IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2009 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 827 of 2009() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/12/2008 IN CRMP.51/2008 IN SC.1214/2005 OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- DHARMAJAN, CHARUVILA VEEDU, True copy of the 66/2001(4), KOLIYOOR, THOTTAKKADU DESOM, THIRUVALLAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN SRI.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:- --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2009, THE COURT ON 04/03/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl.R.P. No. 827 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 4th day of March, 2009 O R D E R Revision Petitioner challenges the order dated 4-12-2008 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court -I,Thiruvananthapuram dismissing his application filed as Crl.M.P. 51/2008 seeking to send the ganja involved in the case to the Government Chemical Examiner for quantitative analysis. The stage on which the petition is filed, when the case stood posted for arguments. The accused has already been examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition as per the impugned order dated 4-12-2008. Hence, the revision 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner makes the following submissions in support of the contentions:- According to prosecution, 2.750 k.gms. of ganja were seized from the possession of the petitioner on 12-1-2004. If analysis of the said quantity of ganja is conducted, the quantity below 1 k.gm., in which case the ganja will satisfy the definition of small quantity under the the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Crl.R.P. 827/09 -2- Substances Act, 1985. If the ganja seized is actually small quantity, then the accused is liable to be punished for a lesser punishment. The possession is covered by a decision of the Apex Court in Micheal Raj V. Intelligence Officer (2008(2) KLT 36 (SC). 3. When the narcotic drug is found mixed with one or more natural substances, it is the exact quantity of the narcotic drug, which decides the culpability and punishment which is to be imposed on the offender. If the narcotic drug (cannabis in this case) involved in this case has been mixed with natural substance, which is liable to be excluded, in deciding the exact quantity of narcotic drug. The prosecution has not done so, then the accused will be entitled to the benefit of the same. He cannot have a quantitative analysis of the narcotic drug produced by the prosecution so as to proper his defence that the narcotic drug produced in this case is mixed with natural substance. Therefore, he cannot be liable for the entire quantity of the narcotic drug mixed with such natural substance. Instead of taking the advantage of the said after trail, the accused was right to protract proceedings by filing this petition which has been rightly dismissed by the trial court. Crl.R.P. 827/09 -3- 4. I see no ground to interfere with the order passed by the trial court. This petition is accordingly dismissed. It is made clear that the petitioner is however to raise this contention before the trial court at the appropriate stage. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. mn.