A.AADHIL MON Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioners by judgment, dtd. 17/4/2023 in C.C.No.33 of 2021 by the learned Special Judge, I Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under NDPS Act, Chennai and enlarge them on bail pending disposal of the main appeal.

(2.) The Trial Court convicted the petitioners and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000.00each, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act. Challenging the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal and the Suspension of Sentence.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are degree holders who were travelling in a car intercepted in the toll gate by P.W.1 during vehicle check, verifying e-pass during corona restrictions, at that time alleged seizure made. He would submit that in the search and seizure mahazar, it is recorded that on prior information P.W.1 along with his team went to the toll gate, keeping watch in the toll gate for the vehicle and intercepted the petitioners' vehicle and seized Hashish oil which is of commercial quantity. The case proceeded against the petitioners for offence under Ss. 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, the Trial Court acquitted the petitioners for the offence under Sec. 29(1) of NDPS and there is no finding with regard to Sec. 25 of NDPS Act. He would submit that the admitted case is that the property was seized on the confession of A1 but there is nothing to show that A2 conspired with A1. In view of the petitioners being acquitted for the offence under Sec. 29(1) of NDPS Act, conviction of A2 is not proper. He further submitted that P.W.1 is the person who conducted search, registered FIR, conducted investigation in this case which is not proper. Further, there is a delay of 27 days in submitting the seized contraband before the Lower Court. He further submitted that in this case, the Trial Court brushed aside the violation of Ss. 42(2), 50, 52(A) and 57 of NDPS Act which is not proper. The Trial Court in the judgment recorded that the accused not produced any witness or documents in this case on the side of the accused. Ex.D1/deposition of P.W.6 in yet another case marked not considered. He further submitted that there is difference of weight in the samples collected, as recorded in the scene of occurrence, thereafter before the Court and when weighed the same in the forensic lab. These contradictions would cut the root of the case but the Trial Court glossed over the same stating that they are minor contradictions. He would submit that while PW1 was regular vehicle check during Corona period stopped the vehicle of the petitioners, questioned them, search and seizure conducted and thereafter, both the petitioners were taken to the Police Station and Ex.P12/Special report u/s.57 of NDPS Act submitted and FIR/Ex.P9 registered but in the samples MO1 to MO8 prepared near the Tollgate, crime number recorded which would prove that search, seizure and drawing of samples were done in the Police Station but documents prepared to suit the case of the prosecution.