INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, CHENNAI Vs. P. BALAKRISHNAN ALIAS KRISHNA ALIAS BALAN ALIAS RAJAN PERIASWAMY MARIA PILLAI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the acquittal of the accused respondents who were tried for alleged offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 21 read with Sections 25, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS Act', for brevity).

(2.) The facts as stated are as follows. One P. Balakrishnan, accused No. 1 and P. Rajarathnam, accused No. 2 were said to be brothers and the former was a resident of Chennai, while the latter was a resident of Mumbai. One T.Soloman, Accused No. 3 , S. Raj, accused No. 4, Sam Sundar Singh, accused No. 5 , K. Sudalaiandi, accused No. 7 and V. Pandi were said to be residents of Tuticorin. R. Muniswamy, accused No. 6 was to be a servant in the house of the sister of accused No. 1 and Thasthagir, accused No. 9 were said to be residents of Thiruvidankodu in Kanyakumari district. Sayed Hayat Saab, accused No. 8, was said to be a resident of Lokapur. Mohammed, accused No. 10, was said to be a resident of Mandsaur.

(3.) Whether the prosecution further proved beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No. 11 being the owner of the lorry bearing Regn. No. TN-69-2967 and accused No. 4 being the possessor of the said lorry and with the absconding accused No. 2 owner / possessor of the ambassador car KA- 23-M-3773 knowingly allowed and used for the commission of the said offence and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec. 8(c) read with Sections 21, 28, 25 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985?