SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 (3) Crimes 339
KERALA HIGH COURT (DB)
K. Padmanabhan Nair and V. Ram
Kumar, JJ.
Swarnaki—Appellant
versus
State of Kerala—Respondent
Cri. A. No. 523 of 2000
Decided on 24-8-2005

Counsel for the parties :
For the Appellant :Beehu Kurian Thomas and Roshan D. Alexander, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Sujith Mathew Jose, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINTS
1.Question of compliance with Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act arises only if empowered officer is acting on prior information.
2.If the officer conducting search informs the accused of his right to be searched in presence of a gazetted officer or magistrate alone, there is substantial compliance of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
3.Provisions contained in Section 55 have no application when an authorised officer or empowered officer takes sample from contraband articles before same is delivered to police station.


Headnote:(i)Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 20(B)(i) — Recovery of 25 grams of ganja from possession of appellant — Conviction by Trial Court — Appeal against conviction on non-compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 — Validity — Question of complying with Section 50 arises only if empowered officer or a duly authorised officer is acting on prior information — Evidence to show that police party was on entirely different mission and accidentally stumbled upon appellant — Ganja happened to be seized by mere chance — If police party makes a search and arrest by chance it is not necessary to observe provisions of Section 50 — Police party came near bunk shop owned by appellant not for conducting any search in her shop or person of appellant, but to arrest accused in another case — Since police party was not acting on prior intimation regarding possession of any narcotic drugs by appellant, Section 50 held not applicable. — Again Section 50 applies in case of search of a person and hence compliance of Section 50 was not necessary regarding seizure of 17 packets from shop of appellant — Solitary packet was also handed over by appellant voluntarily.(Paras 24 to 27)

       (ii)Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 20(B)(i) — Recovery of 25 grams of ganja from possession of appellant — Conviction by Trial Court — Appeal against conviction on plea of prejudice being caused to accused due to non-mentioning of his right to be searched from either of two categories of officers, Gazetted officer or Magistrate — Held real right of accused u/s. 50 is not an option between Gazetted Officer and Magistrate but an

       option to have his body searched by empowered or Authorised Officer either

       in presence of a Gazetted Officer or

       Magistrate — Hence even if accused

       was only given option of being searched in presence of magistrate and option of being searched in presence of Gazetted Officer was not put to him, there was sufficient compliance of Section 50.(Para 32)

       (iii)Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 57 — Cr.P.C., 1973 — Section 58 — Recovery of 25 grams of ganja from possession of appellant — Conviction by Trial Court — Appeal against conviction on ground that since no report was sent to D.M., by officer conducting search, violation of provisions of Section 58 CrPC vitiated trial — Held provisions of Section 58 CrPC are not consistent with Section 57 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act — No statutory duty is cast on officer effecting arrest or seizure to send any report to D.M. — Even if officer conducting search fails to send any report, same would not make search and seizure illegal or vitiate trial.(Para 40)

       (iv)Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 55 — Recovery of 25 grams of ganja from possession of appellant — Conviction by Trial Court — Appeal against conviction on non-compliance of Section 55 — Plea that officer conducting search not affixed his personal seal on sample packet as well as packet containing balance ganja — Held, if any contraband article is found in person of accused, officer conducting search has to arrest him and produce such person with contraband article seized before officer in charge of nearest police station — Officer in charge of police station takes charge of articles seized and may allow any person accompanying such seized article to police station to affix his seal on articles or samples thereof — However Section 55 has no application when an authorised officer or empowered officer takes sample from contraband articles before same is delivered to police station.(Paras 35, 36)

       (v)Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 20(b)(i) — Quantum of sentence — Appellant convicted for being found in possessions of 25 grams of ganja — Appellant underwent imprisonment for more than five and a half months — Quantity seized was only 25 grams of ganja — Appellant convicted u/s. 20(b) prior to amendment of Section 20(b)(i) — Punishment imposed by Trial Court could not be set aside and appellant could not be convicted under provisions of amended section in view of Section 41 of Amending Act — However appellant being a widow aged 58 years and mother of three grown up daughters, substantive sentence already suffered, held sufficient to meet ends of justice.(Paras 42, 43)

       Result : Appeal partly allowed.

       

ORDER

Padmanabhan Nair, J.— Factual Matrix

The accused in Sessions Case No. 35 of 1998 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam is the appellant. The appellant was found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act" for short), convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of two and a half years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months.

2.At about 2.45 p.m. on 22-4-1997 the Sub Inspector of Police, Parippally and police party, which included P.W. 3, a woman Police Constable, were proceeding to arrest on Vilasini against whom a Non Bailable Warrant was issued by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paravoor in S.T. No. 1431 of 1996. When the police party reached near a bunk shop situated on the eastern side of N.H. 47 on the puramboke land south of Parippally Junction, they saw the appellant standing near that shop. On seeing the police party, the accused became perplexed and fidgety. P.W. 5 became suspicious and questioned the appellant in the presence of P.W. 3 as to what exactly was the reason for her perplexity. She informed P.W. 5 that she was keeping packets of ganja for sale. On getting that information. P.W. 5 informed his immediate superior officer regarding the information he had received and informed the appellant whether she requires the presence of a Gazetted Officer for effecting the seizure of ganja from her possession. She informed P.W. 5 that she requires the presence of Gazetted Officer. P.W. 5 prepared a request and sent one of his constables to the Tehsildar’s office at Kollam, at about 4.00 p.m., Tahsildar came and in the presence of the Tehsildar, P.W. 5 questioned the appellant regarding her name and address and also about the ganja. She gave her name and address and handed over one packet of ganja which was kept at her waist. She also produced another 17 packets of ganja kept in the shop. The 18 packets were opened and examined. All the 18 packets contained dried ganja. The appellant

was arrested at 4.15 p.m. The ganja was got weighed with the help of one Ramchandran Achari. The weight of total ganja found in all the 18 packets was 25 grams, 5 grams of ganja was taken in the polythene cover as sample. The remaining 20 grams was put in another polythene cover. Both those polythene covers were wrapped with brown papers. P.W. 5 obtained the signatures of accused and attesters on the two packets. The Tehsildar had also affixed his signature to the sample packet as well as the packet containing the remaining quantity. Both packets were tied using twine. As the officer had no personal seal, he sealed the packets using a 10 Paise coin. The paper pieces in which the ganja was kept and a cover were also seized. The accused was arrested. The accused and the contraband articles were produced before Court. Subsequent investigation in the case was conducted by P.W. 8. When the investigation was over, P.W.6 filed the final report. When the accused appeared before the learned Sessions Judge, charge under Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act was framed against her after hearing both sides. The charge was read over and explained to the appellant. She understood the same and pleaded not guilty. On the side of prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 8 were examined. Exhibits P1 to P4 proved and marked. M. Os. 1 to 3 were identified.

3.P.W. 1 is an independent attestor to Exhibit P1 mahazar under which the contraband article was seized. He turned hostile and not supporting the prosecution case. P.W. 2 is the Tahsildar, in whose presence the contraband articles were seized. P.W. 3 is the woman constable who helped P.W. 5 in effecting the seizure. P.W. 4 is a police constable, who also accompanied P.W. 5. He was sent for securing the presence of P.W. 2 P.W. 5 is the detecting officer. He effected the seizure of the contraband article, arreste

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top