SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 1677

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
M.G. Satheesan S/o Gopalan - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 2408 of 2006
Decided On : 02-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondent: Sheeba Thomas

Compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act is not mandatory when recovery occurs in a public place, as per Section 43.

Headnote:

(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 20(b)(ii)

(B) - Conviction for possession of 1.500 kg of Ganja - Accused sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Compliance with Section 42 not mandatory as recovery was from a public place under Section 43 - Evidence from multiple witnesses confirmed possession and seizure of contraband. (Paras 1, 4, 13, 28)

(B) Compliance with NDPS Act - Section 42 mandates compliance for searches not conducted in public places - Recovery from public place governed by Section 43, thus non-compliance of Section 42 does not invalidate the proceedings. (Paras 9, 13)

Facts of the case:
The accused was found in possession of 1.500 kg of Ganja near a railway gate, leading to his arrest and subsequent conviction by the trial court. (Paras 4, 28)

Findings of Court:
The trial court's conviction was upheld, but the sentence was modified to 18 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-. (Paras 30)

Issues: Whether the trial court erred in its application of Section 42 of the NDPS Act and the sufficiency of evidence for conviction. (Paras 9)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that compliance with Section 42 is not necessary when recovery occurs in a public place, affirming the trial court's findings based on credible witness testimony. (Paras 28)

Result: Appeal allowed in part; conviction confirmed, sentence modified.

JUDGMENT :

1. The sole accused in S.C. No.7/2005 on the files of the Special Court for the trial of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred as ‘NDPS Act’ for short], Vadakara, has come up in appeal, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge, as per the judgment dated 28.11.2006, whereby the accused was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. Further, the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months in default of payment of fine. The State of Kerala, represented by the Public Prosecutor is arrayed as the sole respondent herein.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the verdict under challenge and the records of the trial court.

3. Parties in this appeal shall be referred as ‘accused’ and ‘prosecution’ hereafter, for easy reference.

4. In this matter, the prosecution allegation is that, at about 04.15 p.m. on 28.01.2005, the accused was found in possession of 1.500 Kilogram of Ganja, near the Railway gate at Thekkile Peedika, Kannur, for the purpose of sale. On the basis of a secret information, the Sub Inspector, Kannur City Police reached the place of occurrence. Thereafter, in the presence of Tahsildar, on search of the bag possessed by the accused, 1.500 kilogram of Ganja was seized. After the investigation, the Sub Inspector, Kannur City Police Station has filed the Final Report.

5. After, framing charge for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, the trial court recorded evidence and tried the matter. PWs 1 to 7 were examined and Exts.P1 to P14 and MOs 1 to 7 were marked on the side of the prosecution. After examination of the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. DWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.D1 to D3 were marked on the side of the accused. That apart, Ext.X1 was also marked as court exhibit.

6. On appreciation of evidence, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated hereinabove.

7. While assailing the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that, in this matter, Section 42 of the NDPS Act was not properly complied and Ext.P1, the information report under Section 42 and Ext.P6, detailed report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act were not produced before the trial court in time. Later, after starting examination of PW1 and deferring his further examination, those documents were produced. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused further that, the case of the accused before the trial court is that, since Sri.Nandakumar, the Probationary Sub Inspector of Kannur City Police, who is familiar with the accused was inimical towards the accused, in the matter of not giving bribe for the purpose of cutting trees from the property of the accused, he falsely fabricated the case and implicated the accused in this crime, without support of any materials, after getting him into custody on 25.01.2005 and keeping him in detention till 28.01.2005. Ext.X1, call details in between telephone numbers of the Probationary Sub Inspector and the house of the accused is given much emphasis by the learned counsel for the accused, in this regard. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that the accused is entitled to get acquittal, since the prosecution case is in the midst of doubts.

8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act would not arise in this case, since the recovery was from a public place, dealt under Section 43 of the NDPS Act. It is also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that, by producing Ext.X1 itself, it could not be said that the Probationary Sub Inspector made cal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top