IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN TUESDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY 2024 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1946 CRL.A NO. 2494 OF 2006 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2006 IN SC NO.1544 OF 2003 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.3 MURUKAN S/O KRISHNAN,RAILWAY QUARTERS NO.16 B,, CONTONMENT WARD, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE.

BY ADV SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.

BY ADV. SRI. P. SANAL RAJ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.06.2024, ALONG WITH CRL.A.57/2007, THE COURT ON 02.07.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN TUESDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY 2024 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1946 CRL.A NO. 57 OF 2007 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2006 IN SC NO.1544 OF 2003 OF I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1:

JAYAPRAKASH @ PRAKASH KANAL PURAYIDATHIL, ANKUTTY BHAVAN,, MUNDAKKAL WEST WARD, MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE.

BY ADV SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM THROUGH, THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.

BY ADV. SRI. VIPIN NARAYAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.07.2024, ALONG WITH CRL.A.2494/2006, THE COURT ON 02.07.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JOHNSON JOHN, J.

---------------------------------------------------------

Crl. Appeal Nos. 2494 of 2006 & 57 of 2007 --------------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2024.

JUDGMENT

The appellants are accused Nos. 1 and 3 in S.C. No. 1544 of 2003 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam and they are challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on them for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’ for short).

2. The prosecution case is that on 28.03.2002, at about 3.20 p.m., accused Nos. 2 to 5 were found in possession of ganja weighing 200 gms. each while they were inside autorickshaw bearing registration No. KL-2D 7758 parked in the residential property of the first accused at Mundakkal Village and the first accused was found in possession of 400 gms. of ganja in a plastic cover in a room in his house by the Sub Inspector of Kollam East Police Station and party and the accused are thereby alleged to have committed the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)

(B) of the NDPS Act.

3. On appearance of accused Nos 1 and 3 before the trial court, and when they pleaded not guilty to the charge, PWs 1 to 8 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P12 and MOs 1 to 21 were marked from the side of the prosecution. From the side of defence, DW1 examined and Exhibit D1 marked.

4. After hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, as per the impugned judgment dated 20.11.2006, convicted and sentenced the accused persons to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand each) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)A of the NDPS Act.

5. Heard Sri. C. Rajendran, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. Vipin Narayan, the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the records.

6. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction and sentence passed against the accused are legally sustainable.

7. The main contentions raised on behalf of the accused/appellants are as follows:

1. The trial court has not considered the contradiction in the identification of the material objects by PWs 4 and 7.

2. The trial court has not considered the unexplained delay in producing the material objects and the delay in