( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THE appellant has been convicted by a Sessions Court for the offence under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act for short ). He was sentenced to RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs 1 lakh (in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two years ).

( 3 ) HE filed an appeal challenging the said order of conviction and sentence but the same was dismissed by the High Court of Kerala. He filed special leave petition through jail. We appointed Mr Jayant Bhushan, Advocate, as amicus curiae to argue for him. We heard him and also the learned counsel for the State of Kerala.

( 4 ) THE case against the appellant is that he was found in possession of 110 ampoules of buprenorphine. (Its trade name is Tidigesic.) It is too late in the day for reappreciating the evidence for ascertaining whether as a matter of fact the appellant was not in possession of the aforesaid article.

( 5 ) THOUGH the investigating agency thought that the article recovered from the appellant was a narcotic substance, it is in fact a psychotropic substance. This is clearly discernible from It