband was marked as material object and the samples were also marked. The searching officer and other officer clearly deposed about the recovered contraband and identified before the Court. A similar contention was raised before this Court in some other case and this court made a detailed discussion in the cae of Mareeswaran vs. The Inspector of Police reported in 2023 (2) L.W. Crl. 893 held that non-compliance of the section 52A of NDPS Act is not a circumstance to disbelieve the prosecution case of recovery said of contraband and there is no impediment to convict the said appellants.
20.4.2. Now the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly laid down the law on this aspect in the following two cases:
20.4.2.1.Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, reported in 2024
(11) SCC 372 (Paragraph Nos. 41, 42, 46, 47, 50.4)
“41. From the above decisions, the position that emerges is that this Court in a catena of decisions, has approved the procedure of spot searches and seizures in compliance, with the Standing Orders and the notifications issued by the NCB and the Central Government, and upheld the convictions on being satisfied about the search and seizure made by the officers as per the provisions of the Act and being satisfied about the scientific evidence of FSL reports, etc. Even otherwise, in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Benches in Pooran Mal [Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection
Investigation), (1974) 1 SCC 345 : (1974) 93 ITR 505] and in
Baldev Singh [State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172: 1999 SCC (Cri) 1080] , any procedural illegality in conducting the search and seizure by itself, would not make the entire evidence collected thereby inadmissible. The court would have to decide the admissibility of evidence in the context and the manner inwhich the evidence was collected and was sought to be used during the course of trial. The evidence collected during the course of investigation in legal and proper manner and sought to be used in the course of trial with regard to the seized contraband substance could not be simply brushed aside, on the ground of procedural irregularity if any, committed by the officer concerned authorised in making application to the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 52-A of the Act.
42. Significantly, the authorised officer can make the application under sub-section (2) of Section 52-A for three purposes – (a) for certifying the correctness of the inventory prepared by him; or (b) taking in presence of such Magistrate, photographs of the seized drugs, substances and conveyances and certifying such photographs as true; or (c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of such Magistrate, and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn. The use of the conjunction “OR” made in between the three purposes mentioned therein, itself makes it explicitly clear that the purposes for which the application could be made under sub-section (2) are alternative and not cumulative in nature. Such provision specifying multiple alternative purposes could not be construed as a mandatory provision much less its noncompliance fatal to the case of prosecution.
46. At this stage, we must deal with the recent judgments in Simarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab [Simarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2024) 14 SCC 222 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 906] , in Yusuf v. State [Yusuf v. State, (2024) 14 SCC 217 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1328], and in Mohd. Khalid v. State of Telangana [Mohd. Khalid v. State of Telangana, (2024) 5 SCC 393 : (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 650] in which the convictions have been set aside by this Court on finding non-compliance with Section 52-A and relying upon the observations made in Mohanlal
[Union of India v. Mohanlal, (2016) 3 SCC 379 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 864]. Apart from the fact that the said cases have been decided on the facts of each case, none of the judgments has proposed to lay down any law either with regard to Section 52A or on the issue of admissibility of any other evidence collected during the course of trial under the NDPS Act.
47. Therefore, we have considered the legislative history of Section 52-A and other statutory Standing Orders as also the judicial pronouncements, which clearly lead to an inevitable conclusion that delayed compliance or noncompliance with Section 52-A neither vitiates the trial affecting conviction nor can be a sole ground to seek bail. In our opinion, the decisions of Constitution Benches in Pooran Mal [Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation),
(1974) 1 SCC 345 : (1974) 93 ITR 505| andBaldev Singh
[State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1080] must take precedence over any observations made in the judgments made by the Benches of lesser strength, which are made without considering the scheme, purport and object of the Act and also without considering the binding precedents.
50.4. Sub-section (2) of Section 52-A lays down the procedure as contemplated in sub-section (1) thereof, and any lapse or delayed compliance thereof would be merely a procedural irregularity which would neither entitle the accused to be released on bail nor would vitiate the trial on that ground alone.”
20.4.2.2.In the case of Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2025 SCC online SC 110 para 50 as follows:
“50. We summarize our final conclusion as under: –
(I) Although Section 52A is primarily for the disposal and destruction of seized contraband in a safe manner yet it extends beyond the immediate context of drug disposal, as it serves a broader purpose of also introducing procedural safeguards in the treatment of narcotics substance after seizure inasmuch as it provides for the preparation of inventories, taking of photographs of the seized substances and drawing samples therefrom in the presence and with the certification of a magistrate. Mere drawing of samples in presence of a gazetted officer would not constitute sufficient compliance of the mandate under Section 52A sub-section (2) of the NDPS Act.
(II) Although, there is no mandate that the drawing of samples from the seized substance must take place at the time of seizure as held in Mohanlal (supra), yet we are of the opinion that the process of inventorying, photographing and drawing samples of the seized substance shall as far as possible, take place in the presence of the accused, though the same may not be done at the very spot of seizure.
(III) Any inventory, photographs or samples of seized substance prepared in substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Rules/Standing Order(s) thereunder would have to be mandatorily treated as primary evidence as per Section 52A (4) of the NDPS Act, irrespective of whether the substance in original is actually produced before the court or not.
(IV) The procedure prescribed by the Standing Order (s)/Rules in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is only intended to guide the officers and to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer in-charge of the investigation, and as such what is required is substantial compliance of the procedure laid therein.
(V) Mere non-compliance of the procedure underSection 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 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.
(VII) Non-compliance or delayed compliance of the said provision or rules thereunder may lead the court to drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution, however no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when such inference may be drawn, and it would all depend on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.
(VIII) Where there has been lapse on the part of the police in either following the procedure laid down in Section 52A of the NDPS Act or the prosecution in proving the same, it
. will not be appropriate for the court to resort to the statutory presumption of commission of an offence from the possession of illicit material under Section 54 of the NDPS Act, unless the court is otherwise satisfied as regards the seizure or recovery of such material from the accused persons from the other material on record.
(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 noncompliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the onus would thereafter be on 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 (i) 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.”
20.4.3. In this case, the prosecution clearly proved the entire recovery of contraband from the accused, and the same was also produced before the Court. When the appellants could not establish that such non-compliance under Section 52A of the Act, has vitiated the trial then such plea cannot be accepted. By applying the above principles, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are entitled to acquittal on the account of non-compliance under Section 52(A) of the Act, deserves to be rejected.
21. Discussion in the maintainability of conviction under section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) after acquittal under Section 25 & 29 (1) of the Act:-
21.1. As per Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act, if any person ‘possesses’ ‘transports’ ‘uses cannabis’ above the commercial quantity, they are liable to be convicted under Section 8(C) r/w 20(b) (ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, is an independent provision. Provision under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, is a different one. To sustain the conviction under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, the prosecution shall prove any of the following facts:-
i) The accused is the owner of the property ii) Either the vehicle or the place is in the occupation of the accused.
iii) The accused is having control over the vehicle or place.
21.2. But, to sustain the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of
the NDPS Act, it is not necessary to prove the above ingredients. To sustain a conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, only requirement is either to prove the possession of the contraband in the car or transportation of the said contraband in the car. In this case, evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 clearly proved that the appellants were travelling in the car along with the contraband. When the evidence of the prosecution witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 are cogent and trustworthy about the recovery of contraband in the car and when there is no explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C., this Court concurs the finding of the learned trial Judge that the appellants are liable to be convicted under Section 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)
(C) of the Act. Therefore, the acquittal under Sections 25 and 29(1) of the
NDPS Act ipso fact, is not a bar to convict the appellants under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act.
23. Discussion on the maintainability of the conviction in all cases under Section Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act without proof of recovered contraband with flowering or fruiting tops:
23.1. In the case of Union of India v. Bal Mukund reported in
(2009) 12 SCC 161, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“28. Where a statute confers such drastic powers and seeks to deprive a citizen of its liberty for not less than ten years, and making stringent provisions for grant of bail, scrupulous compliance with the statutory provisions must be insisted upon. While considering a case of the present nature where two persons may barely read and write Hindi, are said to have been used as carrier containing material of only 1.68% of narcotics, a conviction, in our opinion, should not be based merely on the basis of a statement made under Section 67 of the Act without any independent corroboration particularly in view of the fact that such statements have been retracted.”
23.2. Submission of the Appellant’s counsel:
23.2.1. In all cases, as per the prosecution, the recovered quantity is, between, 20 kg and 25 kg of ganja. According to the counsel, as per the definition 2(iii) (b) of the NDPS Act, ganja means ‘the flowering or the fruiting tops of the cannabis plant excluding the leaves and seeds when not accompanied with tops. They would also read through the evidence of witnesses and documents and state that in all these cases, the recovery of contraband did not contain flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant. Once the recovered ganja did not contain the flowering or fruiting tops as per Section 2(b) of the NDPS Act , they are not liable to be prosecuted under any of the provision NDPS Act. Hence, if the recovered contraband has only seeds and other parts of ganja without flowering or fruiting tops, the appellant cannot be convicted under the NDPS Act for possession of the Ganja as per the definition of 2(b) of the
NDPS Act and hence they seek for acquittal.

23.2.2 Further, some of the Learned counsels argued that the police team weighed the entire contraband along with gunny bag, leaves and seeds without weighing the weight of the bag, leaves and seeds separately. In any event due to the mentioning of the “cannabinod” without any reference to THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) in the chemical analysis report and without any clarity that the recovered contraband contained the flowering or fruiting tops and when it contained only leaves, seeds and stalks, the case of the appellant would come only under the category of below commercial quantity. In view of such ambiguity, conviction under Section 8(C) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act is not legally maintainable.Therefore, they seek to alter the conviction under Section 8(C) r/w 20(b(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and reduce the sentence proportionately.
23.3. Submission of the learned Additional public prosecutor:
23.3.1.It is true that the recovered contraband was including leaves and seeds and it is also a factual aspect and the same was not raised before court below and hence When the Chemical Analysis Report specifically mentioned the presence of CANNABINOID, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the same was not recovered with flowering or fruiting tops and hence, the case does not come under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, can not be accepted.
23.3.2.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would place strong reliance on “Hira Singh case” and submit that the weight of the entire contraband has to be taken into consideration and more particularly in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 (2) SCC 26 and the judgment of this Court in Crl.OP(MD)No.18999 of 2024, the entire contraband should be taken into consideration .and hence, appellant is liable to be convicted for possession of commercial quantity. .
23.3.3.The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the basis of the following specific observation in the chemical analysis report would contend that “fjph;fs;” means flowering or fruiting tops and hence the contraband would squarely come under the definition of Ganja:
cyh;e;j epiyapy;> gRik fye;j gSgG; epwKs;s rpW ,iyfSld; $ba fjph;fs;> tpijfs; kw;Wk;
nehWq;fpa ,iyfSld; $ba nghUspd; epfu vil 22 fpuhk;.
23.4. Reply argument by learned counsel for appellants:
23.4.1. The Learned Counsels appearing for the appellants by way of reply would contend that literal meaning of “fjph;fs;” is not flowering or fruiting tops. All over India, convictions are recorded either for possession or illicit trafficing of Ganja without proper understanding of the true meaning of Ganja as per section 2(b) of the Act and number of persons are confined in prison without bail from the date of the arrest. Therefore, the Learned Counsels for the appellants would submit that atleast in the border line cases of weighing upto 25 kgs, the conviction may be converted U/s.20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
23.4.2.To consider the submission of the learned counsels appearing for all the accused, this Court is duty bound to consider the taxonomy and pharmacology of Hemp and trace the history relating to the penal provision of “hemp cultivation”.
23.5. Taxonomy and Pharmacology of Hemp:
23.5.1. The Laboratory and scientific section United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Vienna issued manual to deal with the identification and analysis of Cannabis and Cannabis products in the year 1987, 2009, 2022 under the name of “Recommended methods for the Identification and Analysis of Cannabis and Cannabis products”. The said UNODC is adopted as a manual for use by the National Drug analysis Laboratories of India. The said UNODC manual outlines the taxonomy and pharmacology of Hemp.

23.5.2. The genera cannabis and Humulus (hops) belong to the same family of Cannabaceae, which also includes eight other genera. Cannabis is mainly associated with three species of flowering plants belonging to the canabenaceae family, namely sativa, indica, and ruberalis. The plants are indigenous to Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent, where their earliest use dates back to at least the third century BC. It has a rich history spanning thousands of years and varying representations throughout human civilization. Cannabis sativa or indica is known as “Indian Hemp” and it is an annual flowering herb.
23.5.3. As in the case of every plant, the cannabis plant contains both vegetative and flowering shoot. Female plants are very leafy up to the top, whereas male plants have the leaves on the inflorescence fewer and much further apart. Vegetative shoot contains stem, stalk, compound leaves. Flowering shoot contains with inflorescence with little leaves otherwise called petals (vegetative tops), fruit and seeds.
23.5.3.1. The flowers are very abundant and they are either male (staminate) or female (pistillate). Mostly cannabis sativa is dioecious plant but there are monoecious also. It is relevant to explain the meaning of monoecious and dioecious:-
Monoecious Dioecious
Having male and female reproductive organs in the same individual having staminate and pistillate flowers on the same plant
In any larger field of cannabis plants, a number will be monoecious, that is bearing both male and female flowers Having male reproductive organs in one individual and female in another
Having staminate and pistillate flowers borne on different individuals
23.5.3.2 The Compound leaves vary in size according to the overall size of the plant. Each leaf has a slender stalk up to 6 cm in length. Three to eleven (mostly five, seven, nine) thin and soft-textured leaflets are coarsely saw-toothed edge and a long drawn-out pointed tip: the teeth are sharp and point towards the tip of the leaflet; the veins run out obliquely from the midrib to the tips of the teeth. The leaflets of a single leaf are uneven in size, the largest being up to 15 cm. They are covered with glandular hairs (trichomes) on the upper surface, more profuse and longer hairs on the underside.
23.5.3.3 The male inflorescence is loosely arranged, much branched and many flowered, standing out from the leaves, with individual flowering branches up to 18 cm long: it is covered by minute bristly hairs.

23.5.3.4 The female inflorescence do not project beyond the leaves: they are compact, short and contain fewer flowers. The bract or calyx completely covers the ovary, and forms a basally swollen tabular sheath about 2 mm long, out of which two stigmas project. This sheath is covered with slender hairs and short-stalked or stalkless circular glands. The diagram of the plant has also been incorporated in the said manual and for the discussion of the case, it is relevant to imprint the diagram:
1.flowering shoot 5.female flower
2.male inflorescence 6. fruit 3.male flower 7.seed 4.female inflorescence 8. compound leaves
23.6. Pharmacology of Hemp:
In India, cannabis is commonly known to have three distinct derivatives; a) ganja (marijuana), the dried flower buds or fruits of the female cannabis plant, b) charas (hashish), the resinous exudation secreted by the plant, and c) bhang, a grinded paste of only the matured leaves. The more prevalent term ‘marijuana’ typically refers to the dried leaves, stems, and flowering buds of the two more commonly consumed strains of sativa and indica.

23.6.2. The Cannabis plant contains significant quantity of said psychoactive constituents only in the fruiting and flowering tops and small leaves situated immediately above the floral structure of the fruits called as vegetative tops. They are called as drug-containing parts. The lower part of the plants also have luxuriant growth of leaves which differ, and are distinguished from Flowering Shoot. They are called as non-drug-containing parts.

23.6.3. A few active components of cannabis, namely delta-9tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabinol (CBN), and cannabidiol (CBD), have been found to produce its intoxicating effects, which include feelings of euphoria, altered perception, relaxation, and well being. Cannabinol (CBN), and cannabidiol (CBD) are not treated as offending substance. only delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is treated as most offending psychotropic substance and the same is present all over the parts of the hemp, namely, root, stem, stalks, leaves, pistillate flowers i.e both drug-containing parts and non-drug-containing parts. But significant quantity of Psychoactive constituent THC is present only in the fruiting and flowering tops and leaves next to the flowering tops. Also the leaves next to the male flowering tops of potent cannabis plants contain consumable amounts of THC. However, the content is much lower than that of female plants and they are therefore not material of first choice. The central stem and main side stems contain little THC but they may still be used in the production of cannabis oil.
23.6.4. The “Laboratory and Scientific Section United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Vienna” revised and updated the methods of analysis for cannabis and cannabis products in the name of “Recommended methods for the identification and analysis of cannabis and cannabis products”. The same was used by our laboratory as a “Manual for use by National Drug analysis Laboratories”. The said manual delineates that the THC content varies depending on the plant part:
10-12 per cent in pistillate flowers
1-2 per cent in leaves
0.1-0.3 per cent in stalks
gRik fye;j gSgG; epwKss; rpW ,iyfSld; $ba fjph;fs;> tpijfs; kw;Wk; nehWq;fpa ,iyfSld; $ba nghUspd; epfu vil 22 fpuhk;. KbT

SI vd;W Fwpgg; plg;gl;bUe;j
nghUspy;
nfdhgpdhapLf;s; ,Ugg; J fz;lwpag;gl;lJ.
23.14.2. From the above reading of the evidence, it is clear that 22
kg of ganja was recovered from a bag. The said recovered ganja in the bag contained seeds and leaves. Neither fruiting tops nor flowering tops were found. The seized ganja was not accompanied with flowering or fruiting tops. The weight of the bag also was not separately measured.
23.14.3. No scrap of material was produced to visualize that the seized ganja contained the flowering or fruiting tops of cannabis plant. The weight of the bag also was not measured. If total weight of the seized contraband in the bag has been taken “with bag, seeds, leaves, stem, stalk without demarcation of the weight of the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant” to arrive at the weight of the recovered contraband to bring it as commercial quantity, in view of the stringent provision of the NDPS Act 1985, the accused would have to face harsh punishment.
23.14.4. This court is answerable to the “commonsensical question” that when it is found that the recovered contraband neither contains flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, there is no question of convicting the person for the possession of the Ganja either under the commercial quantity or below commercial quantity. The learned public prosecutor would submit that the chemical analysis report disclosed the contents of the cannabinoid. Whether it forms part of the flowering or fruiting tops other than the seeds, stem, stalk of the hemp is a matter of fact and that is not clear from the materials seized. This court has to consider the said submission of the Public Prosecutor in consonance with the object of the NDPS Act. Once various parts of the hemp were recovered along with the offending material of ganja it cannot be said that conviction can not be recorded even for the below commercial quantity.
23.14.5. In the said circumstances this Court would like to go into the following Venn diagram drawn and the finding rendered by the Hon’ble Judge of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ravina Kumari Vs.
State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6748
“14. Though it is not in dispute that Ganja was recovered, the petitioner has taken a specific plea that the recovered quantity of 23.456 kg Ganja included the leaves and stalks/stems which does not fall in the definition of contraband material and the actual quantity of Ganja would only be mere 3.465 Kg., i.e. much lesser than the commercial quantity of 20 kgs.
15. At this juncture, it becomes apposite to analyse whether the recovered material falls within the definition of “Ganja”?
16. The definition of Ganja is provided under section 2 (iii)(b) of the NDPS Acts which reads as under:—
“(b) ganja, that is, the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated;”
17. From the definition, it is evident that flowering buds and fruiting tops of the cannabis plant would be covered under section 2 (iii)(b) but merely leaves/seeds and stalks would not form a part of the definition of “Ganja” unless accompanied by the flowering and fruiting tops.
18. This can be
represented accurately by the below Venn diagram:
19. Thus, the intention of the Legislature appears to be clear that in case of Ganja, if it is merely Category A i.e. a homogenous mixture of flowering buds and fruiting tops, then the same would fall within the meaning of “Cannabis”, however, if it is merely Category B i.e., a homogenous mixture of seeds/leaves/stalks without the fruiting tops and buds, then the same would not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act.
20. Though the position with respect to homogenous mixtures i.e., Category A & B is clear, there is often a conundrum surrounding the quantification of Category C, i.e. the overlap between Category A and Category B constituting the heterogenous mixtures which include both the flowering tops and fruiting buds, along with the stems/leaves and seed.
21. From the framework of the entire NDPS Act and a reading of S. 2 (iii)(b), it emerges that if the material seized is a heterogenous mixture/Category C, constituting of Category A mixed with Category B, the placebo material such as stalks/leaves/stems (Category B) would not constitute an actual part of the drug and only the actual content and weight of the narcotic drug (Category A) would be relevant for determining whether it would constitute small quantity or commercial quantity.
22. Similar observations have been made in the cases of Kunal Dattu Kadu (Supra) and Shri Sandip Ashok Raut (Supra) and it was held that to ascertain whether the material seized was Ganja, it will have to be ultimately ascertained whether the flowering and fruiting are accompanied by the seeds and leaves as the weight of these seeds/leaves/stems, has to be excluded.
23. Axiomatically, the weight of seeds/stalks and stems (Category
B) should be excluded while calculating the actual quantity (Only Category A) recovered.
24. Evidently, the present case is of a recovery falling within
Category C. The Chargesheet records that when the Petitioner/Ravina was apprehended, blue coloured plastic polythene bag was recovered from her which contained grass-like flowery-leafy material along with its stems, which appeared to be “Ganja” and was seized vide the seizure memo. On weighing the recovered Ganja, on the electronic weighing machine, the total weight of the quantity recovered, was about 24.145 Kg.
25. The FSL Report confirmed that on physical, Chemical. Microscopic and TLC examination, exhibits ‘SA-1’ and ‘SB-1’ were found to be “Ganja”.
26. Pertinently, the recovered quantity of about 24.145 Kg was just 4.145 kgs more than the commercial quantity. Since, the entire substance including stems/stalks and dried leaves were weighed together without quantifying the weight of the flowering or fruiting tops, the quantity of ‘Ganja’ seized from the Applicant may be less than commercial quantity so as to attract Section 20 of the NDPS Act….”
23.14.6 Similar view is also taken by the various courts while considering the following quantities:
Sl.No Reference Quantity
1. Kunal Duttu Kadu Vs. Union of India 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1770 43 kg
2. Shri Sandip Ashok Raut Vs. State of Maharastra 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 4543 187 kg
3. Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 485 28.600 gms (cannabis)
4. Bettanayaka Vs. State of Karnataka 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3916 20 kg
5. Ratanlal Kharadi Vs. State of M.P 2019 SCC OnLine MP 6083 21 Kg. 400 grms
6. Ratnesh Vs. State
2017 SCC OnLine Del 9883 20 kg
7. Suresh Kumar Vs. State
2016 SCC OnLine Del 1209 25 kg and 100 gm of
ganja
8. Lavlesh Kumar Vs. State
2015 SCC OnLine Del 12574 22 kgs of Ganja
23.14.7 In similar circumstances, this court also excluded the weight of the bag, stalk and stem and converted the case from commercial quantity into below commercial quantity in the case of
K.V.Ramasamy reported in 2010 (1) TNLR 51 (MADRAS).”
23.14.8.In all these cases there is some ambiguity whether the seized ganja was weighed excluding the weight of the bag, stalk, stem, luxuriant leaves or only flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant. Even in the report there is no whisper about the presence of the
Tetrahydrocannabinol as chief intoxicating ingredient. Therefore, considering the overall circumstances and also taking into account that the appellants are confined in prison without bail from the date of arrest, during the trial and pendency of these appeals, this court holds that conviction cannot be recorded on ambiguity about the exact weight of the drug containing parts of the hemp as defined under the definition of ganja in these border cases namely cases covered between 21 kg to 25 kg.
23.15. Discussion on the Principle of “HIRA SINGH” Case :
23.15.1 The learned additional public prosector’s submission to apply the “principle of Hira Singh case” is misconceived one under the Act and national policy on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, since there are two types of narcotic drugs namely “Natural and Synthetic”. As per definition of Narcotic drugs Section 2(xiv) of the
NDPS Act, 1985 reads as follows:
“narcotic drug” means coca leaf, cannabis (hemp), opium poppy straw and includes all manufactured drugs”
23.15.2. As per the national policy on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and as per the NDPS Act, Narcotic Drugs are of two kinds – “Natural and Synthetic”. Ganja is a natural drug and it is used as a medicinal plant. As stated earlier,in this case the question of “mixture” of synthetic drugs has not arisen.
23.15.3 Cannabis (hemp) is one of the natural drugs and its significant quantities of psychoactive constituent is present only in the flowering and fruiting tops, and the small leaves (petal) next to the flowering tops and therefore legislature in its clear wisdom excluded the remaining parts of the plants. Therefore, the principle laid down in the Hira Singh case is applicable only to the manufactured drugs and is not applicable to the natural drugs.
23.15.4. To make further clarity on the issue of applicability of principle of Hira singh, it is relevant to extract the following paragraphs of the said judgment in the case of Hira Singh vs. Union of India reported in 2020 (20) SCC 272 hereunder:
“10.4. Even considering the definition of “manufacture”, “manufactured drug” and the “preparation” conjointly, the total weight of such “manufactured drug” or “preparation”, including the neutral material is required to be considered while determining small quantity or commercial quantity. If it is interpreted in such a manner, then and then only, the objects and purpose of the NDPS Act would be achieved. Any other intention to defeat the object and purpose of enactment of the NDPS Act viz. to the Act is deterrent.”
23.15.5 In case of seizure of mixture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances with one or more neutral substance(s), the quantity of neutral substance(s) is not to be excluded and is to be taken into consideration along with actual content by weight of the offending drug, while determining the “small or commercial quantity” of the narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances.
23.15.6. From the above law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hira Singh vs. Union of India reported in 2020 (20) SCC 272, it is clear that the ratio is applicable to “manufactured drugs” i.e., “Synthetic drugs”. The question of “mixture” of synthentic drugs has not arisen in this case. In this case the interpretation of meaning of the natural drug namely “Ganja” is the issue.

23.15.7. The judgment relied by the learned Public Prosecutor reported in CDJ 2010 MHC 2446 (Ramesh case), 2009 (2) SCC 26, Crl.O.P.(MD) No.18999 of 2024 are held to be not applicable to the present case as in all the above cases, the ganja was recovered with the flowering tops.
23.15.8.In Crl.A.(MD).Nos.396, 397, 399 and 400 of 2023, two set of accused allegedly carried 30 kgs of Ganja in two travel bags and one gunny bag. The recovered ganja is without any flowering or fruiting tops. Therefore, this Court under guesstimation holds the weight ganja might be blow the commercial quantity if the weight of the two travel bags, one gunny bag, stalk, luxuriant leaves, seeds, stem are excluded. Therefore, this Court is inclined to convert the conviction of appellants into Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
23.15.9.This Court is also duty bound to clarify that the above interpretation applicable to “ganja” is not applicable to the case of the “charas” in view of the inclusive and expanding following definition of charas in section 2 (iii) (a) of the NDPS Act, 1985
“charas, that is, the separated resin, in whatever form, whether crude or purified, obtained from the cannabis plant and also includes concentrated preparation and resin known as hashish oil or liquid hashish”
23.16. Therefore, this Court arrives at the conclusion that the appellant’s case does not come under the category of commercial quantity and he is not liable to be convicted “under Section 8(c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act, 1985” and he is liable to be convicted “under Section 8(c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act, 1985”.
23.17. Therefore, this Court inclines to accept the argument of all the learned counsels for the appellants to convict all the appellants under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, considering the special circumstances of the case that the contraband was recovered with leaves, seeds, stem and stalk and without any materials to prove the presence of flowering or fruiting tops alone and without measurement of the separate weight of the bag,seeds,stem, stalks etc Pertinently, the recovered quantity more than the above small and below commercial quantity. Since, the entire substance including stems/stalks and dried leaves with bags were weighed together without quantifying the weight of the flowering or fruiting tops, the quantity of ‘Ganja’ seized from the appellants may be less than commercial, pertinently, the recovered quantity was just 1 to 5 Kgs more than 20 kgs.
23.18. Therefore, in view of the positive report of the chemical analysis about the presence of the cannabinod, this Court is of the opinion that seized ganja is a heterogeneous mixture of offending drug containing parts of the hemp and the other non-offending drug containing parts of the hemp and this Court at this stage of the appeal feels to convert the conviction under “Section 8(c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (C)of the NDPS Act, 1985” into one under “Section 8(c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act, 1985”.
24. Conclusion on conviction:
24.1. Allowing illegality to be perpetuate at the cost of confinement in prison without bail, conviction and sentence of imprisonment of ten years and minimum fine of one lakh under the NDPS Act of various accused for the possession of the commercial quantity of Ganja without weighing psychoactive parts of the hemp mentioned in the definition of Ganja U/s. 2(ii) of the NDPS Act and weighing the totality of hetero-genic mixture of flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, luxuriant leaves, seeds, stems and stalks, amounts to deprivation of the fundamental right of the accused a fair trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases has held that once their perpetuated illegality is brought to the knowledge of the court it is duty of the Constitutional Court, to curb the said illegality by bringing the remedial measures without allowing the same to continue. And the same is fortified by the following decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court 2015 (2) SCC 591, 2010 (11) SCC 455 and 2011 (3) SCC 436.
24.2 Accordingly, all the appeals are partly allowed and conviction passed against the appellants in all cases in respective C.C.nos. for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, is hereby set aside and all the appellants are convicted for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
25. Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment:
25.1 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No.
212 of 2020:
The appellant is the sole accused in C.C.No.365 of 2019 and he was directed to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Now this Court set aside the same and convicted only under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. He is confined in prison from 16.06.2020 onwards. In jail, he has not involved in any offence and his conduct also good. He is aged about 61 years and he is the sole breadwinner of his family and he has one male child and female child and he is bound to safeguard the interest of the family members. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been transferred from Madurai Central Prison to Trichy Central Prison.
Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment of sentence already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.
25.2 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No.
172 of 2023:
The appellant is the sole Accused in C.C.No.429 of 2019 and he was directed to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Now this Court set aside the same and convicted only under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. He is confined in prison from 21.08.2019 onwards. In jail, he has not involved in any jail offence and his conduct also good. He is aged about 48 years and he is the sole breadwinner of his family and he has wife and three female children and he is bound to safeguard the interest of the family members.
Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment of sentence already undergone by the accused and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.
25.3 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No.
293 of 2021:
The appellant/sole accused in C.C.No.428 of 2019 and he was directed to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Now this Court set aside the same and convicted only under Section 8(c) r/w
20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. He is confined in prison from 20.01.2021 onwards. In jail, he has not involved in any jail offence and his conduct also good. He is aged about 54 years and he is the sole breadwinner of his family and his wife is suffereing from serious illness and he has three children and he is bound to safeguard the interest of the family members.
Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment of sentence which has been already undergone by the accused and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.
25.4. Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No. 331 of 2023:
The appellant is the Sole Accused in C.C.No. 337 of 2021 and he was directed to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default sentence of 12 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Now this Court set aside the same and convicted only under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. He is confined in prison from 22.11.2022 onwards. In jail, he has not involved in any jail offence and his conduct also good. He is aged about 58 years and he is the sole breadwinner of his family and he is bound to safeguard the interest of the family members.
Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.
25.5. Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No.
396, 400, 399, 397 of 2023:
25.5.1. Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A. (MD).No.396 of 2023:
The appellant is A4 in C.C.No.160 of 2016 and she was directed to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default sentence of 12 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Now this Court set aside the same and convicted only under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. She is confined in prison from 29.03.2023 onwards. In jail, she has not involved in any offence and her conduct also good. She is aged about 35 years.
Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.
25.5.2 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.
(MD).No.397 of 2023:
The appellant is the A1 in C.C.No. 160 of 2016 and he was directed to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default sentence of 12 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Now this Court set aside the same and convicted only under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. He is confined in prison from 29.03.2023 onwards. In jail, he has not involved in any jail offence and his conduct also good. He is aged about 45 years and he is the sole breadwinner of his family and he is bound to safeguard the interest of the family members.
Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.
25.5.3 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.
(MD).No.399 of 2023:
The appellant is the A2 in C.C.No. 160 of 2016 and he was directed to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default sentence of 12 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Now this Court set aside the same and convicted only under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. He is confined in prison from 29.03.2023 onwards. In jail, he has not involved in any jail offence and his conduct also good. He is aged about 58 years and he is the sole breadwinner of his family and he is bound to safeguard the interest of the family members.
Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment. 
25.5.4 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.
(MD).No.400 of 2023:
The appellant is A3 in C.C.No.160 of 2016 and she was directed to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with default sentence of 12 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Now this Court set aside the same and convicted only under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. She is confined in prison from 29.03.2023 onwards. In jail, she has not involved in any offence and her conduct also good. She is aged about 65 years.
Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.
25.6. Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No.
507 of 2023 and Crl.A.(MD).No.94 of 2024:
25.6.1. Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A. (MD).No.507 of 2023:
The appellant is A2 in C.C.No.30 of 2022 and he was directed to undergo 12 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,20,000/- in default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Now this Court set aside the same and convicted only under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. He is confined in prison from 01.12.2021 onwards. In jail, he has not involved in any jail offence and his conduct also good. He is aged about 33 years and he is the sole breadwinner of his family and he is bound to safeguard the interest of the family members.
Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.
25.6.2 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.
(MD).No.94 of 2024:
The appellant is A1 in C.C.No.30 of 2022 and he was directed to undergo 12 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,20,000/- with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Now this Court set aside the same and convicted only under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. He is confined in prison from 01.12.2021 onwards. In jail, he has not involved in any jail offence and his conduct also good. He is aged about 39 years and he is the sole breadwinner of his family and he is bound to safeguard the interest of the family members.
Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.
25.7 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No. 534 of 2022:
The appellant is the Sole Accused in C.C.No.138 of 2020 and he was directed to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default sentence of 1 year simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Now this Court set aside the same and convicted only under Section 8(c) r/w
20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. He is confined in prison from 01.03.2020 onwards. In jail, he has not involved in any jail offence and his conduct also good. He is aged about 58 years and he is the sole breadwinner of his family and he is bound to safeguard the interest of the family members.
Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.
25.8 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No. 551 of 2023:
The appellants are the Accused No.1&2 in C.C.No.333 of 2016 and they were directed to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each in default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Now this Court set aside the same and convicted only under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. They are confined in prison from 20.01.2023 onwards. In jail, they have not involved in any jail offence and their conduct also good. Both are female and they are aged above 65 years.
Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment each and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each with default sentence of 6 months each simple imprisonment.
25.9 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No. 588 of 2023:
The appellants are the A1 & A2 in Special C.C.No.403 of 2022 and they were directed to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the
NDPS Act. Now this Court set aside the same and convicted only under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. They are confined in prison from 09.12.2021 onwards. In jail, they have not involved in any jail offence and their conduct also good. Both of them are male and are aged about 25 and 29 years respectively and they are the sole breadwinner of their respective families and they are bound to safeguard the interest of their family members.
Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment each and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- eeach with default sentence of 6 months each simple imprisonment.
25.10 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No. 724 of 2023:
The appellants are the A1 & A2 in Spl.C.C.No.192 of 2017 and they were directed to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default sentence of one year simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Now this Court set aside the same and convicted only under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. They are confined in prison from 13.11.2022 onwards. In jail, they have not involved in any jail offence and their conduct also good. Both of them are male and are aged about 75 years and 50 years respectively and they are the sole breadwinner of their respective families and they are bound to safeguard the interest of their family members.
Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment each and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each with default sentence of 6 months each simple imprisonment.
25.11 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No.
773, 953 of 2023 and Crl.A.(MD).No.265 of 2024:
25.11.1 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.
(MD).No. 773 of 2023:
The appellants is the A2 in C.C.No.308 of 2020 and he was directed to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Now this
Court set aside the same and convicted only under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. He is confined in prison from 05.06.2023 onwards. He is aged about 47 years. In jail, he has not involved in any jail offence and his conduct also good.
Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment to sentence already undergone by the accused and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment. 
25.11.2 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.
(MD).No. 953 of 2023:
The appellants is the A3 in C.C.No.308 of 2020 and she was directed to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default sentence of 1 year simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Now this
Court set aside the same and convicted only under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. She is confined in prison from 05.06.2023 onwards. In jail, she has not involved in any jail offence and her conduct also good. She is aged about 45 years.
Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment of sentence already undergone by the accused and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.
25.11.3 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.
(MD).No. 265 of 2024:
The appellants are the A1 and A4 in C.C.No.308 of 2020 and they were directed to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default sentence of 1 year simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Now this Court set aside the same and convicted only under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. They are confined in prison from 05.06.2023 onwards. In jail, they have not involved in any jail offence and their conduct also good. They are aged about 33 years and 29 years respectively.
Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment of sentence already undergone by the accused and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment each.
25.12. Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No. 322 of 2023:
The Appellant is the sole accused in C.C.No.59 of 2016 and was directed to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default sentence of 1 year simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Now this
Court set aside the same and convicted only under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. They are confined in prison from 01.09.2022 onwards. In jail, he has not involved in any jail offence and his conduct also good. He is aged about 51 years.
Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment of sentence already undergone by the accused and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment each.
25.13. Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No.
269 and 558 of 2023:
25.13.1.Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.
(MD).No.269 of 2023
The Appellant is the accused No.2 in C.C.No.228 of 2016 and was directed to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default sentence of 1 year simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Now this
Court set aside the same and convicted only under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. They are confined in prison from 24.02.2023 onwards. In jail, she has not involved in any jail offence and his conduct also good. He is aged about 48 years.
Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment of sentence already undergone by the accused and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment each.
 
25.13.2.Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.
(MD).No.558 of 2023:
The Appellant is the accused No.1 in C.C.No.228 of 2016 and was directed to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default sentence of 1 year simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Now this
Court set aside the same and convicted only under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. They are confined in prison from 24.02.2023 onwards. In jail, she has not involved in any jail offence and his conduct also good. He is aged about 49 years.
Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitha Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online 984, this court inclines to award the punishment of sentence already undergone by the accused and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment each.
26.Details of modified conviction and sentence of imprisonment:
S.No Appea l No. Trial Court conviction Modified conviction passed by this Court Sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Trial Judge with fine Modified sentence of imprisonment passed by this Court
1 Crl.A. (MD).
No.
212 of
2020 Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS
Act. Section
8(c) r/w
20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act. The appellant/sole accused sentenced to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment each for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act. The appellant/sole accused
punishment is modified into sentence already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) in default, to undergo, 6 months simple
Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
2 Crl.A. (MD).
No.
172 of
2023 Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS
Act. Section
8(c) r/w
20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act. The appellant/Sole Accused to undergo 10 years Rigorous
Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in default, to undergo, 6 months Simple
Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The appellant/sole accused
punishment is modified into sentence already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each in default, to undergo, 6 months simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

3 Crl.A. (MD).
No.
293 of
2021 Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS
Act. Section
8(c) r/w
20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act. The appellant/sole accused sentenced to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 6 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The appellant/sole accused sentenced to undergo 5 years
Rigorous
Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of
Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each in default, to undergo, 6 months simple
Imprisonment each for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
4 Crl.A. (MD).
No.
331 of
2023 Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS
Act. Section
8(c) r/w
20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act. The appellant/Sole Accused sentenced to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in default, to undergo, 12 months Simple
Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The appellant/sole accused sentenced to undergo 5 years
Rigorous
Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of
Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each in default, to undergo, 6 months simple
Imprisonment each for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

5 Crl.A. (MD). Nos.
396,
397,
399 &
400 of
2023 Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS
Act. Section
8(c) r/w
20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act. The accused Nos.1 to 4 sentenced to undergo 10 years Rigorous
Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in default, to undergo, 12 months Simple
Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The appellant/A1 to A4 are sentenced to undergo 5 years
Rigorous
Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of
Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each in default, to undergo, 6 months simple
Imprisonment each for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
6 Crl.A. (MD).
Nos.
507 of 2023 and 94
of
2024 Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS
Act. Section
8(c) r/w
20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act. The appellants/A2 & A1 sentenced to undergo 12 years Rigorous
Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Twenty Thousand only) in default, to undergo, 6 months Simple
Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The appellant/sA1 & A2 are sentenced to undergo 5 years
Rigorous
Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of
Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each in default, to undergo, 6 months simple
Imprisonment each for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.

7 Crl.A. (MD).
No.
534 of
2023 Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS
Act. Section
8(c) r/w
20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act. The appellant/Sole Accused sentenced to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in default, to undergo, 1 year Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The appellant/sole accused
punishment is modified into sentence already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) in default, to undergo, 6 months simple
Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
8 Crl.A. (MD).
No.
551 of
2023 Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS
Act. Section
8(c) r/w
20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act. The appellants/Accused No.1&2 sentenced to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 1 year Simple Imprisonment each for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The appellant/Accused
No. 1&2 are sentenced to undergo 5 years
Rigorous
Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of
Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each in default, to undergo, 6 months simple
Imprisonment each for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

9 Crl.A. (MD).
No.
588 of
2023 Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS
Act. Section
8(c) r/w
20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act. The appellant sentenced to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 6 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act. The appellant/sole accused sentenced to undergo 5 years
Rigorous
Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of
Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each in default, to undergo, 6 months simple
Imprisonment each for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
10 Crl.A. (MD).
No.
724 of
2023 Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS
Act. Section
8(c) r/w
20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act. The appellants/A1 & A2 sentenced to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 1 year Simple Imprisonment each for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The appellant/A1 & A2 sentenced to undergo 5 years
Rigorous
Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of
Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each in default, to undergo, 6 months simple
Imprisonment each for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.

11 Crl.A. (MD).
Nos.
773 &
953 of 2023 and 265 of
2024 Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS
Act. Section
8(c) r/w
20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act. The appellants/A2, A3, A1
& A4 sentenced to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 1 year Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The appellant/A2,A3,A 1&A4 punishment is modified into sentence already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each in default, to undergo, 6 months simple Imprisonment each for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
12 Crl.A. (MD).
Nos.
322 of
2023 Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS
Act. Section
8(c) r/w
20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act. The appellant sentenced to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 1 year Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The appellant/sole accused sentenced to undergo 5 years
Rigorous
Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of
Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each in default, to undergo, 6 months simple
Imprisonment each for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
13 Crl.A. (MD).
No.
269 of
2023 Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C), 25, 29(1) of the NDPS
Act. Section
8(c) r/w
20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act. The appellant sentenced to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 1 year Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The appellant/sole accused sentenced to undergo 5 years
Rigorous
Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of
Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each in default, to undergo, 6 months simple
Imprisonment each for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
13a Crl.A. (MD).
No.
558 of
2023 Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (C), 25, 29(1) of the NDPS
Act. Section
8(c) r/w
20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act. The appellant sentenced to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default, to undergo, 1 year Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The appellant/sole accused sentenced to undergo 5 years
Rigorous
Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of
Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each in default, to undergo, 6 months simple
Imprisonment each for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
27.Final Conclusion in each appeal:
27. 1.Accordingly, the appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No.212 of 2020 is partly allowed on the following terms :-

II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, in C.C.No.365 of 2020 dated 16.06.2020, for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, is hereby set aside.
ii) The appellant is convicted for the offence
under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. iii) The appellant is sentenced to undergo 5 year/s of rigorous imprisonment and the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) as fine with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.
iv) The period already undergone by the appellant is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The Prison Authority is hereby directed to release the accused, unless his presence is necessary in any other case.
(v) If the fine amount imposed by the learned Judge is paid, the appellant is entitled to refund of the remaining fine amount other than Rs.50,000/- imposed in this appeal.
-Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.2. Accordingly, the appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No.172 of 2021 is partly allowed on the following terms:-
learned I Additional Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, in C.C.No.429 of 2019 dated 12.03.2021, for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, is hereby set aside. ii) The appellant is convicted for the offence
under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. iii) The appellant is sentenced to undergo 5 year/s of Rigorous Imprisonment and the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) as fine with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.
iv) The period already undergone by the appellant is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The Prison Authority is hereby directed to release the accused, unless his presence is necessary in any other case.
(v) If the fine amount imposed by the learned Judge is paid, the appellant is entitled to refund of the remaining fine amount other than Rs.50,000/- imposed in this appeal.
– Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27. 3.Accordingly, the appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No.293 of 2021 is partly allowed on the following terms :-
learned I Additional Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, in C.C.No.428 of 2019 dated 29.06.2021, for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, is hereby set aside. ii) The appellant is convicted for the offence
under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
iii) The appellant is sentence of imprisonment as already undergone and the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) as fine with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.
iv) The period already undergone by the appellant is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
(v) If the fine amount imposed by the learned Judge is paid, the appellant is entitled to refund of the remaining fine amount other than Rs.50,000/- imposed in this appeal.
– Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27. 4.Accordingly, the appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No.331 of 2023 is partly allowed on the following terms :-
i) The conviction and sentence imposed by the

I Additional Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, in C.C.No.337 of 2021 dated 22.11.2022, for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, is hereby set aside.
ii) The appellant is convicted for the offence
under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
iii) The appellant is sentenced to undergo 5 years of rigorous imprisonment and the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand Only) as fine with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.
iv) The period already undergone by the appellant is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
(v) If the fine amount imposed by the learned Judge is paid, the appellant is entitled to refund of the remaining fine amount other than Rs.50,000/- imposed in this appeal.
-Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.5.Accordingly, the appeals in Crl.A.(MD).Nos.396, 397, 399 and 400 of 2023 are partly allowed on the following terms :-
i) The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, Madurai District in C.C.No.372 of
2019 dated 12.01.2023, for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, is hereby set aside.
ii) The appellant is convicted for the offence
under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
iii) The appellant is sentenced to undergo 5 years of rigorous imprisonment each and the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand Only) as fine each with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment. iv) The period already undergone by the appellant is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
(v) If the fine amount imposed by the learned Judge is paid, the appellant is entitled to refund of the remaining fine amount other than Rs.50,000/- imposed in this appeal.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.6.Accordingly, the appeals in Crl.A.(MD).Nos.507 of 2023 and 94 of 2024 are partly allowed on the following terms :-
i) The conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional District and Sessions Court/Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, in C.C.No. 30 of 2022, dated 26.05.2023, for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, is hereby set aside.
ii) The appellants are convicted for the offence
under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. iii) The appellants are sentenced to undergo 5 year/s of rigorous imprisonment and the appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) as fine with default sentence of 6 month/s simple imprisonment.
iv) The period already undergone by the appellants is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
(v) If the fine amount imposed by the learned Judge is paid, the appellant is entitled to refund of the remaining fine amount other than Rs.50,000/- imposed in this appeal.
– Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27. 7.Accordingly, the appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No.534 of 2022 is partly allowed on the following terms:-
i) The conviction and sentence imposed by the
learned I Additional District Judge for NDPS Act Cases at Madurai in C.C.No.138 of 2020, dated
25.07.2022, for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, is hereby set aside. ii) The appellants are convicted for the offence
under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. iii) The appellants are sentenced to undergo 5 year/s of rigorous imprisonment and the appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) as fine with default sentence of 6 month/s simple imprisonment.
ii) The period already undergone by the appellants is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.The Prison Authority is hereby directed to release the accused, unless his presence is necessary in any other case.
iii) If the fine amount imposed by the learned Judge is paid, the appellant is entitled to refund of the remaining fine amount other than Rs.50,000/- imposed in this appeal.
– Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27. 8.Accordingly, the appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No.551 of 2023 is partly allowed on the following terms :-
i) The conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants in C.C.No.333 of 2016, dated
20.01.2023, passed by the District and Sessions Court
for Communal Clash Cases, Madurai, for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, is hereby set aside.
ii) The appellant is convicted under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
iii) The appellant is sentenced to undergo 5 year/s of rigorous imprisonment and the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) as fine with default sentence of 6 month/s simple imprisonment.
iv) The period already undergone by the appellant is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
(v) If the fine amount imposed by the learned Judge is paid, the appellant is entitled to refund of the remaining fine amount other than Rs.50,000/- imposed in this appeal.
– Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27. 9.Accordingly, the appeals in Crl.A.(MD).Nos.588 of 2023 is partly allowed on the following terms :-
i) The conviction and sentence imposed by the he learned Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, in C.C.No.403 of 2022 dated
31.05.2023, for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w
20(b)(ii)(C), 29(1) of the NDPS Act, is hereby set aside.
ii) The appellants are convicted for the offence
under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. iii) The appellants are sentenced to undergo 5 year/s of rigorous imprisonment and the appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) as fine with default sentence of 6 month/s simple imprisonment.
iv) The period already undergone by the appellants is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
(v) If the fine amount imposed by the learned Judge is paid, the appellant is entitled to refund of the remaining fine amount other than Rs.50,000/- imposed in this appeal.
– Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27. 10.Accordingly, the appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No.724 of 2023 is partly allowed on the following terms :-
i) The conviction and sentence imposed by the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases,
Madurai, in Spl.C.C.No.192 of 2017 dated
18.11.2022, for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, is hereby set aside.
ii) The appellants are convicted for the offence
under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
iii) The appellants are sentenced to undergo 5 year/s of rigorous imprisonment and the appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only ) as fine with default sentence of 6 months Simple Imprisonment.
iv) The period already undergone by the appellant is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
(v) If the fine amount imposed by the learned Judge is paid, the appellant is entitled to refund of the remaining fine amount other than Rs.50,000/- imposed in this appeal.
-Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.11.Accordingly, the appeals in Crl.A.(MD).Nos.773 & 953 of
2023 and 2 65 of 2024 are partly allowed on the following terms :-
i) The conviction and sentence imposed by the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, in C.C.No.308 of 2020, dated 05.06.2023, for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, is hereby set aside as against the the appellants/A2, A3, A1 & A4 in CrlA(MD)Nos.773 & 953 of 2023 and 265 of 2024 ii) The appellants/A2, A3, A1 & A4 are
convicted for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
iii) The appellants/A2, A3, A1 & A4 are sentenced to undergo 5 years of rigorous imprisonment and the appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand Only) as fine with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.
iv) The period already undergone by the appellants/A2, A3, A1 & A4 is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The Prison Authority is hereby directed to release the accused, unless their presence is necessary in any other case.
v) If the fine amount imposed by the learned Judge is paid, the appellant is entitled to refund of the remaining fine amount other than Rs.50,000/- imposed in this appeal.
– Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
27.12.Accordingly, the appeals in Crl.A.(MD).No. 322 of 2023 partly allowed on the following terms :-
(i)The conviction under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)
(ii)(C) of NDPS Act passed by the learned II
Additional Special Judge, Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai, dated 01.09.2022, in C.C.No.59 of 2016, is hereby set aside.
(ii)The appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
iii) The appellant is sentenced to undergo 5 years of rigorous imprisonment and the appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand Only) as fine with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.
iv) The period already undergone by the appellant is liable to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
v) If the fine amount imposed by the learned Judge is paid, the appellant is entitled to refund of the remaining fine amount other than Rs.50,000/- imposed in this appeal.
vi) In all cases, if contraband is in the court or with the police, it shall be ordered to be destroyed.
(vii)Seized Vehicles shall be ordered to be confiscated and disposed.
-Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.13.Accordingly, the appeals in Crl.A.(MD).Nos.269 and 558 of 2023 partly allowed on the following terms :-
(i)The conviction under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)
(ii)(C) of NDPS Act passed by the learned Principlal
Special Judge, Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai, dated 24.02.2023, in C.C.No.228 of 2013, is hereby set aside.
(ii)The appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
iii) The appellant is sentenced to undergo 5 years of rigorous imprisonment and the appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand Only) as fine with default sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment.
iv) The period already undergone by the appellant is liable to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
(v) If the fine amount imposed by the learned Judge is paid, the appellant is entitled to refund of the remaining fine amount other than Rs.50,000/- imposed in this appeal.
(vi) In all cases, if contraband is in the court or with the police, it shall be ordered to be destroyed. (vii)Seized Vehicles shall be ordered to be confiscated and disposed.

15.10.2025.
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
sbn
Note: Issue order copy 23.10.2025
To:
1.The II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.
2.The I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.
3.The Additional District and Sessions Court/Special Court for EC and
NDPS Act Cases, Pudukottai.
4.The District and Sessions Court for Communal Clash Cases, Madurai.
5.The Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.
6.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, NIB-CID, Dindigul.
7.The Inspector of Police,
NIB-CID, Theni.
8.The Inspector of Police,
NIB-CID, Dindigul.
9.The Inspector of Police, NIB-CID, Madurai.
10.The Inspector of Police,
Kenikkarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
11.The Inspector of Police, Allinagaram Police Station, Theni Distrtict.
12.The Inspector of Police, Karimedu Police Station, Madurai.
13.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Madurai.
14.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Trichy.
15.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
16.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section(Records),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
sbn
Crl.A.(MD).Nos. 212 of 2020, 172 of 2023, 293 of 2021, 331 of 2023,
396, 397, 399 & 400 of 2023, 507 of 2023 and 94 of 2024, 534 of 2022,
551 of 2023, 588 of 2023, 724 of 2023, 773, 953 of 2023 & 265 of 2024,
322 of 2023, 269 and 558 of 2023
15.10.2025