KARUPPIAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the sole accused in C.C. No. 587 of 2006 on the file of the Special Court for E.C. Act and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai and he stood charged and tried for the commission of the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (in short 'NDPS Act') and on filing a guilty memo, the trial Court, vide impugned Judgment, dated 26.06.2007, has convicted him under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with the default sentence of one month simple imprisonment and also ordered set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. and challenging the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court, the accused has filed this Criminal Appeal. The name of the learned counsel appeared in the cause list. However, he did not appear and hence this Court appointed Mr. S. Balaji, Advocate, to assist the Court. Mr. S. Balaji, learned Amicus Curiae, has drawn the attention of this Court to the typed set of documents and would submit that only one witness has been examined on the side of the prosecution namely, Sub Inspector of Police, Melavalavu Police Station and as per her testimony at about 14.00 hours on 21.08.2006, she was patrolling on Alagarkovil-Kidaripatti Road and at that time she saw the accused with the bag and he told her that he brought ganja for retail sale. The appellant/accused was informed of her right to make a search in the presence of a Judicial magistrate or a gazetted official and he has declined to do so and further stated that he can be searched in the presence of the police officials. When the bag in the possession of the appellant/accused was opened, it contained 1.150 Kgs of ganga and out of that 100 grams ganja was drawn for sample and the remaining portion of ganja was sealed. Thereafter, the accused was arrested and brought to the police station and a case was registered and subsequently he was sent for remand. During trial, through P.W. 1, Exs. P. 1 to P. 7 were marked and she would depose that the Inspector of Police has conducted the investigation and after completing investigation, has filed the final report.

(2.) The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit that since the appellant/accused pleaded guilty to the charge framed against him, the trial Court was left with no other option, except to convict him and sentence him accordingly.

(3.) This Court, after considering the rival submissions and upon perusal of the materials available on record, is of the view that the manner of disposal done by the trial Court can hardly said to be satisfactory and it is against all canons of law and procedure. The commission of offence under NDPS Act is serious in nature and the trial Court ought to have alive to the situation and de hors the filing of the memo pleading guilty to the charge, ought to have gone into the merits of the case for the reason that the said memo came to be filed only at the time of questioning under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., and before the trial Court, all the materials in the form of oral and documentary evidences were available. Even as per the testimony of P.W. 1, after effecting arrest, she did not sent a report under Section 57 of NDPS Act and admittedly the Inspector of Police who conducted investigation, collected materials and filed the final report, was not at all examined.