Madras HC Slams Police for Fake Ganja Case, Orders Rs. 10 Lakh Compensation to Acquitted Accused

In a scathing indictment of police conduct in narcotics cases, the Madras High Court at the Madurai Bench recently acquitted a man sentenced to ten years in prison under the NDPS Act after finding that the prosecution fabricated evidence to secure his conviction.

The bench of Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan held that the investigation was tainted with falsehood and deliberate procedural violations, and directed three police officers to jointly pay Rs. 10 lakh as compensation to the accused within a month. Court also ordered the Director General of Police (DGP), Chennai, to conduct an inquiry into the officers’ conduct.

The appellant, A. Vignesh, was convicted by the I Additional Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, in March 2023 under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act for allegedly possessing 24 kg of ganja. He was sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 1 lakh.

According to the prosecution, on June 26, 2021, a Sub-Inspector attached to Thideer Nagar Police Station, Madurai, received a tip-off about illegal ganja dealings near Melavasal, behind an Amma Unavagam. Acting on instructions from his superior, he claimed to have intercepted seven people, including Vignesh, and recovered a white sack containing 24 kilograms of ganja from one of them (A1). All were arrested, and a case was registered under the NDPS Act.

The trial court convicted Vignesh based mainly on the confession of a co-accused, even though no contraband was recovered from him and his signature did not appear on the recovery mahazar.

Allowing the appeal, the High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove Vignesh’s presence or conscious possession of the contraband. It noted that the seizure mahazar (Exhibit P4) bore no signature of the appellant, raising serious doubts about the claim that he was present during the alleged recovery.

Justice Ramakrishnan observed that the spot of the alleged recovery was a crowded public area, yet no independent witnesses were examined. “The simple confession of the co-accused is not sufficient to convict the appellant in the offence of grave nature,” the court said.

Court also found non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which mandates that any information about narcotics offences be recorded in writing and forwarded to superior officers. The handwritten note referred to by the police officer (PW 2) was never produced before the court, and the evidence about who received it was contradictory. The only document shown was a typed copy, which the judge described as “fabricated".

Taking a serious view, the High Court held that the police officers involved, identified as PW 2 (Sub-Inspector), PW 3 (Investigating Officer), and PW 4 (Inspector), had conspired to produce false evidence and misled the trial court.

“The prosecution not only failed to prove compliance with Section 42 but also manoeuvred to get conviction by leading false evidence,” Justice Ramakrishnan said.

Holding that the officers acted in collusion “to obtain conviction by hook or crook,” the court directed that they pay Rs. 10 lakh compensation to Vignesh, who had remained in custody since his arrest in June 2021.

The DGP was directed to initiate a departmental inquiry within one month, ensuring an independent and impartial probe into the officers’ conduct. The registry was directed to preserve the case records until the completion of the inquiry.

Emphasising that a fair investigation and fair trial form part of the accused’s fundamental rights, the court said that the prosecution had a duty to present true facts without concoction or manipulation. Since this court arrives at a finding of false case on the material available, the higher authority is directed to conduct a dispassionate inquiry, the judgment said.

Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court were set aside, and Vignesh was acquitted of all charges. The fine amount paid was ordered to be refunded, and his bail bond cancelled.

Case Title: A. Vignesh v. State

Order Dtae: October 15, 2025

Bench: Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan