IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 CRL.A.No. 2131 of 2003() ------------------------------------- SC.121/2003 of SPL.COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), VADAKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): ACCUSED --------------------- NANDANAN, S/O.UNNIMADHAVAN NAIR, MATHAKOYILOTH (H), KOKKALLUR AMSOM, BALUSSERY. BY ADV. MR.S.M.PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/07/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- CRL.A.NO.2131 OF 2003 ------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT This is an appeal preferred against the conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Vadakara in S.C.No.121/2003. The police has laid a charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S Act, 2001 and the court below found the accused guilty under the said provision and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/= and in the event of default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year. Set off was also allowed. It is against that decision, the accused has come up in appeal. 2. The points that arise for determination in the appeal are (1) whether there are materials and evidence to establish that the accused has committed the guilt under Section 20(b) (ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S.Act (2) in case of guilt whether the sentence is excessive. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the accused/appellant 2 CRL.A.NO.2131/2003 as well as the Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the appellant very strongly contends before me that the materials available are not sufficient to hold the accused guilty and that the evidence has not been properly considered and that at any rate, the punishment is excessive. 4. The learned counsel also had taken me through the judgment, deposition of the witnesses, the materials and documents in the case. It is the case of the prosecution that, on getting a reliable information that, the accused is carrying ganja, PW1 with the police party went to the spot and informed the accused that they are suspicious about the possession of ganja and further asked him that he wants to search the person of the accused and for that purpose whether he requires the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The accused did not want the same and consented to for examination by PW1 vide Ext.P2 consent letter. Thereafter, the big shopper which was in his possession was taken wherein there was a black plastic bag which contained the materials called ganja. After satisfying that it 3 CRL.A.NO.2131/2003 was ganja, with the balance available in the jeep, the total weight was taken which was 2.550 kg of which, ganja alone when separately weighed was having 2 kg. Of this, Pw1 took two samples of 100 gm of ganja, sealed it, got signature of the accused, witnesses etc and also sealed the balance 1.800 Kg of ganja and the matter was further proceeded with. On chemical analysis, it was found to be ganja. PW1, the detecting officer had given a clear version in these lines. Pws 2 and 3 are the two independent witnesses, who had also spoken about the presence of the accused, arrival of the police, the information given by the police regarding the right of the accused to search him in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and his willingness to be tested by PW1 himself. They had also spoken about the big shopper bag and the contents in the plastic bag, its weight, sampling and sealing. Pw2 had also identified all these materials. 5. Pw3, another independent witness, was declared hostile to the prosecution for the solitary reason that he said that the accused was found with a plastic bag. A reading of 4 CRL.A.NO.2131/2003 his entire evidence would reveal that the presence of the accused, seizure of the ganja, the information given by the police to the accused regarding his right, search and seizure are clearly spoken to by this witness also. As stated by the learned Sessions Judge, the change in recording the plastic bag is only an omission and not a contradiction. 6. PW4 is the police official, who had accompanied Pw1. He had also spoken about the way in which they proceeded, how the accused was apprehended, how he was informed and regarding taking of the sample, sealing etc. So, the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 in this case conclusively establishes the factor that the accused was found in possession of ganja and he was apprehended, searched and the ganja was seized, sample was properly taken and it was sent for chemical analysis. The evidence of the chemical analyst would reveal that what is seized from the accused was genuine ganja. 7. The learned Sessions Judge had also dealt with the question of procedural formalities and he had very clearly stated that the search and seizure was conducted in a public place 5 CRL.A.NO.2131/2003 and there is statutory compliance and there was no necessity to comply with Section 42 of the NDPS Act. He had also very elaborately considered and analysed the evidence of Pws 1 to 4. On a reading of the evidence of Pws 1 to 4 also, I am convinced that it does not suffer from any infirmity. So far as the evidence of Pws 1 and 4 are concerned, though they are the official witnesses, the only caution that has to be taken is not to accept them blandly but meticulously scan and scrutinize their evidence and if it is intrinsically reliable and inherently probable, then to accept the same to decide the case. As I stated earlier, the evidence of PWs 1 and 4 is perfectly in order and it does not create suspicion in the mind of the court regarding the acceptability of the same. Further, it has to be stated that they have no axe to grind and the defence version gives that it was a planted one cannot be believed in the backdrop of the clinching evidence tendered by the prosecution. Therefore, I find no ground to interfere with the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. 8. Now, turning to the question of sentence. The court 6 CRL.A.NO.2131/2003 below has sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/= and in default, to undergo imprisonment for one more year. The learned counsel would contend that it requires some leniency. I had gone through Section 313 answers which revealed that the accused is left with a big family to be looked after and there is no other earning member to look into their day to day expenses. So, taking into consideration this aspect, I am inclined to show some leniency. I am conscious of the fact that possession of ganja is a great social menace which also has to be tackled. But taking into consideration the social balance, I am inclined to reduce the sentence to a period of 2 years R.I with a fine of Rs.15,000/= and in default of which, he has to undergo S.I for a period of 3 more months. 9. In the result, the criminal appeal is disposed of as follows: 1. The conviction and sentence passed under Section 20(b) (ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is confirmed. 7 CRL.A.NO.2131/2003 2. The sentence is modified and the accused is sentenced to undergo R.I for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/= and on default of which, he shall undergo a further S.I for a period of three months. 3. The accused is entitled to set off as contemplated under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court below shall execute the sentence. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl 8 CRL.A.NO.2131/2003 9 CRL.A.NO.2131/2003 M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl 10 CRL.A.NO.2131/2003 11 CRL.A.NO.2131/2003