Arunkumar Vs the Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Arunkumar Vs the Inspector of Police — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Judgment of conviction in Spl.S.C.No.24 of 2021 dated 27.04.2023 set aside; Criminal Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted of the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act; fine amount, if paid, to be refunded; bail bond, if executed, stands discharged.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant could be convicted for possession of the contraband when admittedly no contraband was seized from his possession (it being seized from a vacant public place) and all independent witnesses examined by the prosecution turned hostile. +1 more

Court's answer

Since all independent witnesses turned hostile, and since P.W.1 admitted that the contraband was first seized, the confession recorded thereafter and the arrest made thereafter (showing the recovery was not pursuant to the accused's confession as claimed), the seizure cannot be attributed to the appellant and he cannot be convicted for possession of the contraband.

Ratio / Principle

The statement of the accused pointing out the place where the contraband was hidden is inadmissible, as it is not pursuant to information given by the accused which led to a discovery of the fact.

Key takeaways

P.W.1 further admitted that no investigation had been conducted to ascertain who purchased the contraband from the appellant; this formed part of the reasons why the impugned judgment could not be sustained.ratio¶37
The judgment of conviction passed by the Special Court (Spl.S.C.No.24 of 2021 dated 27.04.2023) cannot be sustained; it is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (Sunder Mohan, J.) — 04.02.2026 — Crl.A.No.564 of 2023 — Arunkumar v. The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, NIB-CID, Villupuram District (Crime No.36 of 2021). NDPS — conviction under S.8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) by the Special Court, Villupuram (Spl.S.C.No.24 of 2021, 27.04.2023): one year RI and fine of Rs.5,000/-. 1.250 Kgs. of ganja was found in a parcel hidden in a vacant public land after the appellant allegedly volunteered to point out the hiding place; no contraband was seized from his person; all independent witnesses (observation mahazar, rough sketch, confession and seizure mahazar witnesses, P.Ws.5 to 8) turned hostile, leaving the case resting on police witnesses. P.W.1 admitted in cross-examination that the contraband was first seized, the confession recorded thereafter and the arrest made thereafter — hence the recovery was not pursuant to information given by the accused leading to discovery of a fact, and the pointer statement is inadmissible; the seizure therefore cannot be attributed to the appellant. Additionally, no investigation was conducted to ascertain who purchased the contraband from the appellant. Judgment of conviction set aside; Criminal Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted of all charges; fine, if paid, to be refunded; bail bond discharged. (Paras 8-10)

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment dated 27.04.2023 of the Special Court for trial of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act case, Villupuram (XVII Additional Sessions Judge), in Spl.S.C.No.24 of 2021, convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentencing him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.¶14
Special Court for trial of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act case, Villupuram · 27.04.2023
Prior proceeding
Secret information was received by P.W.1 on 18.09.2021 at about 5.00 p.m. that the appellant was selling ganja; P.W.1 made entries in the general diary and informed his superior under Section 42(2) of the Act; after obtaining permission, P.W.1 went with P.W.2 and P.W.3 to the place of occurrence along with the informant.¶19
Prior proceeding
P.W.1 and his team introduced themselves and apprised the appellant of his right under Section 50 of the Act to be searched by a Gazetted Officer; no contraband was found in possession with the appellant.¶19
Prior proceeding
The appellant voluntarily gave a confession stating that he would point out the place where the ganja was hidden.¶19
Prior proceeding
The parcel, sealed with brown colour cello tape, was opened and 1.250 Kgs. of ganja was found; the appellant gave a confession at 19.40 hours and was arrested at 20:15 hours.¶19
Prior proceeding
FIR (Ex.P.6) was registered in Crime No.36 of 2021 for the offences under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act; P.W.9 conducted the investigation and filed the final report against the appellant.¶19
Prior proceeding
The trial Court framed the charge under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act.¶25
Prior proceeding
The prosecution examined nine witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P.19.¶26
Prior proceeding
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the prosecution had established the case beyond reasonable doubt, held the accused guilty under Section 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act, and sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- (default three months RI); hence this appeal.¶24