The court emphasized the importance of proper detection procedures and upheld the severity of the sentence for possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances.

This is a jail appeal brought by the accused in S.C.No. 482 of 2011 of the Court of Session, Ernakulam. He challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).

2. The prosecution case is the at about 5.00 p.m. on 13.6.2011 at Vallarpadam near the Gosree Bridge, the accused was found possessing huge quantity of 691 ampules of Lupigesic injection and 109 ampules of Phenergan injection carried in a plastic kit. The offence was detected by the Sub Inspector of Police, Mulavukad. He received information from reliable source at about 4.30 p.m. on 13.6.2011. Immediately, he recorded the information in the general diary, and prepared report under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. After promptly sending it to the concerned officer, he proceeded to the place of incident with the police party. When he reached there, he saw the accused in a suspicious situation holding a plastic kit in his hands. The accused was found perplexed on seeing the police party. When the Sub Inspector examined the kit on suspicion, it was found containing huge quantity of 691 ampules of Lupigesic injection (buprenorphine) and 109 ampules of Phenergan injection. The accused was arrested on the spot, and the quantity of psychotropic substance was seized as per mahazar. Body search of the accused was not conducted under Section 50 of the NDPS Act because, the contraband article was found in a kit carried by him in his hands. The Sub Inspector registered the crime against the accused, and later investigation was taken over by PW6, the Circle Inspector of Police. After investigation, he submitted final report in court under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act.

3. The accused appeared before the trial court and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses and proved Exts.P1 to P12 documents. MO1 to MO7 properties were also identified during trial.

4. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and projected a defence of total denial. He did not adduce any evidence in defence.

5. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh, by judgment dated 10.5.2012. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the accused has come up in appeal.

6. When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, appointed on State Brief, submitted that there are some irregularities in the process of detection, and that the details of the Chemical Examination Report was not put to the accused during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

7. On an appreciation of the entire evidence, I find that there is no infirmity or illegality in the process of detection, or in the investigation process. I find that things were properly and legally done by the Sub Inspector of Police, and the case was properly investigated by PW6. There is nothing to show that there was any flaw, or illegality, or irregularity in the investigation conducted by PW6.

8. PW1 is the Sub Inspector of Police who detected the offence, PW2 is the Civil Police Officer who assisted the Sub Inspector in detection process, PWs 3 and 4 are the two independent witnesses examined by the prosecution, and PW5 is the Village Officer who prepared the Ext.P11 scene plan. The two independent witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution. However, they admitted their signature in the detection mahazar. On an examination of the evidence given by these two witnesses, I find reason to believe that these persons had in fact seen or witnessed the detection, but during trial, they turned hostile to support the accused.

9. PW1 has given definite and consistent evidence proving the process of detection. Ext.P1 is the report sent by him under Section 42 of the NDPS Act on