Back
2020 Supreme(Ker) 1001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
R. Narayana Pisharadi, J.
Rejith and Ors.- Appellants
Vs.
State of Kerala - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 394 of 2017
Decided On : 06-01-2020
For the Appellant : Anil K. Mohammed, Adv.
For the Respondents: C.N. Prabhakaran, Sr. PP
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of strict adherence to statutory provisions, particularly in matters of search, seizure, and reporting under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The court emphasized the significance of evidence in establishing guilt and upheld the conviction based on the interpretation and application of the relevant legal provisions.
Headnote:
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which provides for punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations. The court also analyzed the provisions of Section 42, Section 50, and Section 57 of the Act, which deal with search, seizure, and reporting requirements. The interpretation of these provisions influenced the court's decision in establishing the guilt of the accused and upholding their conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for possessing and transporting ganja. The prosecution's case was based on the seizure of ganja from the appellants' possession during an inspection by excise officers. The trial court found the first and second accused guilty and convicted them under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the seizure of ganja and the conduct of the accused, established their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also addressed and dismissed various contentions raised by the appellants, including issues related to search and seizure procedures and compliance with statutory provisions.
Issues: The issues addressed by the court included the presence of independent evidence, delay in producing the contraband before the court, compliance with search and seizure provisions, and violation of reporting requirements under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, particularly Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 42, 50, and 57. The court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to statutory requirements and the significance of evidence in establishing guilt.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act, concluding that there were no sufficient grounds to interfere with the trial court's decision. The appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
R. Narayana Pisharadi, J.
1. The appellants are the first and the second accused in the case S.C. No. 499/2013 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-V, Kollam.
2. The appellants stand convicted and sentenced for committing an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
3. The prosecution case is as follows: On 18.09.2009, at about 21.30 hours, PW1, who was the Excise Inspector of Chadayamangalam Excise Range, was conducting inspection of vehicles at the road in front of Spring Valley Baptist Church near Chunkathara Junction in Kottarakkara. The excise party gave signal to the autorickshaw bearing Reg. No. KL-24-B 537 to stop and the vehicle was stopped. The second accused was the driver of the autorickshaw. Accused 1, 3 and 4 were travelling in that vehicle. When the excise party reached near the vehicle, the third and the fourth accused, who were travelling in the autorickshaw, got down from the vehicle and ran away and escaped. While escaping from the place, the third accused abandoned the bag which he was carrying. There was a suitcase on the lap of the first accused who remained inside the autorickshaw. There was also a bag below the seat of the driver of the autorickshaw. After complying with necessary formalities, the Excise Inspector examined the suitcase which was found in the possession of the first accused. The search was conducted by him in the presence of the Excise Circle Inspector (PW5), who had reached there at the request of the Excise Inspector. The suitcase contained 11.800 kgs of ganja. The bag, which was found below the driver's seat, contained two kilograms of ganja. The bag abandoned by the third accused contained 9.200 kgs of ganja. The Excise Inspector arrested the first and the second accused at the spot. He took samples of the ganja from the suitcase and the two bags and seized the ganja and the samples and other articles as per Ext. P1 mahazar prepared by him at the spot.
4. The case against the accused was registered as CR. No. 1/2009. PW1 arrested the fourth accused on 19.09.2009. He produced the accused who were arrested and also the material objects before the court. After completing the investigation of the case, PW6 Circle Inspector of Excise filed chargesheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act.
5. During the trial of the case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and marked Exts. P1 to P17 documents and MO1 to MO13 material objects. No oral evidence was adduced by the accused. Ext. D1 document was marked at the instance of the third and the fourth accused.
6. The trial court found the third and the fourth accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act and acquitted them. The trial court found the first and the second accused guilty of the aforesaid offence and convicted them thereunder. The trial court sentenced the first and the second accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each.
7. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.
8. PW1 Excise Inspector who detected the offence has given evidence in detail narrating the occurrence in which the ganja was seized. He identified the accused in court. He also identified the ganja seized by him and also the suitcase and the bags which contained the ganja.
9. PW2 was the Assistant Excise Inspector who was in the excise party led by PW1. He has also given evidence regarding the seizure of the ganja.
10. PW5 Excise Circle Inspector had reached the spot of the occurrence on the information given by PW1. He has not given evidence in detail regarding the occurrence. His evidence is only that, on getting information from PW1, he reached the spot of
