IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. SUDHA, J
Balulal Daroga, Son Of Narayan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C ., the appellant, who is the first accused in S.C.No.19/2005 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Vadakara, challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 18(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the Act).
2. The prosecution case is that accused 3 to 5 (A3 to A5) entered into a conspiracy to transport opium from Rajasthan to Ponnani in Kerala. As part of the conspiracy, the fourth accused (A4) loaded 10 bags of opium and concealed it in a secret chamber of his lorry bearing registration no.RJ-06 G-2199. A3 and A5 told A4 that they would wait at Ponnani to receive the contraband. Accordingly, A4 instructed accused 1 and 2 (A1 and A2) to take the lorry from Rajasthan to Ponnani in Kerala. Pursuant to the same A1 and A2 knowing that 10 bags of opium had been concealed in the secret chamber of the lorry, transported the same to Ponnani to be handed over to A3 and A5.
3. Crime no.1/2005, Excise Range Office, Sulthan Bathery, that is, Ext.P7 crime and occurrence report was initially registered by PW2, Excise Inspector, E
The court upheld the conviction for transporting opium, establishing conscious possession based on the substantial quantity found and the appellant's control over the vehicle.
The court affirmed that once possession of narcotics is established, the accused must prove lack of knowledge regarding the substance's illicit nature, as per Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act.
(1) Presumption from possession of illicit articles – Unless and until contrary is proved in trial of cases involving offences coming within purview of NDPS Act, it may be presumed that accused has c....
Conscious possession must be established by prosecution in narcotics cases, shifting burden to the accused to explain possession; minor discrepancies do not negate the prosecution’s case.
The prosecution must establish conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt in NDPS cases.
Conscious possession of poppy straw – Incriminating circumstances not put to accused in his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, will have to be kept out of consideration.
Conscious possession must be established for conviction under the NDPS Act; mere proximity to contraband is insufficient.
Point of law: whether there was compliance of the procedure laid down under Section 42 of the NDPS Act or not, could be ascertained at the time of trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of 'conscious possession' and the significance of animus or intent in establishing possession of contraband under the NDPS Act.
Seizure of psychotropic substance – Conviction and sentence cannot be sustained when there is no recovery from appellant of any incriminating material.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.