Sekar v. Inspector Of Police

Bail Slip The Appellant/Accused namely 1.Sekar, 2.Sangili Thevar, 3.Jeyapandian were released on bail as per order of this Court dated 07.10.2010 and made in CRL MP(MD)No.1 and 2 of 2010 in Crl.A (MD)No.253 of 2009 on the file of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 31.01.2020 PRONOUNCED ON : 23.12.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI 1.Sekar 2.Sangili Thevar 3.Jeyapandian ... Appellants / Accused 1 to 3 Vs.

State represented by Inspector of Police, Palani Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District.

[crime No.383 of 2006] ... Respondent / Complainant PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special District and Sessions Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai in C.C.No.630 of 2006 by its judgment dated 13.07.2009. For Appellant Nos.1 & 2: Mr.Veerakathiravan, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Jegadeeh Pandian For Appellant No.3 : Mr.M.Subash Babu For Respondent : Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan, Additional Public Prosecutor ***** 1/13

JUDGMENT

The appellants in this Criminal Appeal are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.630 of 2006 and they were tried for the offence under Sections 8 (c) r/w 20 (b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short NDPS Act). The trial Court, in conclusion of the trial, found them guilty, convicted and sentenced them to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, three months simple imprisonment was also ordered.

2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is as follows: 2.1. On 07.09.2006 around 01.30 am, the Police Personnel attached to the Palani Taluk Police Station, Dindigul, were on routine vehicle check in Neikarapatti Village on Palani to Kolumam Road. At that time, they intercepted a vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-63-B-2568, but, the driver did not stop the vehicle and had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and therefore, the police party chased the vehicle. There were three persons (A1 to A3) in the vehicle and when the police party, checked the vehicle, they found 13 polythene sacks. On enquiry, they said that it was purchased for Rs.1,000/- per Kg to the tune of Rs.2.5 Lakh, from one known person from Andhra Pradesh and his name and address are not known.

They were taking the same for sale at Pollachi and Coimbatore. While the accused were informed about their right of search being made in front of an Executive Officer or Judicial Magistrate, the accused gave their consent that the search can be made by the Police Official themselves and therefore, the polythene sacks carried by the accused were searched in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer, Pappampatti [PW4] as well as in the presence of the accused.

2.2. On search, they found each Polythene sack contained 20 Kgs of Ganja. The statement of the first accused was recorded. From each polythene sack, 100 gms of sample were collected and the remaining materials were sealed and recovered through the mahazar [Ex.P1]. The sample Ganjas were sent for chemical analysis. Subsequently, the accused along with the vehicle and the Ganja were brought to the Police Station. A case in crime No.383 of 2006 was registered as against the accused and the printed FIR is marked as Ex.P5. The samples collected were sent for chemical analysis and the Scientific Assistant of Regional Forensic Science Lab, Madurai, submitted his reports in Ex.P4. According to his report, the presence of cannabinoid was found in the samples.

2.3. The Inspector of Police [PW7] recorded the statements of the witnesses and remanded the accused to judicial custody and after completion of the investigation, filed the final report on 20.10.2006 as against the accused.

2/13

2.4. On the side of the prosecution, 7 witnesses were examined and 7 documents were marked, besides 40 material objects.

3. The available prosecution evidence are as follows: i) PW1 is the then Head Constable, attached with the respondent Police Station and he assisted the Inspector of Police [PW7] during the vehicle check and he speaks about the Ganja found in the vehicle.

ii) PW2 is the then Head Constable attached with the respondent Police and he had driven the Police vehicle.

iii) PW3 is the then Village Assistant at Pappanpatti and he accompanied the Village Administrative Officer [PW4]. iv) PW4 is the then Village Administrative Officer at Pappanpatti Village and on the request made by the Police party, he stood as witness to the recovery mahazar. v) PW5 is the then Analyst at Regional Forensic Laboratory, Madurai and she speaks about the issuance of Ex.P4, chemical analysis report.

vi) PW6 is the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.TN63-B-2568. vii) PW7 is the Inspector of Police and he speaks about the investigation conducted in this case and the filing of final report as against the accused.

4. After the prosecution evidence was closed, the incriminating materials from the prosecution side were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the accused denied the same. Though the accused had stated that there are witnesses for their side, they neither examined any witness nor produced any documents.

5. In conclusion of the trial, the learned Special District and Sessions Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, by judgment dated 13.07.2009, found the appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced them as stated above. As against the conviction and sentence, the appellants preferred the present criminal appeal.

6. Heard the respective learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

7. Mr.Veera Kathiravan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants 1 & 2 has raised the following points for the consideration of this Court:

7.1. By relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, reported in 2018 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 596, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that a fair investigation is the very foundation of a fair trial, which necessarily postulates that the investigator and the informer must not be the same person. Justice must not only be done, but must appear to be done also. Any possibility of a bias or a predetermined conclusion has to be excluded.

3/13

7.2. In this case, Thiru Senthilvel [PW7] is the Inspector of Police / complainant, who registered the FIR [Ex.P5] and also conducted the investigation and filed the final report. Therefore, the complainant and the investigation officer in this case are one and the same and as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, the benefit ought to be extended to the accused.

7.3. The contraband in this case was seized on 07.09.2006, but it was produced before the concerned Court only on 13.09.2006, with a delay of six days and there is no explanation for the safe custody of the seized contraband.

7.4. As per the FIR [Ex.P15], PW7 is said to have taken 100 gms of contraband from 13 bags each for analysis under a cover of mahazar Ex.P1. But, as per Ex.P4, the analysis report, the sample packets contains 60, 58, 61, 57, 62, 62, 72, 65, 80, 68, 71, 55, 69, 68 gms. Therefore, the samples said to have been seized from the place of occurrence were not sent to the laboratory and it is tampered and the delay in producing the samples before the Court would also strengthen the case of the defence. 7.5. In the observation mahazar [Ex.P7] and the rough sketch [Ex.P6], the crime number and the offences are mentioned and the possibility of inclusion of the crime number and the offence in these two documents even before the registration of the case creates serious doubt on the case of the prosecution. 7.6.

By relying upon the evidence of PW6, the learned Senior Counsel submits that PW6 is the owner of the seized vehicle [MO1], bearing Registration No.TN-63-B-2568, where the contraband was seized. But, according to PW6, the police came to his house at Sathyamoorthy Nagar, Meenambalpuram, Madurai, on 06.09.2006 at about 08.00 am and the vehicle was implicated with the offence. The owner of the vehicle, PW6, was not treated as a hostile witness and was also not cross examined by the prosecution and therefore, his evidence holds good that the vehicle [MO1] was seized on 06.09.2006 itself, but, the prosecution case is that the vehicle was seized at Palani to Kolumam road on 07.09.2006 at about 02.00 am. According to PWs.1, 2 & 7, they have chased the vehicle around 6 to 10 kms and thereafter, stopped the vehicle and seized the same.

But it is not mentioned in the FIR [Ex.P5].

7.7. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that the mandatory provision under Section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been complied with and the detailed report as required under Section 57 of the NDPS Act to the higher officials has not been complied with by the investigation officer.

7.8. The recovery mahazar is also doubtful. The signature of the accused is not available in the mahazar Ex.P1 and one 4/13

Senthilkumar, who weighed the contraband was also not examined. He also pointed out that the Constable, one Lakshmanan, who took the samples for analysis to the Forensic Lab was also not examined by the prosecution.

7.9. The learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon the following judgments in support of his contention: i) Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, reported in 2018 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 596;

ii) Varinder Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, in Criminal Appeal Nos.2450-2451 of 2010, decided on 11.02.2019; iii) Rangan and Another v. Inspector of Police, K-6, T.P.Chatram Police Station, Chennai, reported in (2019) 1 MLJ (Crl) 625;

iv) K.Kalyani v. Inspector of Police, NIB CID, Chennai, in Crl.A.No.687 of 2012, decided on 12.03.2019;

v) Danraj v. Inspector of Police, K-6, T.P.Chatram Police Station, Chennai, reported in 2019 (1) MWN (Cr.) 524 (Mad); and vi) Karthik v. State Rep. by Madurai, NIB CID, reported in 2012

(2) T.N.L.R. 293 (Mad)(MB);

8. The learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd appellant adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st & 2nd appellants.

9. Per contra, Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent / State made his submissions as follows:

9.1. The subject vehicle was intercepted at about 01.30 pm, when the police were in the normal vehicle checkup and when the vehicle did not stop, they chased the vehicle and found certain bags in the vehicle with Ganja smell. Therefore, they informed the Village Administrative Officer and the Village Assistant of the nearby village, namely, PW4 & PW3 and on their arrival and after following the mandatory provisions, verified the bags, found the presence of Ganja in the bags, taken out samples, arrested the accused and produced the accused along with the seized contraband before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani on the same day. But the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani directed the police to produce the contraband before the concerned Special Court and therefore, it was produced before the concerned Court on 13.06.2006. 9.2.

On the same day, the Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai, forwarded the samples to the Assistant Director, Tamil Nadu State Forensic and Drugs Science, Madurai, vide his letter D.No.1176, dated 13.09.2006. The samples were duly packed and sealed in the presence of the concerned Judge and the Scientific Expert, Meenakshi, PW5, received the same, analysed and gave her report in Ex.P4 dated 19.09.2006 that the presence of cannabinoid was found in all the 13 samples subjected for analysis. PW5 in her report has also confirmed that the samples were intact with the court seal.

Therefore, there is no violation in this case and the mandatory provisions were followed.

9.3. The witnesses PW3 and PW4 cannot be treated as official witnesses. They are the Village Assistant and Village Administrative Officer of the nearby village and moreover, the seizure was made around 03.00 am in the early morning hours and the availability of an independent witness in a highway is very remote and therefore, the grounds raised by the learned Senior Counsel cannot be countenanced. He would further submit that though the First Information Report has been registered by the Investigation Officer [PW17], the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohan Lal's case (supra) has been clarified by the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Varinder Kumar vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2019 3 SCALE 56 and the ratio relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel cannot be applicable in this case. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the order of the trial Court warrants no interference.

9.4. He has also relied upon the following decisions in support of his arguments:

i) Varinder Kumar vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2019 3 SCALE 56;

ii) Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2015) 6 SCC

10. This Court has paid it's anxious consideration to the rival submissions and also to the materials placed on record.

11. The respondent Police on a regular vehicle check-up, attempted to stop the vehicle bearing registration no.TN-63-B-2568 [MO1] on 07.09.2006 at about 01.30 am. The vehicle did not stop and therefore, they chased the vehicle with their police vehicle, stopped the vehicle and found certain bags with Ganja smell. They informed the nearby Village Administrative Officer [PW4] and Village Assistant [PW3] and examined the samples in their presence. The recovered contraband along with the arrested accused were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani, on the same day. However, the learned Judicial Magistrate directed the investigation officer to produce the contraband before the concerned Special Court for NDPS Act Cases. But the contraband was produced before the Special Court only on 13.09.2006 and therefore, this Court, by order dated 13.01.2020, has raised the following queries:- "4. ... ... ...

i) whether the contraband along with Form-95 was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani, on 07.09.2006?

ii) when the seized contraband is expected to be produced before the Special Court, what necessitated the concerned Inspector of Police to produce the same before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani?

6/13

iii) even after the direction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani, the prosecution has submitted the Form95 alone on 12.09.2006, without producing the seized contraband and only on the next date, ie., on 13.09.2006, they have produced the same. The reasons for the nonproduction on 12.09.2006, despite a specific direction from the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani."

12. In response to the same, a written explanation was filed by the respondents on 31.01.2020, as follows:

"2. ... ... ... for the 1st and 2nd question raised by this Hon'ble Court:- if the arrest and recovery under NDPS Act is made faraway place of Special Court, in compliance with the Sec 57 of the CrPC ad 36A of NDPS Act, the accused and contraband to be produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after verifying the accused and contraband remanded accused and returning the contraband to the investigation agency. The duty of the investigation officer to produce accused before the nearest learned Judicial Magistrate or remand along with contraband within 24 hours. The said practice is continuously followed till date.

3. I respectfully submit that, the 3rd question is concerned the learned Judicial Magistrate passed remand order upto 21.09.2006 and further directed to produce contraband before Magistrate without any specific date. In the said circumstances, due to the unavoidable emergency situation, the said contraband was not produced before learned special Court upto 13.09.2006. After the R.P.R.No.11 of 2006 the Hon'ble learned Special Judge retained the contraband and still as per the verification by the SubInspector of Police by the Taluk Police Station available in the District Court property room."

13. With regard to the strict compliance of various provisions of the NDPS Act, especially in the context of seizure and production of contraband and the safe custody of the same in between period, in the decision relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel in Danraj's case (supra), this Court has issued the following directions:- "78. ... ... ...

(i) Whenever contraband is seized (Narcotic substance), the same shall be produced before the Magistrate Court, along with the remand report, under Form 95.

(ii) While such production is made before the Magistrate Court, the learned Magistrate shall ensure with the help of the Court staff and the prosecution that, the quantity of contraband claimed by the prosecution is available and in this regard, measurement shall also be taken under the supervision of the Magistrate.

7/13

(iii) After ensuring the quantity of the contraband by taking the measurement, the Magistrate can direct the prosecution to produce the contraband immediately, i.e., on the next working day before the trial Court.

(iv) Thereafter the prosecution shall keep the contraband in safe custody by entering in such custody Register / Malkhana Register with an endorsement of the police official who produced the same to the safe house and with the counter signature of the Guard who is incharge of the safe house.

(v) The prosecution then shall take all endeavour to produce the contraband as directed by the Magistrate to the trial Court as far as possible on the next working day and if the trial Court by that time does not receive documents and on that ground not in a position to receive the contraband, efforts shall be taken by the trial Court to get the case papers transmitted to itself immediately and at any rate, within a period of three days, the contraband shall be produced before the trial Court.

(vi) At the time of production of contraband before the trial Court, again, the same procedure as indicated above has to be undertaken by the learned trial Court Judge also to ensure the quantity of the contraband by taking the measurement and after ensuring the weight of the contraband, it shall be ordered to be kept in safe custody or to be disposed under the provision of the NDPS Act. (vii) Once the accused is produced for remand and the contraband is produced at the first instance before the Magistrate Court either on the date of seizure or within 24 hours from the time of seizure or arrest of the accused, the learned Magistrate concerned shall immediately on completion of such production of the accused and remand is made, take steps to transmit the case papers to the trial Court concerned.

(viii) Before the trial Court, facility to measure the contraband with fine balances should be made available with necessary staff for the aforesaid exercise of weighing and measuring the contraband.

(ix) In this regard, the State Government shall ensure availability of such facilities in each of such trial Court under the NDPS Act.

(x) If at all any delay is caused for unforeseen reason on the side of the prosecution to produce the contraband immediately to the Court, especially the trial Court, the contraband shall be kept in safe custody only at the safe custody room or locker specifically meant for this purpose. (xi) In this context, the State shall ensure that, every police station in the State of Tamil Nadu shall have such a safety locker or safe custody of contraband, where it must also be ensured with a safe custody Register being 8/13

maintained where every entrustment of contraband or seized material shall be entered into by the incharge of the safety room, which should be counter signed by the prosecuting officer of the case concerned and the same procedure shall be adopted when the contraband and seized goods are taken out from the safety room.

(xii) Till such time, such a facility is made available in all the police station in the State of Tamil Nadu, the State Government must ensure that safe custody rooms or places with police Guard by 24x7 is available and in this context, the storage places one in each zone as proposed by the State Government pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.652 of 2012 as indicated in the status report of the Director General of Police, dated 23.03.2018 referred to above, shall be constructed at the earliest and till such storage places are made ready, alternative arrangements of storage places for safe custody of seized articles and contrabands shall immediately be made by the State Government and in this regard within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this direction, such arrangement shall be made available by the State Government and a compliance report shall also be filed by the Director General of Police, Government of Tamil Nadu before this Court."

14. There was no guidelines for the safe custody of the contraband either in the Act or by way of Circulars, prior to 2012. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 2012 laid down a direction to set up separate malcanos in every region. In the present case on hand, which revolves around the year 2006, there was hardly any such guidelines mandating the manner in which the contraband seized has to be preserved. In the absence of any such guidelines mandating the prosecuting agency to preserve the contraband before producing it before the concerned Court, it cannot be construed as fatal to the prosecution case.

15. In this case, the accused along with the contraband was produced by the investigation officer on 07.09.2006 itself. But the Magistrate, though remanded the accused, returned the contraband with a direction to produce the same before the concerned Special Court. Admittedly, there is a delay of six days in producing the seized contraband. But, in the decision relied upon by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has condoned the delay of 40 days in producing the seized opium, provided it is proved that there was no tampering and that the recovery and other materials were clearly established by the prosecution.

16. Ex.P3 is the request made by the learned Special Judge to the Assistant Director, Forensic and Drug Science Laboratory, 9/13

Madurai, wherein, the learned Judge has mentioned that the paper packets were duly packed and sealed in his presence with his office seal and specimen of the seal affixed on the margin of the letter. The Scientific Expert [PW5] has also recorded in her report that the samples were received from the Court with the Court seal and the seals were intact. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohan lal v. State of Rajasthan (supra) and the explanation offered by the prosecution, this Court rejects the contention of the appellants with regard to the delay in producing the contraband as well as its safe custody.

17. The next ground raised by the learned Senior Counsel is that the investigation officer and the person, who registered the First Information Report, is one and the same and therefore, he conducted the investigation in a biased manner. In this regard, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecution, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (supra) has been clarified in Varinder Kumar's case (supra) as follows:

"18. The criminal justice delivery system, cannot be allowed to veer exclusively to the benefit of the offender making it unidirectional exercise. A proper administration of the criminal justice delivery system, therefore requires balancing the rights of the accused and the prosecution, so that the law laid down in Mohan Lal (supra) is not allowed to become a spring board for acquittal in prosecutions prior to the same, irrespective of all other considerations. We therefore hold that all pending criminal prosecutions, trials and appeals prior to the law laid down in Mohan Lal (supra) shall continue to be governed by the individual facts of the case."

18. In the present case on hand, though the appellants have raised a plea that the investigation officer and the complainant is one and the same, they have not attributed any motive as against him for any biased investigation, with any materials. They have not made out any case that the investigation officer is having any enmity with them to foist this false case against them, as such, this Court is not inclined to accede this contention.

19. With regard to the next ground as to the nonexamination of the person, who weighed the contraband, this Court is of the view that the same does not affect the case of the prosecution. The appellants / accused travelled in the vehicle, bearing registration no.TN-63-B-2568, which is also recovered and marked as MO1. 13 bags were found with Ganja smell and these samples were collected by the investigation officer in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer [PW4] and the Village Assistant [PW3]. The samples were taken from the seized contraband and send for chemical analysis, through the concerned Special Court for NDPS 10/13

Act Cases on 13.09.2006. The Scientific Expert [PW5] in her report [Ex.P4] has mentioned the presence of cannabinoid in the samples sent for analysis. As discussed supra, the learned Judge sent a request to the Assistant Director, Forensic and Drug Science Laboratory, Madurai in Ex.P3, wherein, the learned Judge has mentioned that the paper packets were duly packed and sealed in his presence with his office seal and specimen of the seal affixed on the margin of the letter. The Scientific Expert [PW5] has also recorded in her report that the samples were received from the Court with the Court seal and the seals were intact. Therefore, the non-examination of the person, who has taken the sample to the lab would not affect the case of the prosecution.

20. That apart, the entire scene took place in the small hours, ie., around 01.30 am, on 07.09.2006 and therefore, there is hardly any chance for examining any independent witnesses, as such, the contention of the appellants in this regard is also rejected.

21. The next ground raised by the appellants is with regard to the difference in the sample, which were drawn from the site and the packets sent for analysis. It is the case of the prosecution that they have weighed the contraband by using ordinary scale in the open place, whereas, the analyst would have weighed the same at the lab with an advanced instrument inside an airtight room, which, in the minds of this Court, appears to be probable. That apart, as discussed supra, the prosecution has clearly proved that there was no tampering of the sample packets sent for analysis. In view of the above explanation and since the variations in weight are very minimal, this Court is of the considered opinion that this minimal difference cannot affect the entire case of the prosecution.

22. The appellants / accused, who travelled in the vehicle [MO1], did not stop the vehicle during the police vehicle check. On chase, they were halted and were found in possession of 13 bags of contraband and therefore, as per Section 35 of the NDPS Act, this Court presumes the culpable mental stage as against the accused.

23. The owner of the vehicle [MO1] was also examined as PW6. He, in his evidence, has stated as if the vehicle has been taken from his house on 06.09.2006 itself and has been implicated in this case. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has failed to treat him as a hostile witness and failed to cross examine the witness. But the fact remains that the vehicle has been seized and produced before the Court and also marked as MO1. Though PW6 has taken a plea that his vehicle has been taken by the police from his house on 06.09.2006 itself, around 08.00 am, he did not take any steps as against the alleged act of the respondent / Police. In the absence of any such material in support of the contention of PW6, the benefit of doubt cannot be extended to the appellants / accused on the lapse committed by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in treating PW6 as a hostile witness.

11/13

24. In view of the foregoing discussions and reasonings, this Court is of the view that the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special District and Sessions Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, in C.C.No.630 of 2006, dated 13.07.2009, warrants no interference and the same is accordingly, confirmed.

25. Perusal of record shows that the appellants / accused were granted the relief of suspension of sentence as early as on 07.10.2010, but, in view of the non-representation on their part for quite a long period, this Court, by order dated 13.04.2019, revoked the suspension of sentence and directed the respondent Police to secure the accused. Subsequently, this Court, by order dated 04.09.2019, suspended the execution of Non-Bailable Warrant as against the first accused alone. Therefore, the trial Court is directed to ensure that all the appellants / accused are confined to prison, by taking necessary steps, so as to undergo the remaining period of sentence. Bail bonds, if any executed by them, shall stand terminated and pending interim orders, if any, shall also stand vacated.

In the result, the criminal appeal stands dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (C.O) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) dsk/gk To

1) The Judge, Special District and Sessions Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.

2. The Judicial Magistrate, Palani.

3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul District.

4. The Inspector of Police, Palani Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District.

5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai.

12/13

6. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Copy to:1. The Section Officer, Criminal Section(Records), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.(2)

2. The Director General of Police, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai.

3. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Chennai-09.

23.12.2020 KG(CO) CS(20.01.2021) 13P 11C 13/13