The Madras High Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the accused of NDPS charges, and clarified that prior criminal antecedents cannot form the basis for conviction absent credible evidence, setting an important precedent for NDPS prosecutions and standards of police investigation. This judgment upholds Supreme Court authority and is binding precedent for subordinate courts in Tamil Nadu.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
CRL A(MD)/334/2023 of Karthi @ Ahori Karthik Vs The Inspector of Police CNR HCMD010275212023 |
| Date of Registration | 20-04-2023 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Bench | BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts in Tamil Nadu |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedents |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) |
| Questions of Law | Whether conviction and sentence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act is sustainable where prosecution evidence is unreliable and based on prior criminal antecedents? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Emphasized need to prevent registration of false cases and the duty of courts to ensure strict compliance with NDPS Act provisions regarding search, seizure, and investigation. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Tamil Nadu |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, reference value for similar NDPS procedural lapses |
| Follows | Supreme Court authority—Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra; Ram Lakhan Singh v. State of U.P. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that prior criminal antecedents alone cannot justify conviction under the NDPS Act.
- Highlights judicial scrutiny of police investigation—serious procedural lapses and lack of independent witnesses can fatally flaw prosecution cases.
- Draws from Supreme Court precedent to emphasize that convictions must be based on evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, regardless of the accused’s history.
- Defense lawyers should be alert to procedural violations in NDPS investigations—especially regarding identification, the absence of independent witnesses, and dubious recovery.
- Sets clear expectation that trial courts must assess police conduct with rigour, particularly where allegations of custodial violence or fabrication are credibly raised.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court scrutinized the prosecution evidence, especially the conduct of the investigation following the secret information and the procedures under NDPS Act.
- It found major inconsistencies: though both accused were allegedly present, no sufficient steps were made by police to secure/identify the absconding accused (A2), and the testimony regarding his presence was unconvincing.
- No identification parade was conducted for A2; the police version on his escape was disbelieved.
- No independent witnesses were examined, even though the location was busy.
- Evidence showed accused had injuries; medical records and remand report corroborated their version of police assault, raising suspicion about the genuineness of the case.
- The Court criticized the trial court for having a predetermined mind and failing to evaluate the evidence impartially.
- The trial court’s conviction based on prior criminal records was squarely rejected, with reliance on Supreme Court authority (Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik and Ram Lakhan Singh), reaffirming that previous antecedents do not justify conviction when current case evidence is lacking.
- The prosecution failed to establish possession of contraband and adherence to mandatory procedures beyond reasonable doubt.
- The conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellants acquitted.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants):
- Alleged the case was false and based on planted ganja; no recovery was made from them.
- Claimed A1 was in illegal custody with injuries caused by the police prior to registration of the case.
- Challenged police account of A2 escaping; contended such escape was unbelievable.
- Pointed out no charges were framed against A2, making conviction illegal.
- Highlighted inconsistencies: other accused were acquitted, yet A1 and A2 were singly held liable.
- Questioned presence of crime number on seized material objects before case registration, raising doubts about genuineness.
- Asserted the trial judge overlooked explanations and evidence of police misconduct.
- Maintained conviction for possession was unsustainable as there was no proven custody.
Respondent (State):
- Asserted strict compliance with Section 42, secret information was properly recorded and acknowledged.
- Claimed A2’s presence and role was proved by recovery and his disclosure of concealed contraband, admissible under Section 27, Evidence Act.
- Explained presence of crime number on seized objects as a procedural measure to avoid mix-up.
- Maintained report under Section 57 NDPS Act was duly submitted.
- Denied allegations of illegal custody and assault as mere pleadings without substance.
- Argued prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Factual Background
Police received a tip-off on 27.09.2020 about illegal possession and sale of ganja by the appellants. Acting on this, police claimed to have apprehended A1 at the spot after pursuit, during which A1 sustained injuries. A2 allegedly escaped. Recovery of 30 kg of ganja was purportedly made, sealed, and samples were taken. Police registered the case under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act. The appellants asserted the case was false, alleging police custody, assault, and fabrication of evidence. The trial court convicted A1 and A2; other accused were acquitted. On appeal, the High Court scrutinized the reliability of the prosecution’s case.
Statutory Analysis
- Compliance under NDPS Act: Section 42 (requirement for prior information to be recorded and communicated to a superior); Section 50 (rights relating to search); and Section 57 (reporting obligations post-seizure).
- Evidence Act Section 27 (regarding admissibility of disclosures leading to recovery) was discussed concerning whether confessions and disclosures by the accused were reliable.
- The Court applied a strict standard, examining whether these statutory requirements were actually fulfilled and whether compliance was proved to the required standard.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions are reported in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural directions or innovations reported in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court authority reconfirmed