Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Ayoouluwa David Adebakin vs State on 19 March, 2026
ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.13 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 14141/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-08-2023
in CRLA No. 863/2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras]
AYOOULUWA DAVID ADEBAKIN & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE Respondent(s)
IA No. 79979/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
Date : 19-03-2026 This matter was called for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Anand Grover, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Tripti Tandon, Adv.
Mr. Satbir Singh Pillania, Adv.
Mr. Sandiv Kalia, Adv.
Mr. Dhananajay Kumar Tyagi, Adv.
Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR
Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv.
Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv.
Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv.
Ms. Arpitha Anna Mathew, Adv.
Mr. K.s.badhrinathan, Adv.
O R D E R
Heard Mr. Anand Grover, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, learned counsel for the
State of Tamil Nadu.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SACHIN KUMAR
2. Leave granted.
SRIVASTAVA
Date: 2026.03.28
14:14:44 IST
Reason:
3. The appellant has moved before this Court against the order
dated 02.08.2023 passed by the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 863 of 2022 against his conviction and sentence which has been
dismissed.
4. The appellants are alleged to have been caught with 4 and 3
kgs respectively of dry ganja, and upon trial were convicted and
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment u/s. 235(2) Cr.P.C. for 7 years
each and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each
for the offence u/s. 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, and in
default of payment of fine thereof to undergo further period of 6
months S.I. each and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years
each and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) each
for the offence u/s. 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the “NDPS Act”),
and in default of payment of fine thereof to undergo further period
of 6 months S.I. The above sentences imposed on the accused are
ordered to run concurrently. The period of remand already undergone
by the accused were ordered to be set off. The same has been upheld
by the High Court.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that there
has been infraction of the basic provisions of the NDPS Act
especially relating to to the collection of samples and the
authenticity and reliability of the said sample which was finally
sent to the forensic laboratory inasmuch as the samples were taken
on 19.11.2019 and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory on
10.12.2019. It was submitted that it has not been explained as to
where during the interregnum period, the sample was kept. This,
according to him, raises a fundamental question with regard to the
reliability of the sample sent for forensic examination for the
reason that it was an official sample collected in a case and which
had to be accounted for each and every date, and there being no
entry of the said sample either in the police station or any other
storage place used by the prosecution, the said omission had to be
explained and according to him, shall strike at the root of the
prosecution case.
6. It was further contended that the appellants were not caught
from the place where it has been shown in the FIR, and rather they
were caught from their home which fact has also come in the
deposition of various witnesses.
7. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the Court may
also take note of the fact that the quantity was more nearer to
small quantity and much below the commercial quantity of 20 kgs.
Learned counsel summed up his arguments by invoking the compassion
of this Court to exercise its power under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India by submitting that the appellants were
students pursuing their academic courses and the circumstances
under which they were caught were, at best, unfortunate. It was
further contended that they have no criminal antecedents and the
Court may convert their sentence into period undergone and for the
purposes of ensuring that they do not commit any further crime, the
Court may indicate that immediately upon release, they be sent back
to their home country.
8. Learned counsel for the State addressed the Court on merits.
However, we are not going into the same in view of the order the
Court proposes to pass.
9. Accordingly, having considered the matter in its entirety and
going through the material on record, we are persuaded to take a
lenient and sympathetic view in the matter. The appellants aged 22
and 26 years respectively and having undergone almost four years of
custody out of a total sentence of seven years, in the opinion of
this Court, can be shown leniency and it would also serve the ends
of justice, if the sentence is reduced to period already undergone,
invoking our inherent power under Article 142 of the Constitution
of India in the special facts and circumstances of the present
case.
10. At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel submitted that this
Court for doing complete justice may consider the fact that the
appellants have been for all practical purposes forsaken by their
families and they have no succor or support system in this country
and the fine of Rs. 50,000/- imposed would be an impossibility and
the entire compassion shown by this Court would be frustrated. It
was further submitted that even with regard to the airfare, the
appellants will have to explore various avenues including their
friends and colleagues in India to pitch in with the amount for
them to take a flight back to their country.
11. Having considered the plea we are persuaded to grant further
indulgence. Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the
appellants, we modify the sentence to period already undergone till
08.04.2026. The fine amount shall also be adjusted in the period
undergone.
12. The matter be listed at the top of the list on 08.04.2026 for
learned Senior counsel to respond as to what modality has been
worked out to ensure that soon after their release, the appellants
are sent back to their country.
(SACHIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) (ANJALI PANWAR) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR