Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has directed the authorities concerned to look into as to why criminal cases arising out Tamil Nadu do not carry the name of State in the cause title, in contrast to the practice adopted in all other States in the country.

A bench of Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol frowned upon the practice also adopted in the Madras High Court and directed for considering if appropriate amendments could be brought in the rules.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by one Ilamaran against his conviction in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

"At this stage, we may observe that in criminal SLPs coming from the State of Tamil Nadu, the cause title in the case does not reflect the State’s name. This is not the practice for all other States in India, where the name of the State is specifically mentioned in the case’s cause title," the bench said.

Senior Counsel S Nagamuthu said that omission was only by way of convention.

"The authorities are accordingly directed to examine whether the cause title in the criminal appeals emanating from the State of Tamil Nadu, should also mention the name of the State, in the cause title of the cases," the bench said.

The court was also informed that in the Madras High Court also, in the cause title in criminal matters, the State by name is not shown as a party. 

"It is not discernible whether it is a matter of practice or of Rules. But the issue needs to be examined. Accordingly, we direct that the Registrar General of the Madras High Court should bring this order to the notice of the Chief Justice in order to consider whether appropriate amendments in the Rules should be made, if there is no other impediment, to avoid the omission in the cause title of cases," the bench said.

The court directed its Registry to forward a copy of the present order to all concerned.

In the instant case, advocate M P Parthiban, for the petitioner, assailed the judgment of conviction. He submitted that there was a violation of the provisions under Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in the seizure of the contraband. This was because the seizure was not made in the presence of the Magistrate but only before a Gazetted Officer and that too after 48 days on March 12, 2011, he claimed. The Investigating Officer forwarded the sample only on April 29, 2011 to the Court. Further, the white gunny bag which contained the contraband, was never produced, the counsel said.

Parthiban also relied on the recent judgment of October 13, 2023 in case of 'Yusuf alias Asif vs State' in which the Supreme Court had held, "In the absence of any material on record to establish that the samples of the seized contraband were drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and that the inventory of the seized contraband was duly certified by the Magistrate, it is apparent that the said seized contraband and the samples drawn therefrom would not be a valid piece of primary evidence in the trial and once there is no primary evidence available, the trial as whole stands vitiated.”

The court issued notice to the State, returnable in six weeks.

Case Title: Ilamaran Vs The State Rep By The Inspector of Police