Inconsistent witness testimonies undermine the credence of the prosecution's case, especially in narcotics cases requiring strict adherence to procedural safeguards.

JUDGMENT

Appeal on hand is preferred by the accused who was found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’), convicted and sentenced by Additional Court of Sessions-IV, Kollam in SC No.410/2018 by judgment passed on 03.06.2019, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay a fine of `50,000/- and simple imprisonment for six months in default of payment of the fine.

2. As per the allegations of the prosecution, at about 7 p.m. on 13.12.2017 while the Excise Inspector, Excise Range, Kottarakkara was engaged in patrol duty alongwith a team of officers through Kottarakkara Railway Station – Padinjattinkara Mahadeva Temple Road, they found the accused standing there carrying a black bag. Out of suspicion, the Excise Officer questioned him and apprised of his right to have the search of his body conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. He answered that he does not require the presence of anyone to witness the search and thereupon search of his body as well as the bag carried by him were conducted by the Excise Inspector himself. 3.010 Kgs of Ganja was seized from his bag. The accused was arrested then and there and a crime was registered. Investigation was conducted by CW10 in the case and a complaint was filed against the accused, alleging that he has committed an offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(B)

of the NDPS Act.

3. The accused was remanded to judicial custody and a counsel was appointed on his request to defend him at the expense of the State, vide orders of Taluk Legal Services Committee, Kollam. The prosecution and the defence were heard under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) and ultimately charge was framed under Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, read over and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and faced trial.

4. Prosecution examined 6 witnesses and marked Exts.P1 to P15 in evidence. Mos 1 to 5 were also identified. Upon closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was questioned with reference to the incriminating circumstances which were brought on record by the prosecution in evidence against him. He denied all those and took a specific stand of false implication in the case by Mr.Manoharan, the then Excise Inspector to wreck his vengeance since one of his relatives died at his hands. According to him, immediately after his release on serving the sentence imposed on him in the murder case, he was booked in the case on hand by planting Ganja. The trial court on appreciation of entire evidence on record, found him guilty, convicted and sentenced him with the punishment aforestated.

5. The appeal on hand was preferred from Jail and Adv.Reshmi Nandan was appointed to defend the accused at the expense of the State. Charge was framed by the trial court in the case against the appellant alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act. Charge was read over and explained to him, but he pleaded not guilty and faced trial.

6. The main contention of Smt.Reshmi Nandan, the learned counsel was that depositions of the official witnesses as well as an independent witness were relied on by the prosecution to substantiate its case. But the version of the independent witness did not corroborate with the versions of the official witnesses even in material aspects of the case. According to her, the detecting officer failed to comply with the mandatory requirements contemplated by Section 50 NDPS Act before conducting the search of the body of the accused and seizure of the Ganja. The learned counsel contended vehemently that the accused in the case on hand was falsely implicated out of grudge of an official of the Excise against him since he committed the murder of one of his relatives. She canvassed for reversal of the finding of guilt of the accused for the offence and orders of conviction a