Judgment :- 1. The appellant is the sole accused in C.C.No.486 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Special District and Sessions Judge (N.D.P.S Act Cases) Madurai and he was charged for the commission of offence under Section 20(b)(1) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 (NDPS Act) for having found in possession of 10 kgs of ganja. 2. After trial, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years with a fine of Rs.25,000/- with default sentence of six months and aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, he has filed this appeal. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on an information received by the Prohibition Enforcement Wing, surveillance was mounted near Thiruvallur Bus Stop at about 05.00 a.m on 07.12.1985. At that time, the appellant/accused, aged about 50 years, was found carrying 2 fertilizer bags. He was stopped and searched. It was found that four pockets weighing 3 kgs, 2 kgs, 3 kgs and 2 kgs of ganja (totally weighing 10 kgs) were put in a white plastic bag, in a torn saree, in a yellow colour bag and in a fertilizer bag respectively. From each pocket, 50 grams of ganja by way of sample, has been collected and sealed. The Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Madurai City lodged a complaint, based on which, a case in Cr.No.762 of 1985 was registered by the Prohibition Enforcement Wing for the commission of the offence under Section 4(1)(a) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. 4. The case, after investigation, has culminated in a charge-sheet, charging the accused for the aforesaid offence, which was filed on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, who took it on file and framed a charge under Section 20(1)(b) of NDPS Act and seems to have committed the case to the Special Court, though it is not explicit from the cause title in the impugned judgment. 5. During the course of trial before the Sessions Court, the prosecution examined one Mohan, Sub Inspector of Police, attached to Madurai Thideer Nagar Police Station and marked four documents as Exs.P.1 to P.4. 6. The accused was questioned under Section 313 (i) (b) Cr.P.C and he pleaded guilty of the charge framed against him. On the side of the accused, no oral evidence has been let in and no documentary evidence has been marked. 7. 6. The accused was questioned under Section 313 (i) (b) Cr.P.C and he pleaded guilty of the charge framed against him. On the side of the accused, no oral evidence has been let in and no documentary evidence has been marked. 7. The trial Court, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence and the materials available on record, coupled with the written statement obtained from the accused, has convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Hence, this appeal. 8. Mr.R.Anand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the procedure adopted for framing the charge is totally against the law and he has drawn the attention of this Court to the charge framed against the accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai. He further submitted that the accused is a rustic person, now aged 85 years. He should be made aware of the charge framed against him and without explaining the consequences of pleading him guilty, a statement was obtained from him and based on which, he has been prosecuted. 9. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that P.W.1 is nothing to do with the lodging of complaint as well as registration of F.I.R/Ex.P.2 and his testimony also does not disclose about on what basis, he has given evidence on behalf of the respondent. Hence, he prays for setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and acquittal of the appellant/accused. 10. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent submitted that the prosecution, after observing all the formalities has charged the accused for the commission of offence under Section 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act and unless the procedure adopted by the trial Court results in causing prejudice to the accused, he cannot be acquitted and prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Appeal. 11. This Court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent and perused the materials available on record. 12. F.I.R-Ex.P.2 came to be registered on 07.12.1985, based on the complaint given by one Ibrahim-Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Madurai and the complaint given by the said official has not been marked as an exhibit. 12. F.I.R-Ex.P.2 came to be registered on 07.12.1985, based on the complaint given by one Ibrahim-Inspector of Police, Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Madurai and the complaint given by the said official has not been marked as an exhibit. As per EX.P.1-mahazar, a surveillance was mounted based on an information, at about 5.00 a.m on 07.12.1985, when the appellant was coming near Ashok Bhavan Hotel, near Thiruvallur Bus-Stop. He was found carrying 2 plastic Urea Bags and inside two bags, four pockets were found, totally containing 10 kgs of ganja and four samples were taken out of it and the samples were sent for chemical analysis. Ex.P.4 - Chemical Analysis Report discloses that the contraband was classified as 'Cannabis Sativa'. 13. A perusal of the typed set of documents would disclose that the charge was framed by the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai on 16.06.1989 charging the accused under Section 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act. 14. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is not open to the Judicial Magistrate to frame a charge under Section 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act, when the exclusive jurisdiction is vested with the Special Court constituted under the Act. The said Magistrate having framed a charge under Section 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act, committed the case to the Special Court constituted under Section 228(A) of Cr.P.C. Once a case is committed to the Sessions Court, it is the duty of the Sessions Court to frame necessary charges on going through the materials available on record. But, a perusal of the impugned judgment makes it clear that the said procedure is given a complete go-by by the Sessions Court. It is pertinent to point out that the impugned judgment has not even contained the name of the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer, without due application of mind has mechanically proceeded and disposed of the case. 15. The conduct of the counsel, who conducted the case on behalf of the accused before the trial Court also deserves some comment/condemnation. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, except the suggestion that the accused is nothing to do with the commission of offence, no other questions have been put. 16. 15. The conduct of the counsel, who conducted the case on behalf of the accused before the trial Court also deserves some comment/condemnation. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, except the suggestion that the accused is nothing to do with the commission of offence, no other questions have been put. 16. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, P.W.1 is one Mohan-Sub Inspector of Police attached to Thideer Nagar Police Station and from his testimony, it is not clear how he became acquainted with the facts of this case. It is not even his case that he was previously employed in Prohibition Enforcement Wing. It is not clear that how he has deposed on behalf of prosecution. It is to be noted at this juncture that a written statement was obtained from the accused admitting his guilt and the said fact was also recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment. 17. Admittedly, the accused is a rustic person. He should be made aware of the charge framed against him and without explaining the consequences of the same, a written statement was obtained from him admitting his guilt. Admittedly, he was not put on notice. No doubt, the accused was absconding for nearly 17 years and the case was pending for nearly 22 years. The same cannot be a reason to convict the accused without following the due procedure/due process of law. Though it is open to the Court to remand the matter once again for denova trial, for the infirmities pointed out above, this Court is not inclined to do in view of the fact that the occurrence took place as early as on 07.12.1985 and at present, it is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent, on instructions, that the appellant is aged about 85 years and virtually, he is in death-bed. 18. In the considered opinion of this Court, the above said infirmities have vitiated the trial itself. Hence, this Court is not inclined to remand the matter and order de nova trial and the fit and proper course would be to acquit the accused by awarding the benefit of doubt. 19. 18. In the considered opinion of this Court, the above said infirmities have vitiated the trial itself. Hence, this Court is not inclined to remand the matter and order de nova trial and the fit and proper course would be to acquit the accused by awarding the benefit of doubt. 19. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against him in C.C.No.486 of 2004 by the learned Special District and Sessions Judge (N.D.P.S Act Cases) Madurai, Madurai District is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him. The bail bonds executed by the appellant shall stand terminated. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him.