{"id":270654,"date":"2002-01-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-01-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rukmani-vs-the-intelligence-officer-on-30-january-2002-2"},"modified":"2014-02-21T16:53:10","modified_gmt":"2014-02-21T11:23:10","slug":"rukmani-vs-the-intelligence-officer-on-30-january-2002-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rukmani-vs-the-intelligence-officer-on-30-january-2002-2","title":{"rendered":"Rukmani vs The Intelligence Officer on 30 January, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Rukmani vs The Intelligence Officer on 30 January, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 30\/01\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM\n\nCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.590 OF 1998 and CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.893 of 1997\nand\nCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.31 of 1998\n\nJoseph Henry                           ..Appellaant in C.A.No.590\/97\n\nRukmani                                 ..Appellant in C.A.NO.893\/97\n\nR. Dayalan                              ..Appellant in\n                                          C.A.No.31\/98\n\nVs.\n\nThe Intelligence Officer,\nNarcotic Control Bureau,\nSouth Zone, Chennai.                                    ..Respondent in<\/pre>\n
                                                          all the C.As.\n<\/p>\n
        Criminal Appeals against the judgment dated 30.6.1997 in C.C.No.236 of
\n1993 on the file of the Special Judge, (N.D.P.S.Act),Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
!For Appellant in
\nC.A.No.590\/1997 :  Mr.  K.S.  Suresh<\/p>\n
For Appellant in
\nC.A.No.893\/1997 :  Mr.  A.  Ganesh<\/p>\n
For Appellant in
\nC.A.No.31\/1998 :  Mr.  R.C.  Paul Kanakaraj<\/p>\n
^For Respondent :  Mr.  P.N.  Prakash, Spl.  P.P.\n<\/p>\n
:C O M M O N J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
        R.  Rukmani (A3), R.  Dayalan (A4) and Joseph Henry  (A5)  have  filed
\nseparate  appeals  in  C.A.Nos.893  of  1987,  31  of  1998  and  590  of 1987
\nrespectively challenging the conviction imposed  upon  them  for  the  offence
\nunder  Section 8(c) read with 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
\nSubstances Act<\/a> and sentence to undergo R.I.  for 10 years and to pay a fine of
\nRs.1,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The short facts leading to the conviction could be  summarised  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
        “(a)  On  the  basis of the information, P.W.1 Vijayalakshmi and P.W.3
\nAshok Raj along with other officers of  the  Narcotic  Control  Bureau,  South
\nZone,  Chennai,  went  to the International Airport, Chennai and intercepted a
\nlady by name Rukmani (A3) bound for Srilanka by flight.  The Officers examined
\nher baggage in the presence of P.W.8 Anantha  Padmanabhan  and  another.    On
\nexamination of  the  green  coloured  bag, a prestige toaster was noticed.  On
\nopening the same, it was found to contain four polythene  bags  and  the  same
\nwere recovered.    Another bag which was in possession of the said Rukmani was
\nalso searched.  It was found to contain a kerosene pump stove.  On opening the
\ncylinder portion, a polythene bag was noticed.  On testing the brown  coloured
\nsubstance  found  in those polythene bags, it was noticed that the said powder
\nwas suspected to be heroin.  They were  seized  by  observing  the  procedures
\nrequired under law.\n<\/p>\n
        (b) On the basis of the statement of Rukmani(A3), Perinbanayagam alias
\nInbam(A1), Koneshwaran alias Siva and Dayalan (A4) were traced and apprehended
\nat the   Airport  Lounge  itself.    They  were  brought  to  the  office  and
\ninterrogated.  On the basis of the information given by  Perinbanayagam  alias
\nInbam(A1),  his  residential  premises  at  Choolaimedu was searched and 1,000
\ngrams of brown colour powder, which was concealed in the sandwitch toaster and
\nkerosene pump stove, was seized under mahazar.\n<\/p>\n
        (c) After getting statement from A1, the  commercial  premises  of  A5
\nJoseph  Henry  was located at Chennai on 22.7.1993 and search was conducted in
\nthe said premises and account book was  seized  under  mahazar  Ex.P35  and  a
\nstatement was  obtained  from A5 also.  There, Sriskandaraja alias Khalifa was
\napprehended.  Thereafter, the search was conducted in the Khalifa’s house also
\nand Ex.P42 series, the bills for the purchase  of  the  stove  were  recovered
\nunder the mahazar.\n<\/p>\n
        (d)  According  to the statements of A1 and A2, A2 gave Rs.65,000\/- to
\nA1 and A1 went to Delhi to procure  500  grams  of  heroin  and  subsequently,
\nexported  illicitly to Srilanka through a woman by concealing it in a kerosene
\npump stove to one Thambi of Srilanka.  On another occasion, A1 went  to  Delhi
\nand procured 2  kgs.  Of heroin from Delhi.  All these people were arrested on
\n23.7.1993 and remanded to  judicial  custody.    The  samples  were  sent  for
\nchemical  analysis through Court and the Analyst P.W.4 after analysis sent the
\nreport Ex.P40 wherein it is stated as Di-acetyle morphine, which is heroin.\n<\/p>\n
        (e) Before filing the complaint, some  of  the  accused  persons  were
\nreleased on  bail.  Out of the persons released on bail, one Koneshwaran alias
\nSiva absconded.  Therefore, the complaint was filed by P.W.3 only  as  against
\nA1 to A5.\n<\/p>\n
        (f)  During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 13 were examined, Exs.P1 to
\nP42 were filed and M.Os.1 to 34 were marked on the side of  prosecution.    On
\nthe side of defence, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D4 were marked.\n<\/p>\n
        (g)  When  the accused were questioned under Section 313<\/a> Cr.P.C., they
\npleaded that they did  not  participate  in  the  crime  and  that  they  were
\ninnocent.\n<\/p>\n
        (h)  The  trial  Court  after  considering  the materials available on
\nrecord, convicted the appellants for the offences referred to above.   On  the
\ndate of judgment, A1 and A2 were not present.  Therefore, minimum sentence was
\nimposed upon  them  and  non-bailable  warrant  was issued against them.  Now,
\nchallenging the conviction, the appellants (A3, A4 and A5)  have  filed  these
\nappeals.”\n<\/p>\n
        3.  Mr.   A.    Ganesh,  the counsel for the appellant Rukmani (A3) in
\nC.A.No.893 of 1987 has strenuously contended that  the  appellant  Rukmani  is
\nliable  to  be  acquitted  on the reason that many of the mandatory provisions
\nhave been violated.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  Mr.  R.C.  Paul Kanakaraj, the counsel appearing for the appellant
\nDayalan (A4) in C.A.No.31 of 1998 would submit that the evidence available  on
\nrecord  would  not be sufficient to hold that A4 was a party to the conspiracy
\nand therefore, he is liable to be acquitted.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  Mr.  K.S.  Suresh, the counsel appearing for the appellant  Joseph
\nHenry (A5) in C.A.No.590 of 1997 would submit that except the material to show
\nthat  he  had  the knowledge about the activities of the other accused, he did
\nnot have any role to play with reference to the commission of the offences.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  Mr.P.N.Prakash,  the  learned  Special  Public  Prosecutor,  while
\nrefuting the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants, would contend
\nthat  the  mandatory  provisions  have  been  complied  with and the arguments
\nadvanced by the counsel for the appellants are not correct, as the search  and<\/p>\n
seizure  which  was  effected by the competent officers is perfectly valid and
\nthe same is in accordance with law and as such, the reasonings  given  by  the
\ntrial Court while imposing conviction on the appellants are correct.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  I have carefully considered the submissions made by the respective
\ncounsel.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  Mr.    A.Ganesh,  the  counsel for the appellant Rukmani(A3) would
\nmake the following contentions:\n<\/p>\n
        (1) Admittedly, the search was  conducted  by  P.Ws.1  and  3  at  the
\nAirport  after  intercepting  the  appellant  in  pursuance of the information
\nobtained by them.  Therefore,  under  Section  42(1)<\/a>  of  the  Act,  the  said
\ninformation  has  to  be  recorded  and the same shall be sent to the superior
\nofficer.  The admission made by P.Ws.1 and  3  to  the  effect  that  such  an
\ninformation was not recorded and the same was not sent to the superior officer
\nwould  clearly  show that the mandatory provision of Section 42<\/a> of the Act has
\nnot been complied with and therefore, the  conviction  on  the  basis  of  the
\nsearch and seizure not valid in law has to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
        (2)  Section 50<\/a> of the Act has not been complied with, inasmuch as the
\nright for the option to be  searched  in  the  presence  of  either  before  a
\nGazetted  Officer  or  before  the  Magistrate  has  not  been conveyed to the
\nappellant and furthermore, under Section 50(4)<\/a>, the appellant  Rukmani  should
\nbe  examined only by the lady officer which has not been done in this case and
\nas such, Section 50<\/a>, a mandatory in nature also has not  been  complied  with,
\nwhich would vitiate the entire trial and conviction.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  In  respect  of these points, it is submitted by Mr.P.N.  Prakash,
\nthe learned Special Public  Prosecutor  appearing  for  the  respondent  would
\nsubmit  that  Sections  42<\/a>  and 50<\/a> would not apply to the present facts of the
\ncase, since the officers P.Ws.1 and 3 went to the Airport being a public place
\nand seized the contraband from the bag carried by the accused and as such,  it
\nwould  attract  only Section 43<\/a> and therefore, the information as contemplated
\nunder Section 42<\/a> need not be recorded and consequently, the same need be  sent
\nto the superior officer.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   The  counsel for both would elaborately argue on these points by
\nciting various authorities.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  With reference to the first point, the learned  counsel  for  the
\nappellant  would  cite  2000 S.C.C.(Cri.) 496 (ABDUL RASHID IBRAHIM MANSURI v.
\nSTATE OF GUJARAT<\/a>), wherein it is held that Section 42<\/a>, which is  a  mandatory,
\nwas not followed even though the search was conducted from the person, who was
\ntravelling in an Autorickshaw, by stopping in the public road.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   In  the  said  decision,  when an argument was advanced that the
\nseizure was effected not under Section 42<\/a> of the Act, but it was under Section
\n43<\/a> as per which the officer  concerned  was  not  obliged  to  take  down  the
\ninformation,  the  Supreme  Court  would hold that the said argument cannot be
\naccepted because in that case, P.W.2 admitted that  he  proceeded  on  getting
\nprior  information  from  a  Constable  and  the information was precisely one
\nfalling within the purview of Section 42(1)<\/a> of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  So, on the basis of this decision, the learned  counsel  for  the
\nappellant  would  submit that when P.Ws.1 and 3 admitted that they went to the
\nspot only on getting the information, it is duty bound on their part to record
\nthat information by taking down in writing as contemplated under Section 42(1)<\/a>
\nof the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  The above judgment, in my view, would not be  applicable  to  the
\npresent case  for two reasons.  In the said case, the search was not conducted
\nin the public place.  On the other hand, the search  was  conducted  from  the
\nperson, who   was  sitting  in  the  Autorickshaw.    Moreover,  the  specific
\ninformation obtained by the officer concerned in that case  is  that  somebody
\nwas trying to transport a narcotic substance in the Autorickshaw.\n<\/p>\n
        15.   Section  42(1)<\/a> provides that any competent officer, if he has to
\nreason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by  any  person
\nand taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, etc., in respect of which an
\noffence  punishable  under  Chapter  IV  has been committed or any document or
\nother article which may furnish evidence of commission of such offence is kept
\nor concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place may enter into  any
\nsuch building, conveyance or place and seize the same.\n<\/p>\n
        16.   So,  Section  42(1)<\/a> would refer about the specific categories of
\nplaces where the competent officer as provided under Section 42<\/a> would  go  and
\nconduct search.   It  refers  building,  conveyance or any enclosed place.  In
\nother words, it does not refer to any public place.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  Therefore, on the basis of the said wordings contained in Section
\n42(1)<\/a>, the Supreme Court in 2000 S.C.C.  (Cri.) 496 (supra), would  hold  that
\nthe  search  was conducted on receipt of information that person was trying to
\ntransport the narcotic drug from one particular place  to  another  particular
\nplace in  an  Autorickshaw  bearing  the particular numbers.  So, Autorickshaw
\nbeing  a  conveyance  is  one  of  the  things  mentioned  in  Section  42(1)<\/a>.
\nTherefore, the Supreme Court had an occasion to say that Section 42(1)<\/a> will be
\napplicable in respect of the facts in that case.\n<\/p>\n
        18.  That  is  not the case here.  Here is the case where P.Ws.1 and 3
\nalong with other officers on information that a lady was coming to Airport  to
\ngo to  Srilanka  with a narcotic drug.  The Airport cannot be considered to be
\nthe place as referred to in Section 42<\/a>.  On the other hand, it  would  attract
\nSection 43<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
        19.   As  per  Section  43<\/a>,  any  officer  of  any  of the departments
\nmentioned in Section 42<\/a> may seize, in any public  place  or  in  transit,  any
\nnarcotic  drug,  etc.,in  respect of which he has reason to believe an offence
\npunishable under Chapter IV has been committed.\n<\/p>\n
        20.  The explanation given in Section 43<\/a> would provide thus:
\n        “For the purpose of  this  section,  this  expression  “public  place”
\nincludes  any  public  conveyance, hotel, shop,or other place intended for use
\nby, or accessible to, the public.”\n<\/p>\n
        21.  Thus, it is clear that if  the  officers  exercising  the  powers
\nunder  Section  43<\/a>  for  making  search and seizure from a person who is being
\nintercepted at a public place need not  follow  the  conditions  contained  in
\nSection 42(1)<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
        22.  Though it is contended by the counsel for the appellant that that
\nis  not  the public place by referring to the evidence of P.W.3, I am not able
\nto accept this contention, since the said place is  being  permitted  for  the
\npassengers to pass through.  Therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that
\nthe said area in the Airport can be considered as a public place.\n<\/p>\n
        23.   This  view  of  mine  is fortified by the decision rendered by a
\nDivision Bench of the Delhi High Court in UTPAL MISHRA v.  NICELAI CHRISTENSEN
\n(1997 CRI.L.J.4475).  The observation made by  the  Delhi  High  Court  is  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
        “The  Airport  or  Custom  area  at  the  Airport or Custom counter or
\nLuggage hold area or Immigration area or alike at the Airport would thus be  a
\npublic place.    These areas are accessible to the public, may be with certain
\nrestriction or requirement of a permission for entry into  these  areas.    No
\ndoubt  the  provisions of Section 42<\/a> are mandatory but the said provisions are
\nnot applicable at International Airport which is clearly a “public  place”  to
\nwhich Section 43<\/a> would apply and not Section 42<\/a> of the Act.”\n<\/p>\n
        24.   At  this juncture, it may be relevant to point out the decisions
\nrendered by the Supreme Court in KOLUTTUMOTTIL RAZAK v.  STATE OF KERALA<\/a> (2000
\nS.C.C.  (Cri.) 829),STATE OF PUNJAB v.  BALDEV SINGH<\/a> (A.I.R.1999 S.C.2378) and
\nABDUL RASHID IBRAHIM MANSURI v.  STATE OF GUJARAT<\/a> (2000 S.C.C.(Cri.) 496).\n<\/p>\n
        25.  In these decisions, it  is  held  that  non-compliance  with  the
\nrequirements  of  Section  42(1)<\/a> and (2) would render the resultant search and
\nseizure suspect, though that by itself may not vitiate the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
        26.  It is true that for the  non-compliance  of  Section  42(1)<\/a>,  the
\nSupreme Court  in  2000 S.C.C (Cri.)829 (supra) acquitted the accused.  But in
\nthat case, it was held that apart from the evidence of the police officers who
\nsearched and seized the contraband, there is absolutely no other  evidence  to
\nensure that  the  search  was  in fact conducted by the officer concerned.  On
\nfacts, it was held that the evidence of P.W.1, the  police  officer,  did  not
\ninspire confidence in the mind of the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
        27.   In the light of the above observation made by the Supreme Court,
\neven assuming that Section 42<\/a> would be applicable to this case, at  the  most,
\nit can  be stated that seizure can be viewed with a suspicion.  But, it cannot
\nbe said that the  entire  evidence  relating  to  seizure  and  the  materials
\nsubsequently  collected  shall  be  rejected, in view of the fact that in this
\ncase, on the basis of the information given by A3 subsequent to the seizure of
\nthe contraband in other places,  the  search  was  conducted  by  the  officer
\nconcerned and  recovery  of other contraband was made.  Therefore, in my view,
\nin any angle, we cannot say that the search and  seizure  in  respect  of  the
\ncontraband  recovered  from the bag which was carried by the appellant Rukmani
\nis illegal.\n<\/p>\n
        28.  In regard to the second  point,  namely,  the  non-compliance  of
\nSection 50<\/a>, several decisions have been cited by the counsel for the appellant
\nstating  that  the  lady officer would not have searched the appellant, as the
\nsame is not mentioned in the mahazar Ex.P13  and  the  right  to  be  searched
\neither  before  the  Magistrate  or  before  the Gazetted Officer had not been
\nconveyed to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
        29.  On the other hand, the counsel for the  respondent  would  submit
\nthat  Section  50<\/a>  would not apply to the present facts of the case, since the
\nseizure of the contraband was effected only from the  bag  and  not  from  the
\nperson,  as  Section 50<\/a> would refer about the search of the body of the person
\nand not about  the  other  materials  like  bag,  which  was  carried  by  the
\naccused\/appellant.\n<\/p>\n
        30.  The counsel for the appellant, at this stage, would point out the
\nobservation of  the  Supreme  Court  made in NAMDI FRANCIS NWAZOR v.  UNION OF
\nINDIA AND ANOTHER<\/a> (1997 CCR 27 (SC) ), wherein it is held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “We must hasten to clarify that if that person is carrying a hand  bag
\nor  like and the incriminating article is found therefrom, it would still be a
\nsearch of the person of the accused requiring compliance with  Section  50<\/a>  of
\nthe Act.”\n<\/p>\n
On the basis of this observation, it is strenuously contended that even though
\nthe  bag  was  searched,  since the bag was carried by the accused, it must be
\nconstrued to mean that the  search  was  conducted  only  on  the  person  and
\ntherefore, Section 50<\/a> would apply.\n<\/p>\n
        31.   On  the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would
\nsubmit that on the similar facts of the case,the Supreme Court would  hold  on
\nthe  strength  of the dictum laid down by the Constitutional Bench that when a
\nperson was carrying a bag or some other article with him and narcotic drug was
\nfound from it, it cannot be said that it was from his  person  and  therefore,
\nSection 50<\/a> would not apply.\n<\/p>\n
        32.   The  same has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in BIRAKISHORE
\nKAR v.  STATE OF ORISSA<\/a> (2000(9)  S.C.C.541).    It  is  seen  from  the  said
\njudgment  that  the  search  on  the plastic bag which belonged to the accused
\nwould not attract Section 50<\/a>, as it cannot be construed to be  the  search  on
\nthe person.  Similarly,  it  was held in KANHAIYA LAL v.  STATE OF M.P<\/a>.  (2000
\n(10) S.C.C.380) that when a bag which was carried by the accused was  searched
\nand 1  kg.    of  opium was found from it, it is not a search on the person as
\ncontemplated under Section 50<\/a> of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        33.  At this stage, it was contended by the counsel for the  appellant
\nthat  these  decisions  were  rendered  by  the  two Judges Bench, whereas the
\ndecision in 1997 CCR 27 (SC)(supra) was rendered by the  Bench  consisting  of
\nthree  Judges  and  therefore, even though the decision in 1997 CCR 27 (SC) is
\nearlier to the other decisions, the judgment  rendered  by  the  three  Judges
\nBench has to be given preference.\n<\/p>\n
        34.   However,  it  is seen from the other judgments referred to above
\nthat the said observation made by the Supreme court was on the  basis  of  the
\nobservation made  by  the  Constitutional  Bench in STATE OF PUNJAB v.  BALDEV
\nSINGH<\/a> (A.I.R.1999 S.C.2378).  Therefore, it cannot be said that this Court has
\nto follow the decision rendered in 1997 CCR 27 (SC), in view of the fact  that
\nthis Court is bound by the decision rendered by the Constitutional Bench.\n<\/p>\n
        35.   In  this  case,  admittedly,  the accused came with two bags and
\nafter interrogation, the two bags were searched and the  same  were  found  to
\ncontain brown  colour  powder,  which  was  found  to  be heroin.  Under those
\ncircumstances, the aspect as to whether Section 50<\/a> has been complied  with  or
\nnot  need  not be considered, in view of the fact that Section 50<\/a> would not at
\nall apply to the present facts of the case.  Therefore, I am unable to  accept
\nany  of  the  contentions  raised  by the counsel for the appellant, as, in my
\nopinion, the officers concerned have observed the required provisions  of  law
\nand  conducted  the  search  and  seizure  validly  by  following  the correct
\nprocedures and as such, it is to be held that the conviction imposed upon  the
\nappellant  Rukmani  is  correct  and  the  same  is liable to be confirmed and
\naccordingly confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
        36.  However, on the request of the counsel for the appellant  Rukmani
\n(A3),  the  sentence  imposed  upon  her with reference to the default clause,
\nnamely to suffer R.I.  for one more year in case of  non-payment  of  fine  of
\nRs.1,00,000\/- is modified  to  R.I.    for  one month.  In other respects, the
\nsentence is confirmed in so far as she is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
        37.  As regards the other appellants (A4 and A5),  the  only  evidence
\navailable  is the confessional statements Exs.P19 and P36 obtained from A4 and
\nA5.  Admittedly, there was no recovery from A4, but from A5, the account  book
\nwas seized  from  his  office.  However, there is no reason as to why the said
\naccount book had not been produced before the Court.  But,  the  fact  remains
\nthat from both of them no incriminating article was recovered.\n<\/p>\n
        38.   As  stated above, the only available evidence as against them is
\nthe confession made by them.  On a perusal of their confession,  it  is  clear
\nthat they  had  only  knowledge  about  the  activities  of  A1  and A2 .  The
\nconfession made by A5 would show that they allowed the other accused to go  to
\ntelephone booth to make STD calls.  There is no material to show that A5 was a
\nparty to  the  offence  by helping them by paying money.  Similarly, A4 on the
\ninstruction by A1 helped A3, while she was staying in a Lodge and  went  along
\nwith her to several places in Madras and lastly, she took him to Airport in an
\nAutorickshaw.   Though  he  stated  that he knew about the handing over of the
\narticles containing the contraband to A3, he would state that for helping her,
\nhe was  given  Rs.100\/-  or  Rs.200\/-  on  every  occasion.      Under   those
\ncircumstances,  I  am  unable  to hold that A4 and A5 were parties to the main
\nconspiracy merely on the basis of the confession given by them.\n<\/p>\n
        39.  In such  circumstances,  the  evidence  available  on  record  as
\nagainst  A4  and  A5, in my opinion, is not sufficient to hold them guilty for
\nthe offences referred to above.  Hence, the conviction  and  sentence  imposed
\nupon  A4  and A5 are set aside and they are acquitted and they are directed to
\nbe released forthwith, unless they are required in some other case.     Since
\nit is reported that A4 is a Sri Lankan National, he must be sent to Sri Lankan
\nCamp as prescribed in the relevant rules.\n<\/p>\n
        40.  With the above observations, the appeal in C.A.No.893 of 1997  is
\ndismissed and the appeals in C.A.Nos.590 of 1997 and 31 of 1998 are allowed.\n<\/p>\n
30-01-2002
\nIndex:  Yes(I)
\nmam
\nSd\/-\n<\/p>\n
Assistant Registrar.\n<\/p>\n
\/True Copy\/
\nSub Asst.  Registrar(Stat)<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1) The Special Judge (NDPS Act), Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
2) The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.\n<\/p>\n
3) The Superintendent, (Special Prison for Women),Vellore.\n<\/p>\n
4) The Special Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
M.  KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J.<\/p>\n
\nJudgment in\nCrl.A.Nos.590 and 893 of 1997\nand     31 of 1998.\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Rukmani vs The Intelligence Officer on 30 January, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30\/01\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.590 OF 1998 and CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.893 of 1997 and CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.31 of 1998 Joseph Henry ..Appellaant in C.A.No.590\/97 Rukmani ..Appellant in C.A.NO.893\/97 R. Dayalan […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-270654","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRukmani vs The Intelligence Officer on 30 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rukmani-vs-the-intelligence-officer-on-30-january-2002-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rukmani vs The Intelligence Officer on 30 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rukmani-vs-the-intelligence-officer-on-30-january-2002-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-02-21T11:23:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rukmani-vs-the-intelligence-officer-on-30-january-2002-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rukmani-vs-the-intelligence-officer-on-30-january-2002-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rukmani vs The Intelligence Officer on 30 January, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-21T11:23:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rukmani-vs-the-intelligence-officer-on-30-january-2002-2\"},\"wordCount\":3662,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rukmani-vs-the-intelligence-officer-on-30-january-2002-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rukmani-vs-the-intelligence-officer-on-30-january-2002-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rukmani-vs-the-intelligence-officer-on-30-january-2002-2\",\"name\":\"Rukmani vs The Intelligence Officer on 30 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-21T11:23:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rukmani-vs-the-intelligence-officer-on-30-january-2002-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rukmani-vs-the-intelligence-officer-on-30-january-2002-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rukmani-vs-the-intelligence-officer-on-30-january-2002-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rukmani vs The Intelligence Officer on 30 January, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rukmani vs The Intelligence Officer on 30 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rukmani-vs-the-intelligence-officer-on-30-january-2002-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rukmani vs The Intelligence Officer on 30 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rukmani-vs-the-intelligence-officer-on-30-january-2002-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-02-21T11:23:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rukmani-vs-the-intelligence-officer-on-30-january-2002-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rukmani-vs-the-intelligence-officer-on-30-january-2002-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rukmani vs The Intelligence Officer on 30 January, 2002","datePublished":"2002-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-21T11:23:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rukmani-vs-the-intelligence-officer-on-30-january-2002-2"},"wordCount":3662,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rukmani-vs-the-intelligence-officer-on-30-january-2002-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rukmani-vs-the-intelligence-officer-on-30-january-2002-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rukmani-vs-the-intelligence-officer-on-30-january-2002-2","name":"Rukmani vs The Intelligence Officer on 30 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-21T11:23:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rukmani-vs-the-intelligence-officer-on-30-january-2002-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rukmani-vs-the-intelligence-officer-on-30-january-2002-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rukmani-vs-the-intelligence-officer-on-30-january-2002-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rukmani vs The Intelligence Officer on 30 January, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270654","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=270654"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/270654\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=270654"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=270654"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=270654"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}