Last Updated:
In 2021, a raid was conducted by the Thideer Nagar Police in Madurai, who claimed to have recovered 24 kg of ganja from one of the accused near Melavasal
The court directed the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, to conduct an inquiry into their actions and take appropriate steps within a month.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court (HC) recently acquitted a man who had been serving a 10-year prison term under the NDPS Act, after finding that the case against him was fabricated through false evidence and procedural violations.
The bench of Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan set aside the conviction of A. Vignesh, who had been found guilty under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act for allegedly possessing 24 kg of ganja.
The court also directed three police officers — Sub-Inspector (P.W.2), Investigating Officer (P.W.3), and Inspector (P.W.4) — to jointly pay Rs 10 lakh compensation to Vignesh for their role in fabricating evidence.
In 2021, a raid was conducted by the Thideer Nagar Police in Madurai, who claimed to have recovered 24 kg of ganja from one of the accused near Melavasal. Vignesh was arrested along with six others, one of whom was a juvenile. The trial court convicted him in 2023, holding that all accused were in joint possession of the contraband.
However, Justice Ramakrishnan found serious discrepancies in the prosecution’s case. The court observed that no contraband was recovered from Vignesh, and his signature was missing from the recovery mahazar, creating doubt about his presence at the scene.
“The absence of the accused’s signature in the recovery mahazar creates a serious doubt as to his presence at the scene of occurrence,” the court noted.
Crucially, the court found that the conviction rested solely on the confession of a co-accused, which is legally inadmissible under the NDPS Act.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgments including Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ajay Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, the court reiterated that a confession made to a police officer cannot form the basis of conviction.
Justice Ramakrishnan also pointed out that the police had failed to comply with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which mandates recording and forwarding of secret information in writing. The supposed written information (Ex.P9) was found to be typed and not handwritten, contrary to what the officer claimed in court.
“The prosecution has not only failed to prove compliance with Section 42 but has also manoeuvred to secure conviction by leading false evidence,” the court remarked.
Terming the conduct of the officers “highly objectionable,” the court directed the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, to conduct an inquiry into their actions and take appropriate steps within a month. It further ordered the refund of the fine paid by Vignesh and cancellation of his bail bonds.
Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr…Read More
Salil Tiwari, Senior Special Correspondent at Lawbeat, reports on the Allahabad High Court and courts in Uttar Pradesh, however, she also writes on important cases of national importance and public interests fr… Read More
October 29, 2025, 6:01 PM IST
Read More
Source link
[ad_3]
