AHAMMED KOYA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the accused in SC 143 of 1989 of the Assistant Sessions Court, Badagara. He was charged under S.18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') for having been found in possession of 115 grams of Opium. The Assistant Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine he has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years.

(2.) Prosecution alleges that on 7-12-1987 at about 3.45p.m. the accused while travelling in a bus belonging to Kerala State Road Transport Corporation was found in possession of 115 grams of Opium. P.W.I Superintendent of Special Customs Preventive Unit got information that smuggled gold was carried by a passenger in a bus. He proceeded towards Quilandy. He checked vehicles coming from the northern side at Chengottukavu. The bus coming from Payyannur to Perinthalmanna was stopped at Chengottukavu. Accused was one of the passengers in the bus. P.W.I searched the body of the accused in the presence of P.W.4 and other independent witnesses. A packet wrapped in a sheet of newspaper was found in his underwear pocket. Black sticky substance suspected to be Opium was found in the possession of the accused. It weighed 115 grams. P.W.4 has corroborated the evidence of P.W.I. P.W.I recorded Ext. P2 statement of the accused. PWs 2 and 3 who are witnesses in Ext. P1 mahazar supported the evidence of P.W.I regarding the seizure of the packet from the accused.

(3.) The learned counsel for the accused submitted that Ext. Pl and the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 do not agree and that alone is sufficient to suspect the prosecution case. In Ext. P1 it is stated that PWs 2 and 3 came to the place of occurrence as required by the Superintendent of the Special Customs Preventive Unit. PWs 2 and 3 stated that they happened to be there quite casually. P.W.1 has also stated so. Counsel for the accused submitted that in view of the evidence of P.Ws.l to 3 as aforesaid the version in Ext. P1 cannot be true and as the prosecution case from the start is shrouded in suspicion the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. The above inconsistency is not in any way detrimental to the prosecution case especially when the accused has confessed to the possession of the contraband article.