ABDUL RAZAK AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

(2.) The present appellants are the husband and wife and were accused of committing offences punishable under Sec. 8(C) and Sec. 20(B)(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act', for brevity).

(3.) It was the case of the prosecution that on credible information received on 26.8.2008, about ganja being transported on a two wheeler bearing No.M. 80, from Mangalore towards Udupi, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kaup Police Station along with his staff and panch witnesses had proceeded to a spot namely, Hosa Marigudi temple on National Highway No. 17 and laid in wait for such two wheeler rider. At about 8 p.m., a vehicle bearing registration No.CTV 7986 was seen coming from Mangalore and going towards Udupi and on suspicion, the Sub-Inspector of Police had intercepted the vehicle. The first appellant was riding the vehicle and his wife was riding pillion. It was noticed that the second appellant was holding a plastic bag in her hand and on a search conducted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, it was found that the plastic bag which was carried by the second appellant contained ganja in two packets and therefore the appellants were questioned about the possession of the said substance and they had candidly stated that it was being carried for sale. It was in that background they were immediately arrested and a mahazar was drawn up and the article was seized and a case was registered. The substance was sealed and a portion of it was sent for forensic examination and after further proceedings, the appellants stood trial and pleaded not guilty. Accordingly, charges were framed against them. The prosecution had tendered evidence through six witnesses PWs.1 to 6 and had got marked several documents. Thereafter, the statement of the accused were recorded under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellants did not choose to tender any evidence. The Court below had then framed the following points for consideration: