The grievance highlighted on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel is that uncharitable, unmerited and irrelevant remarks have been made by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge against the petitioner for non-compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’) and also for conducting investigation after detecting the crime by the petitioner, who was the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara Police Station at the material time of detecting and investigating crime No.132 of Kottarakkara Police Station, totally ignoring the well settled legal position laid down by the apex court in a catena of decisions against making of disparaging and undeserving remarks on persons appearing before him as witnesses or otherwise by a judge or a magistrate. The petitioner was examined as PW.7 in S.C.No.327 of 1998 on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions judge, Kollam and it was he who detected, and investigated crime No.132 of 1998 of Kottarakkara Police Station. The learned Sessions Judge also directed to proceed against the petitioner under Section 59(1) of the Act.

2. The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, on an evaluation of the evidence led by the prosecution in support of its case, came to the conclusion that there was violation or contravention of Sections 42 and 50 of the Act by the petitioner and also found fault with the petitioner for conducting the investigation by himself.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted before me that in view of the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Khader v. State of Kerala (2001 (2) KLT 407), the petitioner cannot be faulted for conducting the investigation of the crime No.132 of Kottarakkara Police Station detected by him. This Court in the above decision held thus:

“Unlike usual cases under the Criminal Procedure Code, in cases under the NDPS Act, by the time of arrest, main part of investigation will be completed and duty of the investigating officer is mainly in sending the samples for chemical analysis and other routine work and there is no likelihood of any prejudice in usual circumstances. Therefore, we are of the opinion that merely because a detecting officer himself is investigating officer or the officer of the same rank as that of the detecting officer is investigating the case and files report before the court will not vitiate the proceedings under N.D.P.S. Act in the absence of proof of specific prejudice to the accused.

So, I find no merit in the unmerited and unjustified criticism by the learned Sessions Judge for conducting the investigation of the case by the petitioner, who detected the crime.

4. I am not sitting in judgment over the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and, therefore, I am not persuaded to accede to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also by the learned Public Prosecutor that evidence on record only shows that the contraband (Ganja) wrapped in a piece of red coloured sari was seized from the possession of the accused in S.C.327/1998, learned 1st additional Sessions Judge was not at all justified in acquitting the accused on the grounds of non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act or conducting of the search of the person of the accused in the presence of a gazetted officer, who is not a gazetted officer of any department mentioned in Section 42 of the Act. It is also to be pointed out here that I need not dwell on the question whether the search of the person of the accused was conducted by the petitioner and whether the contraband was seized as a result of the search of the person of the accused. The contention urged before me is that contraband was not seized from the accused as a result of search of the person of the accused. So such a contention urged before me by the counsel for the petitioner and Public Prosecutor cannot be countenanced and cannot also be adverted to or considered.

5.