The court emphasized that failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements, particularly concerning documentation and evidence handling under the NDPS Act, invalidates a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

T.R.RAVI, J.

This appeal is filed by the 1^st accused, against the conviction and sentence imposed on him for an offence under Section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (N.D.P.S. Act). The prosecution case is that the appellant was found in possession of 10 Kg and 320 grams of ganja, at house No.IV/802 at Therthalli in Alakkode Panchayat, where he was residing on rent. The house belonged to one Karukayil Marykutty. According to the prosecution, the Circle Inspector, Alakkode received information that ganja was kept in the house, and he proceeded with a police party to conduct a search. It is alleged that on 4.9.2003 at 5.30 a.m., the police party reached the house and found two persons sitting in the visitors' room. It is further alleged that a plastic bag with ganja kept in the room, was seized by the Circle Inspector, and the two persons were arrested.

2. During the trial, the owner of the house was examined to prove that the accused was in possession and control of the house from where the ganja was recovered. Exts.P6 and P7 documents were marked through her. Ext.P6 is a Kychit which shows that the house had been taken on lease and the lease period ended on 2.9.2003. In order to justify the appellant’s possession on 4.9.2003, Ext.P7 dated 17.11.2003 is relied upon, which is a document that says that the lease period was extended. PW5 is the Detecting Officer, Circle Inspector of Police, Alakkode. He has deposed that after recording the information that ganja is kept in the house, he sent a report under Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

3. The trial court accepted the statement of the owner of the house and found that the accused was occupying the house for 11 months after the expiry of the period of lease specified in Ext.P6, and that he had vacated the premises only on 16.5.2004. The court held that the wife of the appellant had admitted Exts.P6 and P7 documents while she was examined as a defence witness, though she had specifically stated that Ext.P7 was executed by her and her husband, as instructed by the Circle Inspector. The court observed that she did not have a case that the Circle Inspector had threatened or compelled her or her husband to execute such an agreement.

4. Regarding the seizure of Ganja, reliance is placed by the Court on the evidence of PW1 and PW3, who are stated to be independent witnesses to the seizure made by PW5, and the evidence of PW11 and PW6, the Sub Inspector and the Assistant Sub Inspector, respectively. According to PW1 and PW3, they had gone to the house as requested by the police party, and on reaching the courtyard of the house, they saw the accused standing there. They also state that they saw a packet containing something at the corner of the courtyard. They admit their signature in Ext.P1 search list. On the above evidence, the court concluded that PW1 and PW3 had witnessed the search of the house where the first accused was residing on rent, and the seizure of a huge quantity of Ganja. The witnesses, however, turned hostile, when examined in the Court. The court found that there is no satisfactory evidence to implicate the 2^nd accused, or to prove his complicity in the possession of a huge quantity of Ganja by the first accused, except that the 2^nd accused was seen in the house when the police party reached there. The court observed that there is no satisfactory explanation as to why the 2^nd accused happened to be in the house of the appellant at about 4.30 A.M. or why they were sitting in the visitors' room at that time or what they had been planning or talking about at that time. The Court found that the mere absence of explanation for the presence can