The judgment establishes the legal definitions of narcotic drugs and the competency of the chemical examiner under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It also emphasizes the requirement of evidence of possession and common intention for conviction.

Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 1992 is by the third accused and Criminal Appeal No. 463 of 1992 is by the second accused in Sessions Case No. 268 of 1991 of the Court of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. Four accused persons were charged under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') and Section 447 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Learned Second Additional Sessions Judge found accused 1 and 4 not guilty and they were acquitted; but found accused 2 and 3 guilty of the offences punishable under section 21 of the Act and Section 447 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced accused 2 and 3 each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years for the offences under Section 21 of the Act, and to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offences punishable under section 447 read with Section 34, I.P.C. with a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. According to the prosecution, the four accused persons committed criminal trespass into the University College compound at about 1.30 p.m. on 21-7-1990 in furtherance of their common intention to sell morphine, a narcotic drug. They were found in possession of the said morphine, a narcotic drug for the purpose of sale. The office bearers of the College Union, PWs. 2, 3, 5 and others who were members of the anti-drug addiction squad finding the accused persons in suspicious circumstance near the Chemistry Department apprehended them and took them to the office room of PW 1, the Principal. According to the prosecution, they were in possession of MO-4 bag containing MO-3 hat, 4 viles of morphine injection ampoules two used viles of the same substance, MO-6 paper stand and MO-7 needle cover. PW 1 informed PW 6, Sub-Inspector of Police, and on getting information PW 6 came to the office room of PW 1; found four accused persons and PWs. 2, 3, 6 and others in the office room of PW 1. He seized the material objects found on the table under Ext. P-1 mahazar. He also prepared Ext. P-2 inventory. The four viles of injection were packed in MO-1 envelope, sealed the same and obtained the signatures of PWs. 1 to 3, 5 and the accused. PWs. 1 to 3 and 5 are also attestors to Exts. P-1 and P-2. PW 6 also seized Yazdi Motor bike which was brought by the 2nd accused to the college compound. He arrested the accused and took them and the material objects to the police station. Thereafter he registered a crime as Crime No. 119 of 1990 as per Ext. P-6 First Information Report. The sealed ampoules in MO-1 envelope and the two empty ampoules were sent to the Court.

3. PW 4, the successor of PW 6 prepared the draft charge which was approved by PW 7, Circle Inspector of Police and thereupon PW 4 laid the charge before Court.

4. The four ampoules packed in MO-1 envelope and the two empty viles seized under Ext. P-1 were forwarded to the Court by PW 6 from where it was sent to the forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram for chemical examination. PW 8, Assistant Director of Chemistry, Forensic Science Laboratory after examination sent Ext. P-8 report wherein he certified that the injection viles contained Bupremorphine, a derivative of the baine which is an opium alkaloid, and the empty ampoules contained traces of the same substance Bupremorphine.

5. On the accused pleading not guilty to the charge, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 8, produced Exts. P-1 to P-8 and identified MOs. 1 to 10 series. On the side of the defence Exts. D-1, a portion of the statement of PW 2 under section 161, Cr.P.C. was marked.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the evidence will not show that the substance in question is a narcotic drug, that the Analyst PW 8 is not competent to analyse or certify whether the substance is a narcotic drug and that, there is nothing to