SAJAN ABRAHAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala in criminal appeal setting aside an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hefeinafter referred to as the 'Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of rupees one lakh, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. In order to appreciate the controversy, we are herewith giving the essential matrix of facts.

(2.) The appellant was put on trial for an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Act. As per prosecution story, on the l0th October, 1993 at 7.45 p.m. the appellant was in possession of manufactured drug by name 'Tidigesic' and three syringes for injecting the same, by the road near the Blue Tronics Junction at Palluruthy. The Head Constable PW 3 and two other Constables of the Special Squad got information at about 7 p.m. on the said date that a person was selling injectible narcotic drugs near the Blue Tronics Junction, Palluruthy. They informed this to PW 5, Sub-Inspector of Police, Palluruthy Cusba Police Station who was coming in a jeep along with his police party. Thereafter PW 5 along with his police party including PW 3 and other members of the Special Squad went to the scene of occurrence and stopped their vehicle little away from the spot. On reaching there they found the accused standing on the road with a packet in his hand. He was identified by PW 3 and apprehended by PW 5. On search, the packet possessed by the appellant revealed it contained 5 strips of 5 ampoules each of Tidigesic and three injection syringes and a purse containing currency note of Rs. 10/-. At the spot one ampoule was taken as sample for chemical analysis and the said contraband articles were seized as per Ex. P-I seizure mahazar prepared at the spot. The appellant was also arrested there. The charge-sheet was submitted, the appellant pleaded not guilty.

(3.) The trial Court found discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses thus disbelieved the prosecution story, hence acquitted the appellant.