Summary of discussion:

under the definition of Ganja under Section 2(iii)

(b) of the NDPS Act 1985 16 Points for determination 15.A 17 General Discussion on the compliance of Section 16 – 16.5 42 of the NDPS Act 18 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of 16.6 – 16.6.6 the NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.212 of 2020 19 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of 16.7 – 16.7.2 the NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.172 of 2023 20 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of 16.8 – 16.8.4 the NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.293 of 2021 21 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of 16.9 – 16.9.2 the NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.331 of 2023 22 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of 16.10 the NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.396, 397, 399 & 400 of 2023 23 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of 16.11-16.11.2 the NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.507 of 2023 & 94 of 2024 Page 14/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 24 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of 16.12-16.12.2 the NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.534 of 2022 25 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of 16.13 the NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.551 of 2023 26 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of 16.14-16.14.2 the NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.588 of 2023 27 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of 16.15-16.15.2 the NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.724 of 2023 28 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of 16.16-16.16.3 the NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.773, 953 of 2023 & 265 of 2024 29 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of 16.17-16.17.3 the NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.322 of 2023 30 Discussion on the compliance of Section 42 of 16.18-16.18.2 the NDPS Act in Crl.A.(MD).No.269 & 558 of 2023 31 General Discussion on the compliance of Section 17-17.4.4 50 of the NDPS Act .

32 Consideration of the precedents 17.5-17.7 33 General Discussion on the presence of the Crime 18-18.6 Number in the sample or arrest memo 34 Discussion on the Non-Examination of the 19-19.3 independent witnesses 35 Discussion on the Non-Examination of the 19.3.1 independent witnesses in Crl.A.(MD).No.172 of 2023 36 Discussion on the Non-Examination of the 19.3.2 independent witnesses in Crl.A.(MD).No.551 of 2023 37 Discussion on the Non-Examination of the 19.3.3 independent witnesses in Crl.A.(MD).No.588 of 2023 Page 15/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 38 Discussion on the Non-Examination of the 19.3.4 independent witnesses in Crl.A.(MD).Nos.773, 953 of 2023 and 265 of 2024 39 Discussion on the delay in producing the 20-20.3 contraband 40 Discussion on the delay in producing the 20.3.1 contraband in Crl.A.(MD).No.212 of 2020 41 Discussion on the delay in producing the 20.3.2 contraband in Crl.A.(MD).No.293 of 2021 42 Discussion on the delay in producing the 20.3.3 contraband in Crl.A.(MD).No.588 of 2023 43 Discussion on the compliance of Section 52 A of 20.4 – 20.4.3 NDPS Act 44 Discussion on maintainability of the conviction 21 – 21.2 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.

45 Discussion on the maintainability of conviction 23 – 23.1 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 46 Submission of the appellant counsel 23.2 – 23.2.2 47 Submission of the learned Additional Public 23.3 – 23.3.3 Prosecutor 48 Reply argument by the learned counsel for the 23.4 – 23.4.2 appellants 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 23.7 – 23.8.6 cultivation 52 Principles to interpret the provision of NDPS Act 23.9 – 23.9.2 1985 53 Discussion on the definition of Ganja 23.10 – 23.10.12 Page 16/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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 25.1 Crl.A.(MD).No.212 of 2020 62 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in 25.2 Crl.A.(MD).No.172 of 2023 63 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in 25.3 Crl.A.(MD).No.293 of 2021 64 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in 25.4 Crl.A.(MD).No.331 of 2023 65 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in 25.5-25.5.4 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.396, 397, 399 and 400 of 2023 66 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in 25.6-25.6.2 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.507 of 2023 and 94 of 2024 67 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in 25.7 Crl.A.(MD).No.534 of 2022 68 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in 25.8 Crl.A.(MD).No.551 of 2023 69 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in 25.9 Crl.A.(MD).No.588 of 2023 70 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in 25.10 Crl.A.(MD).No.742 of 2023 71 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in 25.11-25.11.3 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.773, 953 of 2023 and 265 of 2024 72 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in 25.12 Crl.A.(MD).No.322 of 2023 Page 17/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 73 Discussion on the sentence of imprisonment in 25.3 – 25.3.2 Crl.A.(MD).Nos.269 and 558 of 2023 74 Details of the modified conviction and sentence 26 of imprisonment 75 Final conclusion in each appeal 27- 27.13 Prelude:

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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.

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 The appellant/Sole Accused in C.C.No.429 of of 2023 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 The appellant/sole accused in C.C.No.428 of of 2021 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 Page 22/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 4 Crl.A.(MD).No.331 The appellant/Sole Accused in C.C.No.337 of of 2023 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, The accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.160 of 2016 397, 399 & 400 of on the file of the learned II Additional Special 2023 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 The appellants/A2 & A1 in C.C.No.30 of 2022 of 2023 and 94 of on the file of the Additional District and 2024 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 7 Crl.A.(MD).No.534 The appellant/Sole Accused in C.C.No.138 of of 2023 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 The appellants/Accused No.1&2 in C.C.No.333 of 2023 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 The appellants/A1 & A2 in Crl.A(MD)No.588 of of 2023 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 10 Crl.A.(MD).No.724 The appellants/A1 & A2 in Spl.C.C.No.192 on of 2023 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 The appellants/A2, A3, A1 & A4 in C.C.No.308 & 953 of 2023 and of 2020 on the file of the II Additional Special 265 of 2024 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 The appellant in C.C.No.59 of 2016 on the file of 2023 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm )

13. Crl.A.(MD).No269 The accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.228 of 2013 & 558 of 2023 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:

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:-

3.1.The brief facts of the case are as follows:

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 Page 33/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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) Page 34/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) of the NDPS Act . Challenging the same, present appeal has been filed.

3.2.The learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:-

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, Page 35/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:-

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 Page 36/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm )

4. The brief facts, submission of the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in Crl.A.(MD).No.293 of 2021:

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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 :-

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 4.3. Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor:-

5.1.The brief facts of the case are as follows:

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:-

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:

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 Page 47/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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 Page 48/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:-

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:

7.1.The brief facts of the case are as follows:

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 Page 52/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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 Page 53/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:-

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 Page 58/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:

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 Page 59/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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 Page 60/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:-

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 Page 62/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:

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:

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 Page 64/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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 Page 65/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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 :-

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:

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 Page 71/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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 Page 72/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) of 2023.

10.2.Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No.588 of 2023:

10.3.Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in Crl.A.(MD).No.588 of 2023:

11.1.The brief facts of the case are as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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 Page 77/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:-

Hence, he prayed to dismiss the appeal by confirming the conviction and Page 79/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:

12.1.2. 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 Page 82/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:-

production 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 Page 84/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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 Page 85/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) Crl.A.No.70 of 2016.

12.3. The submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor:-

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 Page 86/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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 non-

compliance 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 Page 87/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:

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 Page 88/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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 Page 89/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:

14.1.The brief facts of the case are as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 14.3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor made the following submissions:

2.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the above aspect is question of Page 100/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:-

16. Discussion on the compliance of the Section 42 of the NDPS Act:

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 Page 107/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) discuss about the compliance of the Section 42 on the facts of each appeal:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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 Page 109/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:-

16.6.5.When the evidence of PW2 and Ex P6 sufficiently proved Page 110/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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 Page 111/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:-

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:-

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 Page 128/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:

me;j 57 mwpf;ifia ehd; ifnahg;gk; nra;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:-

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:

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:

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 Page 136/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) “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 Page 138/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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 We are of the opinion that the concept of safeguards provided in section 50 “substantial compliance” with the were observed would have, however, requirement of section 50 of the NDPS Act to be determined by the court on the introduced and read into the mandate of the basis of the evidence led at the trial said section in Joseph Fernandez and and the finding on that issue, one way Prabha Shankar Dubey is neither borne out or the other, would be relevant for from the language of sub section (1) of recording an order of conviction or section 50 nor it is in consonance with the acquittal. Without giving an dictum laid down in Baladev Singh case. opportunity to the prosecution to Needless to add that the question whether or establish at the trial that the provisions not the procedure prescribed has been of section 50 and particularly, the followed and the requirement of section 50 safeguards provided in that section had been met, is a matter of trial. It would were complied with, it would not be neither be possible nor feasible to lay down advisable to cut short a criminal trial. any absolute formulate in that behalf.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:-

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 Page 140/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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 Page 143/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:-

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:-

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:-

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:

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 Page 156/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:

20.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardip Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 8 SCC 557 has held as follows:-

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 Page 165/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) alternative and not cumulative in nature. Such provision specifying multiple alternative purposes could not be construed as a mandatory provision much less its non- compliance 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 :

A 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 Page 166/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:

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 Page 170/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:-

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:-

21.2. But, to sustain the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of Page 171/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:

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”.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 23.5. Taxonomy and Pharmacology of Hemp:

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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 Having male reproductive same individual having staminate and pistillate organs in one individual and flowers on the same plant female in another Having staminate and pistillate In any larger field of cannabis plants, a number will flowers borne on different be monoecious, that is bearing both male and individuals female flowers 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 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:

compound leaves 23.6. Pharmacology of Hemp:

tetrahydrocannabinol (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 Page 181/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:

Therefore, Fluorescences of flower is a material part of ganja which comes under its definition. Marijuana is the base for both ganja and bang.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) In both, Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is present.

23.6.6. Usage of bhang with the limit of 15% of THC is not an offence. But in the case of Ganja it is about 25% of THC, and it is an offence. Concentrated Psychoactive constituent is present only in the fruiting or flowering tops. The small leaves (petal) next to the flowering tops contain significant quantity of psychoactive constituent THC and they are known as drug containing parts. The bigger leaves, namely, the luxuriant leaves located at greater distance from the flowering tops also have THC, but they are not treated as the psychoactive constituent.

Similarly, the male flowers contain moderately less THC than the female plants. Central stem, main stem contain little THC and they are used for the preparation of the bhang. Remaining part also contains THC, but they are used for the preparation of the various fiber or the oil, herbal materials.

23.6.7. The House of Lords also has dealt the taxonomy of the cannabis plant and pharmacology of the cannabis in the decision reported in the case of Directorate of Prosecution (Respondent) and Goodchild (Appellant) reported in 1978 (1) WLR 578 and held as follows:

These are secreted in the hairs of trichomes on the leaves and on the flowering and fruiting tops. They are present in increasingly greater concentration as one moves from bottom to top of the plant. There is very little in the stem itself or in the ripe seeds. The concentration in the flowers is about two-and-a-half times, and in the vegetative tops is about twice, the concentration in the lower leaves. The resin can be extracted from the plant by brushing it off the leaves and flowers. The hallucinogenic Ingredients, cannabinol, T.H.C. can then be extracted from the resin.

5.2. The narcotic effect of the cannabis plant when subjected to no other treatment except drying thus varies with the portion of the plant that is used. The resin when separated from the plant contains a higher concentration of narcotic than the plant itself, while the highest narcotic content is to be found in cannabinol and cannabinol derivatives after they have been extracted from the resin.” Page 184/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 23.6.8. From the reading of the various provisions of the Act, and the precedents of various Courts and House of lords and the guidelines issued by the Union Government as to how the chemical analysis has to be conducted on the basis of UNODC guidelines and various articles and the toxicology books and Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report 1894, this Court opines that cannabis plant contains various parts and the same is divisible into drug containing parts and non-drug containing parts.

Even in the drug containing parts, the ratio of psychoactive constituent varies. More than 550 number of chemicals are present in the cannabis and cumulatively called as “cannabinoid”. As per the pharmacology, cannabinoid mainly contains THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol), CBD (Cannabinoidal), CBN (Cannabinal). As already observed, the fruiting and flowering tops and leaves next to the flowering tops (either called as small leaves or petal or vegetative tops) contain the significant amount of THC and they are called as the drug containing parts of the cannabis plant. Remaining parts even though having negligible amount of THC, they are not brought under the control of the Act. Bhang one of the offending materials with negligible amount of THC, which was in the earlier Abkari Act and Dangerous drugs Act, is omitted by government in the present NDPS Act . The would show that Bhang is out of the purview Page 185/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) of the Act. With the first hand of Pharmacology of Hemp, this court delves into the History of the Penal provision of “Hemp Cultivation” 23.7. The History of the Penal provision of “Hemp Cultivation”:

Only in the recent part of its Indian history cannabis was banned, and its use and prevalence grew exponentially, and now it is on the verge of being legalized again.

23.7.2. Cannabis Sativa or Indica is known as Indian Hemp. In India, the indigenous distinction between marijuana, bhang, and hashish have existed for centuries, and the three derivatives have considerable differences in concentrations of THC, CBD, and other components. So far as hemp is concerned, it is always treated as a multi purpose plant and also used as the medical drug from time immemorial. During the British period in the year 1894 a Indian Hemp Drugs Commission was appointed and in its more than 1372 pages report with heavy documentation of evidence and testimonies recommended against the prohibition of the Page 186/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) cannabis due to its extensive use in several parts of India even for religious purposes it was concluded with the following note:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) No Act was in force to prohibit the use of cannabis. Some state enactment like “The Madras Abkari Act, 1886, The Bombay Abkari Act, 1878 ” were operated with penal provision for possession of the Ganja as “Intoxicating Drugs” in excess of the quantity prescribed by the Government and importing and exporting intoxicating drugs without licence an offence. During the British period the regulation was available only for the purpose of the collection of revenue by imposing tax on the cultivation of the hemp. Subsequently, similar penal provisions as intoxicating drugs were incorporated in various Excise Act in many other states and in the Central Excise Act .

23.7.5 Thereafter, most of the states dealt with the Intoxicating Drugs under the various Excise Act namely Bengal Excise Act, 1909 , The United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 , The Punjab Excise act, 1914, The Burma Excise act, 1917, The East Bengal and Assam Excise Act, 1910 , The Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 . Apart from that Central Provinces Excise Act, 1915 also was in force.

23.7.6 Maximum 6 months punishment was provided with.

Subsequently, on the basis of the Geneva convention relating to Page 189/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) dangerous drugs held on 27.09.1923, 17.09.1924 and 19.02.1925 and the state being signatory to the said convention British Government brought Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 with the following preamble:

After the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 number of states brought Prohibition Act . The Prohibition Act dealt with both Intoxicating Liquor and Intoxicating Drugs.

23.8. Thereafter, taking note of many deficiencies in the existing laws and considering the drug abuse at the national and international level and also to imple ment the covenants of International convention on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, on 16.09.1985 the existing “ Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ” was introduced with the following statement of objects and reasons:

Further, no minimum punishment is prescribed in the Courts with nominal punishment. The country has for the last few years been increasingly facing the problem of transit traffic of drugs coming mainly from some of our neighboring countries and destined mainly to Western countries.

(ii). The existing Central laws do not provide for investing the officers of a number of important Central enforcement agencies like narcotics, customs, central excise, etc., with the power of investigation of offences under the said laws.

(iii) Since the enactment of the aforesaid three central Act a vast body of international law in the field of narcotics control has evolved through various international treaties and protocols. The Government of India has been a party to these treatise and conventions which entail several obligations which are not covered or are only partly covered by the present Acts.

(iv) During recent years new drugs of addiction which have come to be known as psychotropic substances have appeared on the scene and poses serious problems to national Governments.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) There is no comprehensive law to enable exercise of control over psychotropic substances in India in the manner as envisaged in the convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971 to which India also has acceded.

2. In view of what has been stated above, there is an urgent need for the enactment of a comprehensive legislation on narcotic drugs and pyschotropic substances which, inter alia, should consolidate and amend the exiting laws relating to narcotic drugs, strengthen the existing controls over drug abuse, considerably enhance the penalties particularly for trafficking offences, make provisions for exercising effective control over psychotropic substances and make provisions for the implementation of international conventions relating to narcotic drugs and Psychotropic substances to which India has become a party.” 23.8.1 Further various amendments were brought in the year 1989, 2001, 2014 to further strengthen the Act with stringent provisions. As per the NDPS Act, 1985 grave punishment was provided with reverse burden of proof by dividing the quantity of the contraband namely Narcotic Drugs and Narcotic Substances into three categories namely Commercial, Below Commercial and small quantity with following punishment:

obtained from the Indian hemp plant, (b) ganja, that is, the flowering or which has not been submitted to any fruiting tops of the cannabis plant manipulations other than those (excluding the seeds and leaves when necessary for packing and transport ; not accompanied by the tops), by

(iii) any mixture, with or whatever name they may be known or without neutral materials, of any of designated; and the above forms of hemp or any drink (c) any mixture, with or without any prepared therefrom. neutral material, of any of the above forms of cannabis or any drink prepared therefrom;

(iv) “cannabis plant” means any plant of the genus cannabis;

23.8.4 After the introduction of NDPS Act , the legislature considering the grave punishment, confined the definition of the cannabis(hemp) only to the parts of the genus of cannabis plant.

According to the definition of the cannabis hemp under the NDPS Act , cannabis plant, Ganja, Charas are specifically defined. Charas is a resin whether in the form of crude or purified, obtained from the cannabis plant and includes the concentrated preparation and the resin is known as hashish oil or liquid hashish. The Ganja has been defined as flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant. Cannabis plant is defined as any plant Page 196/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) of the genus of the cannabis. The mixture means with or without neutral material of the above forms of cannabis or any drink prepared therefrom.

The cumulative reading of the definitions shows that only flowering or fruiting top of the cannabis plant without the seeds and leaves is treated as Ganja. In the case of possession and trafficking of ganja, there is a total exclusion of any other parts of the cannabis plant other than the flowering or fruiting top and, seeds and leaves would be included only when accompanied with the flowering or fruiting tops.

23.8.5. The legislature also introduced the notification with contents of the chemical name and small,below commercial and commercial quantity.

23.8.6 In the table specified in the notification issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 2 clauses (viia) and (xxiiia) of the Act, serial number 23 defines cannabis and cannabis resin and the non-proprietary name was described as Charas and Hashish and name of chemical extract is extracts and tinctures of cannabis, whereas in the serial number 55, Ganja is Page 197/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) mentioned without any non-proprietary name and chemical name.

The Chemical name mentioned as per the NDPS Act , are as follows:

penty 611-dibenzo [b-d] pyran-OI 23.9. Principles to interpret the provisions of NDPS Act, 1985 :

23.9.2.A similar question arose before the House of Lords as to maintainability of conviction under “class A” without exclusion of seeds and leaves and the House of Lords in the case of Directorate of Prosecution (Respondent) and Goodchild (Appellant) reported in 1978 (1) WLR 578, has discussed taxonomy and pharmacology of cannabis and held as follows:-

They are included as Items in the list of Class B drugs, but "Cannabinol, except where contained in cannabis or cannabis resin Classan items in Class A; so is "Cannabinol derivatives, an expression which is defined in Part IV of Schedule 2 as meaning "the following substances, except where contained in cannabis or cannabis resin, namely tetrahydro derivatives of cannabinol and 3-alkyl hornologues of cannabinol or of its tetrahydro derivatives."

Following upon the lists of controlled drugs specified by name in each of the three classes are additional paragraphs designed to incorporate in the class closely related chemical analogues of the listed drugs, such as stereoisomers, esters, ethers and salts. In addition there is a paragraph which incorporates within the relevant class "any preparation or other product containing a substance or product for the time being specified in [the list of drugs] above."

At the first trial of the appellant in the Crown Court in Page 201/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) June 1976, the expert scientific evidence was given in the form of written statements. It was common ground that it was not proved that any part of the leaf and stalk of the cannabis plant that had been found in his possession consisted of flowering or fruiting tops, but that it was proved, though by qualitative analysis only, that some T.H.C. was present in the specimen that had been subjected to analysis. Upon this evidence the judge ruled that the material found in the appellant's possession was cannabis. The judge also ruled that the appellant had in his possession a cannabinol derivative, T.H.C., since this had been identified as a constituent of that material; but that the appellant was not in possession of any cannabis resin.

In consequence of those rulings, the appellant pleaded guilty to the count of unlawful possession of the controlled Class B drug, "cannabis. He pleaded not guilty to the count of being in unlawful possession of the Class A drug "a cannabinol derivative." This count was left upon the file; and the appellant was sentenced to a fine of £100 or six months' Imprisonment in default of payment on the count of unlawful possession of "cannabis."

His appeal to the Court of Appeal against his conviction on this count was allowed on December 10, 1976, on the ground that the statutory definition of cannabis is restricted to the flowering or fruiting tops of the plant, and that leaf and stalk alone, in the absence of any such flowering or fruiting tops, does not fall within the definition. This was, in my view, obviously right. No argument to the contrary has been advanced before your Lordships' House.

The appellant underwent a second trial upon the count Page 202/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) remaining on the file which charged him with unlawful possession of "a cannabinol derivative." This was held in the Crown Court on March 3, 1977, and was presided over by a different judge. He too ruled that possession of leaf and stalk of the cannabis plant which proved on analysis to contain traces of T.H.C. amounted to possession of "a cannabinol derivative" within the meaning of section 5 of and Schedule 2 to the Act. Faced by this ruling the appellant once more changed his plea to guilty and was sentenced to a fine of £25. Once more too he appealed to the Court of Appeal who upheld the Judge's ruling and certified that a point of law of general public Importance was involved in the decision, namely:

My Lords, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is a criminal statute. It makes it an offence to be in possession of any of a long list of drugs and makes the gravity of the offence depend upon the class of listed drug into which the particular substance in his possession falls, Most, though not all, of the listed drugs in the three Classes A, B and C are described by their precise chemical name and are synthetic substances which do not occur in the natural state. In the case of these drugs there is no room for doubt or ambiguity. A substance either is the described synthetic drug (or a preparation or other product containing the described synthetic drug) or it is not. But there are some listed drugs which, although they can be synthesised, also occur in the natural state Page 203/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) in plants, fungi or animals, and these include some of the most used narcotic drugs.

It would not in my view be a natural use of language to say, for instance, that a person was in possession of morphine when what he really had was oplum poppy straw from which whatever morphine content there might be in it had not yet been separated; nor do I think it would be apt use of language to describe the poppy straw as a "preparation or other product containing morphine, since this expression is inappropriate to something that is found in nature as distinct from something that is manmade. Regarded simply from the point of view of language the matter is in my view put beyond doubt as respects the specific narcotic Ingredients found in oplum poppies by the inclusion in the list as separate Items "opium" and "poppy straw" as well as morphine, thebaine, codeine and several other specified alkaloids which are or may be constituents of opium and of poppy straw. A similar Indication of the meaning of references in the Schedule to specific drugs by their scientific names is to be found in the inclusion as separate items of "cocaine" itself and "coca leaf" which contains cocaine and from which cocaine can be extracted. I should conclude, therefore, that prima facle a reference in Schedule 2 to a specific drug by its scientific name does not include a reference to any naturally occurring substance of which the specific drug is a constituent but from which it has not yet been separated.

So prima facie one would not suppose that possession of naturally occurring leaf and stalk of the plant cannabis sativa of which a cannabinol derivative, T.H.C., was an unseparated constituent could be charged under the Act as possession of a "cannabinol derivative."

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) The argument to the contrary depends upon the presence of the words of exception which I have Italicised in the description of cannabinol in the list of Class A drugs and In the definition of cannabinol derivatives In Part IV of Schedule 2. These, It is suggested, give rise to an inference that but for the exception, cannabinol and cannabinol derivatives notwithstanding that they were contained in the natural substances cannabis or cannabis resin would have fallen within the definition; and that, accordingly possession of cannabinol and cannabinol derivatives in however small a quantity if contained in any naturally occurring material other than one falling within the statutory definition of cannabis or cannabis resin would constitute the offence of possession of a Class A drug under the Act.

My Lords, such inference as to the ambit of enacting words that can be derived from the presence of a proviso or the exception is notoriously a weak one, since the proviso or exception may have been Inserted per majorem cautelam. In any event it must give way whenever the consequences of applying it would be irrational or unjust. In the instant case the consequence, at the time that the appellant was prosecuted, would have been that he would be liable to be convicted of the more serious offence of unlawful possession of a Class A drug, whereas if what he had had in his possession had Included part of the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant and so contained a greater concentration of cannabinol derivatives, he could only have been convicted of the lesser offence of possession of a Class B drug, to wit cannabis Itself.

I would construe the Act in such a way as to avoid this irrational and unjust result. A man should not be gaoled upon an Page 205/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) ambiguity. I would allow the appeal and quash the conviction of the appellant for the offence of unlawful possession of a cannbinol derivative. The House of Lords also discussed the same in the case of” 23.10 With the above laid guidance and principles, now this court ventures into the discussion on the Definition of Ganja:

“My reasoning has been essentially normative, rather than descriptive or historical. At its core is the notion of fairness, and its connection with censure-based and rule of law values. I have argued that it is unfair, in a political system to convict people of serious crimes without proof of fault as to all the material Page 206/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) elements of the offence. This goes against basic notions of personal autonomy; and it is even more destructive of autonomy to deprive a person of liberty, by means of a sentence of imprisonment, with such proof of fault. “ 23.10.3 Controlling the drug menace by convicting the accused with harsh punishment under the NDPS Act in the interest of the society and acquitting when there is no strict proof of ingredients of the provision of the Act, are the two sides of the legal requirement of fair justice under the NDPS jurisdiction. The Court always has to consider the triangular interest of society, accused and prosecution.

23.10.3.(1). Ganja:

including the leaves, stems and blooms” But the legislature has omitted the leaves, stems. The legislature has made it clear to bring only the portion of the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant as Page 210/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) offending psychoactive material under NDPS Act and the same is further strengthened from following portion of “National Policy on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances under the head of Cultivation of Cannabis” “21. Bhang is a preparation made from cannabis leaves consumed in parts of India on some festivals. As it is not made from cannabis resin or from flowering tops, it is not covered under the NDPS Act, 1985 . Production and sale of Bhang is permitted by many State Governments. Whoever is so licenced to produce Bhang shall be allowed to produce it from the leaves of the wildly grown cannabis plants only. They shall not use the flowering tops or the resin produced from the plants. If anyone is found mixing with Bhang any part of flowering tops or the resin produced from the cannabis plants, he shall be punishable under relevant provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985 and if he happens to be a licensee, his license shall also be cancelled.

22. Cannabis plant can be a source of biomass and fibre for industrial purposes. Cannabis seeds can be used to produce cannabis seed oil - a high value oil. Some countries license cultivation of cannabis varieties which have very low content of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active ingredient which has the intoxicating effect. These varieties of cannabis are used to produce fibres which are, in turn, used in production of fabrics and for production of biomass.

23. Section 14 of the NDPS Act empowers the Government to, by general or special order, permit cultivation of cannabis Page 211/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) exclusively for horticultural and industrial purposes. The Central Government shall encourage research and trials of cultivars of cannabis with low THC content. The Central Government shall, however, follow a cautious, evidence-based approach towards cultivation of cannabis for horticultural and/or industrial purposes and shall take decisions based on results of research.” 23.10.10. Therefore, this courts is not declined to accept the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that fjph;fs; impliedly denoted flowering and fruiting tops and this court holds that to bring the recovered contraband under the definition of 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act , i.e., the weight of the flowering or fruiting tops of cannabis plant should be above threshold limit mentioned in the schedule excluding Compound leaves otherwise called luxuriant leaves, stalk, stem, bag and in some circumstances excluding of the weight of seeds and leaves when not accompanied with the tops. If the flowering or fruiting tops of cannabis plant are not separately recovered and recovered with stalks and stem, the legal requirement is to exclude the weight of the stalks and stem. If seeds and leaves are recovered, the prosecution should prove that the recovered seeds and leaves were accompanied with flowering tops or fruiting tops.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 23.10.11. Therefore, if flowering or fruiting tops is recovered and if recovered Ganja is accompanied with leaves and seeds, with either stems or stalks, then it is the duty of the investigating agency to measure the offending materials separately (i.e., leaves,seeds and flowering or fruiting tops) to be measured together but not the stem and stalk, and stem or stalk to be measured separately.

23.10.12. Therefore, in the case of ganja, appearance of the recovered contraband is material. It must contain flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant. Now the judgments are delivered on the basis of the chemical analysis report made on the basis of heterogeneous mixture sample with the name of the chemical, namely “cannabiniod”.

23.11. Burden of Proof:

The Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the said principles in various cases including the case of Balwinder Singh (BINDA) vs. The Narcotic control Bureau reported in 2023 INSC 852 Page 213/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) “Since the provisions of the NDPS Act and the punishments prescribed therein are stringent, the extent of burden of prove the foundational facts cast on the prosecution, would have to be more onerous. The view taken was that Courts would have to undertake a heightened scrutiny test and satisfy itself of “proof beyond all reasonable doubt”. Emphasis was laid on the well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that more serious the offence, the stricter would be the degree of proof and a higher degree of assurance would be necessary to convict an accused [Also refer: State of Punjab vs Baldev Singh , Ritesh Chakarvarti v. State of M.P., and Bhola Singh (supra)]” 23.11.2 The Hon'ble three Judges bench in the case of Union of India v. Bal Mukund , reported in (2009) 12 SCC 161 has held as follows:

10. The stringent provisions of the NDPS Act , such as Section 37 , the minimum sentence of 10 years, absence of any provision for remission do not dispense with the requirements of prosecution to establish a prima facie case beyond reasonable doubt after investigation, only whereafter which the burden of proof shall shift to the accused. The gravity of the sentence and the stringency of the provisions will therefore call for a heightened scrutiny of the evidence for establishment of foundational facts by the prosecution.

23.11.4. The said compliance is legally required to be followed in the border line cases of the recovered contraband having weight between 21 and 25 kgs. In more than 25 kgs cases, there would be no significant change in the weight of the contraband.

23.11.5. The said guesstimation is on the basis of the chemical analysis report furnished before the Court with the presence of the “connabiniod”. In the case of commercial quantity, the NDPS Act Page 215/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) provides harsh punishment of minimum punishment of 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and minimum fine of 1 Lakh. Accused’s right to get bail is an exception and if bail is not granted, he would languish in jail till his acquittal. In most of the convicted cases, the accused is unable to pay the fine amount. Therefore, many courts have not numbered the petition to suspend sentence without payment of fine amount.

23.11.6. When the Act itself excludes seeds and leaves of the cannabis plant in certain circumstances, and does not include stem and stalk, the burden on the prosecution to prove that their case comes under the definition is heavy, considering the harshness of the punishment and the rigidity of the procedure in conducting trial.

23.12 Calculation of Weight:

23.13. Parity:

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 Page 221/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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”?

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm )

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.

This can be represented accurately by the below Venn diagram:

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm )

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:

2. Shri Sandip Ashok Raut Vs. State of Maharastra 187 kg 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 4543

3. Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan 28.600 gms (cannabis) 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 485

4. Bettanayaka Vs. State of Karnataka 20 kg 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3916

5. Ratanlal Kharadi Vs. State of M.P 21 Kg. 400 grms 2019 SCC OnLine MP 6083

6. Ratnesh Vs. State 20 kg 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9883

7. Suresh Kumar Vs. State 25 kg and 100 gm of 2016 SCC OnLine Del 1209 ganja

8. Lavlesh Kumar Vs. State 22 kgs of Ganja 2015 SCC OnLine Del 12574 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, Page 226/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:

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 Page 230/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) “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 Page 231/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:

24.2 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:

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 Page 234/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) imprisonment.

25.2 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No. 172 of 2023:

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 Page 235/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) simple imprisonment.

25.3 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No. 293 of 2021:

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 Page 236/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:

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 Page 237/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:

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 Page 245/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) months simple imprisonment.

25.8 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No. 551 of 2023:

Considering the mitigating and aggravated circumstances and the Page 248/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 25.11.2 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A. (MD).No. 953 of 2023:

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 25.11.3 Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A. (MD).No. 265 of 2024:

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 25.12. Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No. 322 of 2023:

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 25.13. Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A.(MD).No. 269 and 558 of 2023:

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) Page 255/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 25.13.2.Discussion on the question of sentence in Crl.A. (MD).No.558 of 2023:

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm )

26.Details of modified conviction and sentence of imprisonment:

to undergo, 1 year 50,000/- (Rupees Rigorous Imprisonment Fifty Thousand each for the offence under only) in default, to Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) undergo, 6 months (C) of the NDPS Act . simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act .

2 Crl.A. Section 8(c) Section The appellant/Sole The appellant/sole (MD). r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) 8(c) r/w Accused to undergo 10 accused No. of the NDPS 20(b)(ii) years Rigorous punishment is 172 of Act. (B) of the Imprisonment and to pay a modified into 2023 NDPS Act . fine of Rs.1,00,000/- sentence already (Rupees One Lakh only) in undergone and to default, to undergo, 6 pay a fine of Rs.

8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of the only) in default, to NDPS Act . undergo, 6 months simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act .

269 of of the NDPS (C) of the pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- Rigorous 2023 Act. NDPS Act . (Rupees One Lakh only) Imprisonment each each in default, to and to pay a fine of undergo, 1 year Simple Rs.50,000/-

558 of of the NDPS (C) of the pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- Rigorous 2023 Act. NDPS Act . (Rupees One Lakh only) Imprisonment each each in default, to and to pay a fine of undergo, 1 year Simple Rs.50,000/-

27.1.Accordingly, the appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No.212 of 2020 is partly allowed on the following terms:-

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:-

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:-

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:-

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:-

(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:-

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:-

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.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.

27.8.Accordingly, the appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No.551 of 2023 is partly allowed on the following terms:-

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:-

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:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm )

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:-

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:-

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 27.13.Accordingly, the appeals in Crl.A.(MD).Nos.269 and 558 of 2023 partly allowed on the following terms:-

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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm )

(vii)Seized Vehicles shall be ordered to be confiscated and disposed.

15.10.2025.

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, Page 277/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) 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.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm ) K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

sbn Crl.A.(MD).Nos. 212 of 2020, 172 of 2021, 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 Page 279/279 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/10/2025 01:27:26 pm )