LAWS(KER)-2020-1-25

KHALID Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On January 10, 2020
KHALID Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the sole accused in SC.No.147/2003 of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Palakkad who stands convicted for offence punishable under sections 20(b) (i) of N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The allegation of the prosecution is that, on 7.11.2000, at about 2.00 pm., the Sub Inspector of Police, Mannarkkad received a secret information that one person was travelling in the KSRTC bus carrying ganja. On intercepting the vehicle, the accused was found travelling with a carry bag kept on his lap. The detecting officer examined the bag and found ganja. Since his body check was found necessary, the vehicle was taken to the Mannarkkad Police Station. Thereafter, body search was conducted in the presence of the Tahsildar of Mannarkkad. On his body search, a packet containing 20 gms of ganja was recovered. He was arrested and samples were drawn from the contraband. The samples were packed, sealed and labels affixed. Thereafter, the accused was taken to the police station and crime was registered as Crime No.570/2000 of Mannarkkad Police Station. Samples were forwarded for forensic examination. Investigation was taken over by the Circle Inspector of Police, Mannarkkad. After completion of investigation, final report was laid. The accused faced the trial before the court below. On pleading not guilty, evidence was let in by the prosecution. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 4, were examined and Exts.P1 to P12 were marked. MOs 1 to 8 were identified. The court below, on an evaluation of the prosecution evidence found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine as above. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Examined the records.