Manimaran v. The State of Tamilnadu

ORDER The petitioner is the 2nd accused in C.C.No.152 of 2025 on the file of the I Additional Special Court for EC & NDPS Act cases, Madurai. He was tried along with seven others for the offence under Sections 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) and 25 of NDPS Act that they were found in possession of 213 kgs. of ganja. After the trial, the trial Court, by its Judgment dated 21.04.2025, acquitted the accused Nos.6 to 8 of the charges, however, found the accused Nos.1 to 5 guilty for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w. 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act and convicted and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two years each. Challenging the Judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner/A3 has filed an appeal before this Court in Crl.A.(MD)No.642 of 2025 and the same was admitted by this Court on 12.06.2025. Along with the appeal, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking to suspend the sentence imposed by the trial Court.

¶2The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the alleged ganja was recovered by the police on the date of occurrence, i.e. on

06.12.2019, however, the same was sent to the Court on 10.12.2019, i.e. with a delay of four days. But, there was no proper explanation given by the prosecution for the said delay. He further submits that the alleged samples were not taken in the presence of the Magistrate and therefore, Section 52-A of the NDPS Act has not been complied with by the prosecution. Further, no independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution near to the occurrence place and no sketch and observation mahazar was prepared by the prosecution. Therefore, the petitioner is having certain arguable points in this appeal. Since he is in jail for more than two years, he seeks to suspend the sentence imposed by the trial Court.

¶3The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed this petition stating that the petitioner was arrested along with his father/1st accused and the alleged contraband to an extent of 213 kgs. of ganja has been recovered from his house and apart from this case, the petitioner has also indulged in the following cases.

(i) Dindigul Eriyodu Police Station – Cr.No.18 of 2008 – u/s. 147, 427, 448, 506(1) IPC – disposed.

(ii) Dindigul Kannivadi Police Station – Cr.No.62 of 2018 – u/s. 4(1)(k) TNP Act – disposed of.

(iii) Dindigul Kannivadi Police Station – Cr.No.119 of 2018 – u/s. 4(1)(k) TNP Act – disposed of.

¶4Considering the nature of offence, quantity of ganja and also considering the fact that apart from this case, the petitioner has indulged in three other cases and the contraband has also been recovered from the petitioner's house, this Court is not inclined to suspend the sentence imposed against the petitioner.

¶5Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

24.03.2026 ogy To

¶1The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk PS, Dindigul District.

¶2The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.M.P.(MD)No.7070oofo2025 inoCrl.A.(MD)No.642oofo2025 B.PUGALENDHI,oJ. ogy Crl.M.P.(MD)No.7070oofo2025 inoCrl.A.(MD)No.642oofo2025

24.03.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Manimaran ... Petitioner versus State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District. ... Respondent Petition filed under Section 430(1) of BNSS 2023, to suspend the sentence imposed by the I Additional Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, in C.C.No.152 of 2020 dated 21.04.2025 and enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the criminal appeal. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor