The Madras High Court Bench here has confirmed the conviction, five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh imposed by a trial court on an individual for being in possession of 2.5 kilograms of opium though he had absconded and a counsel engaged by him to conduct the appeal withdrew his appearance from the case.
Justice M. Sathyanarayanan dismissed the appeal, pending since 2006, on merits after appointing advocate P. Saravanan as an amicus curiae , who argued the case in favour of the convict, and directing the High Court Legal Services Authority to pay him a remuneration of Rs. 3,000. The judge also appreciated the assistance rendered by him in deciding the case.
He pointed out that on May 16, 2004, an Inspector of Police attached to Narcotics Intelligence Bureau at Tuticorin received a tip-off with respect to smuggling of narcotic drugs. Immediately, he mounted surveillance at the junction of Madurai-Tuticorin Road and Tuticorin New Harbour Road and searched a car which was carrying three occupants, including the driver.
The search led to seizure of heroin from the first convict, Rajpaul, and 2.5 kg of opium from the second convict, Sampath Kumar. The driver did not posses any contraband and hence was acquitted from the criminal case by a Special Court for trying cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, here on May 29, 2006. The trial court sentenced Rajpaul to two years of rigorous imprisonment apart from imposing a fine of Rs. 50,000 on him. He chose to undergo the punishment without preferring any appeal.
The second convict, Sampath Kumar, remained absent at the time of pronouncement of judgement by the special court and therefore he could not be made to undergo the punishment.
However, the absconding convict filed the present appeal in 2006 itself and when it was taken up for final hearing on January 21 this year, his counsel withdrew from arguing the case.
Hence, the judge appointed an amicus curiae and also heard Government Advocate S. Prabha, representing the NIB, before dismissing the appeal and confirming the conviction as well as sentence imposed on the convict.
He directed the police to arrest the convict immediately, produce him before the trial court and make him undergo the sentence.
