INTELLIGENCE OFFICER vs MUTHUVEL DEVAN @ DEVARAJ @
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:4405
CRL A No. 613 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL A No. 613 of 2016
CNR: {HCMA010412952016}
Intelligence Officer
Narcotic Control Bureau, Chennai Zonal Unit,
Chennai-90.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Muthuvel Devan @ Devaraj @ Deva
2. S.Baskaran @ Panja @ Raja
3. Rajan Silathuria @ Rajan @ Karthik
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 377(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code,
to set aside the order of acquittal under Section 21(c), 27A, 28 and 29 of
NDPS Act against A-1 and A-3 and the order of acquittal under Sections
28 and 29 of NDPS Act against A2 made in C.C.No.64 of 2007 dated
09.01.2014 on the file of the first Additional Special Judge for NDPS Act
Cases, Chennai.
For Appellant(s): Mr.A.Kumaraguru
Special Public Prosecutor
For Respondent(s): Ms.S.Sridevi
Legal Aid Counsel
JUDGMENT
The appeal challenges the judgment passed in C.C.No.64 of 2007,
aggrieved by the acquittal of A1 and A3, the respondents 1 and 3 in the
appeal, of the offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 21, 8(c) r/w 27(A), 8(c)
r/w 28 and 8(c) r/w 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
__________
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 07:08:55 pm )
2026:MHC:4405
CRL A No. 613 of 2016
1
Substances Act, 1985 and aggrieved by the acquittal of A2 of the offence
under Sections 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act and the minimum sentence
imposed on him for the offences under Section 8(c) r/w Section 21(c) of
the NDPS Act.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that they received information,
that one Kukki @ Damayanthi with the assistance of one Devaraj @ Deva ,
engaged one Baskaran (A2), the second respondent herein, to procure
three kilograms of Heroin from one Ibrahim of Madhya Pradesh and A2
would come to Chennai with the contraband to smuggle the same to Sri
Lanka; that therefore, the NCB Officers, along with independent
witnesses, went to Anna International Airport, where, they found A2, who
was about to board a flight to Sri Lanka; that the Officers explained to A2
about his right to be searched in the presence of a Judicial Magistrate
under Section 50 of the NDPS Act; that he declined the Officers' offer and
agreed to be searched by the Officers; that on search, it was found that
he was in possession of 2.825 kgs of Heroin concealed in his baggage;
that thereafter, the First Information Report was registered and upon
investigation, it was revealed that A1 and A3, the respondents 1 and 3,
had provided the required funds to A2 for purchase of the contraband.
Hence, final report was filed against A1 to A3 under Sections 8(c) r/w 21,
8(c) r/w 27(A), 8(c) r/w 28 and 8(c) r/w 29 of the NDPS Act.
1
For brevity, hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act”.
__________
Page No.2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 07:08:55 pm )
2026:MHC:4405
CRL A No. 613 of 2016
3. A4 to A6, who are said to have aided the aforesaid accused, were
absconding and hence, the case was split up against them and only the
present respondents were tried.
4. The prosecution had examined nine witnesses and marked
Exhibit P.1 to Exhibit P.65 . The Trial Court found that except for the
confession of A2, there were no other materials produced by the
prosecution to prove the charge that A1 and A3 funded A2 for the
purchase of the contraband and acquitted them of all the charges. The
Trial Court also held that the prosecution had established the search and
seizure from A2 and since commercial quantity of contraband was seized,
sentenced him to undergo the minimum sentence of ten years rigorous
imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-.
5. Mr.A.Kumaraguru , learned Special Public Prosecutor for the
appellant, would submit that the Trial Court ought not to have acquitted
A1 and A3, as there was sufficient evidence adduced by the prosecution
to prove the case of conspiracy as against A1 to A3 and that the Trial
Court, having found that A2 was in possession of commercial quantity of
Heroin, ought not to have acquitted him of the offence of conspiracy and
hence, prayed for setting aside his acquittal for the said offence. The
learned Special Public Prosecutor also submitted that no appeal has been
preferred by A2, challenging his conviction and sentence.
__________
Page No.3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 07:08:55 pm )
2026:MHC:4405
CRL A No. 613 of 2016
6. Though notice sent to respondent 2 was served and his name is
printed in the cause-list, none had entered appearance. Notice sent to
respondent 1 was returned as refused. A learned counsel had entered
appearance for respondent 3, however, there is no appearance. Hence,
this Court appointed Ms.S.Sridevi , learned counsel as the Legal Aid
Counsel to represent the respondents.
7. Ms.S.Sridevi , learned Legal Aid Counsel, submited that the Trial
Court was right in acquitting A1 and A3, as the only material for
prosecuting them was the confession of A2, which is inadmissible and that
the Trial Court was justified in imposing minimum sentence, as A2 had no
bad antecedents and was a first time offender and prayed for dismissal of
the appeal.
8. It is seen from the impugned judgment that though the
prosecution had examined nine witnesses, the only material relied upon
by them to implicate A1 and A3 was the statement of A2 made to the
Officials. The judgment of the Trial Court was rendered prior to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh vs
2
State of Tamil Nadu . Therefore, the Trial Court held that though the
statement of A2 is admissible, the confession of a co-accused cannot be
2
2021 4 SCC 1
__________
Page No.4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 07:08:55 pm )
2026:MHC:4405
CRL A No. 613 of 2016
the sole basis for holding the accused guilty based on the judgment in
3
Kashmira Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh .
9. It is well settled that the confession of the co-accused cannot be
the basis to hold an accused guilty and it could only be used to lend
assurance to other evidence on record. Admittedly, there is no other
evidence on record. However, pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Tofan Singh ’s case (cited supra ), the confession is not
even admissible. Therefore, the Trial Court was right in holding that there
is no material to prove any of the charges against A1 to A3. The said
finding, therefore, does not call for any interference.
10. As regards the finding of acquittal as against A2 in respect of
Sections 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act, this Court is of the view that there is
no reason to interfere with the said finding as admittedly, there is no
evidence to establish the offence of conspiracy.
11. Therefore, the reasons for acquittal are plausible and in any
case, there is no perversity warranting interference in the appeal. This
Court also finds no infirmity in the sentence imposed on A2, as it is just
and reasonable. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
3
AIR 1952 SC 159
__________
Page No.5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 07:08:55 pm )
2026:MHC:4405
CRL A No. 613 of 2016
12. The High Court Legal Services Committee shall pay the
scheduled fee to Ms.S.Sridevi , learned Legal Aid Counsel for the
respondents.
27-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
( drm )
__________
Page No.6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 07:08:55 pm )
2026:MHC:4405
CRL A No. 613 of 2016
To:
1. Intelligence Officer
Narcotic Control Bureau, Chennai Zonal Unit, Chennai-90.
2. The Additional Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
4. The Secretary
High Court Legal Services Committee,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
__________
Page No.7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 07:08:55 pm )
2026:MHC:4405
CRL A No. 613 of 2016
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
( drm )
CRL A No. 613 of 2016
27-10-2026
__________
Page No.8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/11/2026 07:08:55 pm )