Ramkumar, J.

This revision has come up before us upon a reference by a learned Single Judge (Sri Sasidharan Nambiar, J.) who was of the opinion that there is an apparent conflict of views in the decisions reported in 1995 (2) KLT 873 – State of Kerala v. Thomas and 1998 (2) KLJ 613 – State of kerala v. Manoharan and others on the one hand and the decision reported in 2003 (3) KLT 100 = ILR 2003 (2) Ker. 480 Sivadasan v. State, on the other.

2. We heard Mr. Sojan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Sujith Mathew Jose, the learned Public Prosecutor.

CONSIDERATION OF THE JUDICIAL CONFLICT

3. Before going into the facts of this case we would endeavour to see whether there is any conflict in the decisions referred to above and, if so, which of the decisions lays down the correct law.

4. According to the prosecution the revision petitioner, who is a lady, was found in possession of 1200 grams of ganja on 2.11.1987 and she had, therefore, committed an offence punishable under sec.55(a) of the Abkari Act. The ganja seized in this case, as revealed by Ext.P2 report of chemical analysis, bears the following description:

“partially crushed dried green leafy material margin