RAJU ALIAS SALAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. His conviction by the trial Court has been confirmed by the High Court. He has, therefore, filed this appeal.

(2.) The facts as found by the trial Court are that on 27-12-89, the appellant was found in possession of 100 mgs. of brown sugar. It was at about 1.25 p.m. when he was passing on a road. Though it is not very clear as to what exactly was the explanation given by him to them, it appears from cross-examination of the witnesses and the statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that he had purchased the said quantity from one Mattancharry Rafeeque for a sum of Rs. 25/- for his personal consumption. Though the quantity found was 'small quantity', the trial Court refused to give benefit of Section 27 of the Act to the appellant on the ground that he had failed to establish that it was for his personal consumption. The trial Court proceeded on the basis that the appellant possessed the same for sale and convicted him under Section 21 of the Act. The High Court also adopted the same line of reasoning and confirmed the finding recorded by the trial Court.

(3.) What is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the courts below have not properly considered the defence raised by the appellant. He submitted that even though he had raised the plea that the quantity of 100 mgs. was 'small quantity' and it was kept for his personal consumption, the trial Court rejected the said plea on the ground that no evidence was led by the appellant to prove his defence and that if the appellant was an addict to brown sugar, one would have found withdrawal symptoms in him but no such tendencies were exhibited by the appellant at any stage of trial.