MOHAMED SHIYAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above criminal appeal is filed by the appellants/accused who are arrayed as A-1 and A-2, challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on them by the learned Special Judge, Additional Special Court under NDPS Act, Chenai-104, dated 04.10.2010 in CC.No.151/2004. Totally, there were three accused in this case and the 3rd accused, viz., Yesudoss, died during investigation and hence, the charges against him, got abated. The appellants/A-1 and A-2 stood charged and tried for the offences under sections 8[c] r/w 21[c], 23 and 29 of NPDS Act, 1985 [Amended Act 9/2001] and the Trial Court, vide impugned judgment, had acquitted them for the alleged offence u/s.8[c] r/w 23 of NDPS Act, 1985, Amended Act 9/2001 and however convicted them for the offences under section 8[c] read with 29 and 8[c] read with 21[c] of NDPS Act, 1985, Amended Act 9/2001 and sentenced each of them to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each with a default sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment for each of the offences u/s.8[c] read with 21[c] and 8[c] read with 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 Amended Act 9/2001. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The period of incarceration already undergone by them, was also given set off under section 428 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the appellants herein/A-1 and A-2 along with one Yesudas [A-3] were found in possession of 1 Kg of Heroin which they had criminally conspired to export to Srilanka. After completion of the investigation, the Final Report had been laid by the Investigating Office against the appellants/accused for the offences under sections 8[c] read with 21[c], 23 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 [Amended Act 9/2001].

(3.) The case was taken on file in CC No.151/2004 on the file of the learned Trial Judge, viz., the learned Special Judge, Additional Special Court under NDPS Act, Chennai, and necessary charges were framed. The accused had denied the charges and sought for trial. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses as PW.1 and PW.9 and Exs.P1 to P34 and M.Os.1 to 4 were marked. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence was let in.