The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between possession and joint possession under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, and the importance of proving compliance with statutory requirements under Sections 42, 50, and 57.

The appellants herein are the three accused in S.C.No.39 of 2008 of the Special Court for the trial of NDPS Act cases, Vatakara.

2. They faced prosecution in the court below on the allegation that at about 5.00 p.m. on 05.07.2007 at the verandha of the second floor of the Co-operative Hospital at South Bazar, Payyannur, and in front of the Room No.329, the three accused were found jointly possessing a quantity of 1.250 kgs of ganja. The offence was detected by the Excise Circle Inspector of Taliparamba Range, on the basis of a secret reliable information received by him from the Excise Intelligence and Investigation Bureau, that ganja was being sold at the premises of the Co-operative Hospital. He recorded the information in the general diary kept at the Excise office, sent a report to the Superior officer under Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, and proceeded to the premises of the hospital with party. On the second floor of the hospital he saw the three accused in this case standing at the verandha in front of the Room No.329. He saw the first accused trying to conceal a packet on seeing the excise party, and the other two accused were also seen perplexed. On the bona-fide belief that the three accused had some narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in their possession he told them that he wanted to search their body. When informed about their precious right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted officer, or a Judicial First Class Magistrate, the three accused consented for search by the Circle Inspector of Excise himself, waiving their right under the law, and gave written consent. Accordingly, he searched the body of the three accused. On search of the body of the first accused he seized some amount and a mobile phone, and when he seized the packet carried by the first accused, and examined it, he found some quantity of dried ganja. Then he conducted search of the body of the accused Nos.2 and 3. On search, he could seize 15 packets of ganja from the possession of the second accused, and 20 packets of ganja from the possession third accused. When he weighed the ganja, he found that the ganja possessed by the first accused was having a weight of 1.050 kgs, that possessed by the second accused in 15 small packets had a weight of 75 gms, and the quantity possessed by the third accused in 20 small packets had a weight of 100 gms. From the total quantity, he collected two samples of 25gms each, and the samples were well packed and sealed according to law. The remaining quantity of ganja was also well packed and sealed, and labels containing the signature of the accused and the witnesses were affixed on all the packets including the sample packets. The three accused were arrested, and all the contraband articles were seized as per a mahazar. Without any delay, the accused and the properties were produced at the Excise Office where an Excise Inspector registered the crime and occurrence report. Investigation was later taken over by another Circle Inspector of Excise of the Excise Enforcement and Anti Narcotic Special Squad. After investigation, he submitted final report in Court, against the three accused under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act on the allegation that the total quantity of 1.250kgs of ganja was possessed by the three accused jointly.

3. The three accused appeared before the trial court, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The prosecution examined seven witnesses including the detecting officer, and proved Exts.P1 to P20 documents. MO1 to MO5 properties were also identified during trial. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the three accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and projected a defence of total denial. They also examined one witness as DW1 in defence to prove that the first accused was in fact taken by him to the hospital in the morning as a patient. In fact, there is no dispute