ANDICHAMI Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein, who is the sole accused in S.C. 38/2008, challenges his conviction and sentence, as per the judgment dated 4.10.2010 in S.C. No. 38/2008 of the Court of Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Vadakara under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein after referred to as 'the NDPS Act' only). The prosecution case is that on 15.6.2008 at about 4.55 p.m., the accused was found in possession of 2.100 kgs of ganja in front of KSRTC bus stop at Perinthalmanna and subsequently, it came to the notice of the Detecting Officer that, he had also possessed another 30 kgs of ganja and thus seized altogether 32 kgs of ganja from his possession and thus he had committed the offence punishable u/s. 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.

(2.) On the basis of the said allegation, Crime No. 474/08 was registered in the Perinthalmanna Police Station. After completing the investigation, the report was filed in the Special Court on 11.12.2008. After hearing the prosecution as well as the defence, a formal charge was framed against the accused for the above offence and the same was read over and explained to the accused, who denied the charge and pleaded not guilty, which resulted in the further trial, during which the prosecution adduced its evidence consisting of the oral testimony of Pws. 1 to 13 and the documentary evidence such as Exts. PI to PI8 and material objects namely Mos 1 to 10, were also produced and the same were identified during the trial. No evidence, either oral or documentary, was produced from the side of the accused. On the basis of the rival pleadings and the materials and evidence on record, the trial court formulated four points for its consideration. The evidence and the incriminating circumstances, which emerged during the evidence of prosecution, were put to the accused u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. and he denied the same and maintained the stand of total denial. Based upon the available materials and evidence on record, the trial court has found that the accused is guilty of the charges levelled against him and accordingly, he is convicted u/s. 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and consequently he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default he is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 months. Thus, on the basis of the above judgment, the accused is undergoing the sentence imposed against him and he is in custody right from the date of his arrest ie., on 15.6.2008. It is the above conviction and sentence challenged in this appeal.

(3.) In this juncture, it is pertinent to note that initially, the appellant herein had approached this Court by filing Crl.A.2088/2009 challenging the conviction and sentence under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act and this Court allowed the above appeal in part. Thus by judgment dated 23.3.2010 in Crl.A. No. 2088/2009, this Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act and also confirmed the finding of the court below, under point No. 1 by its earlier judgment dated 29.9.2009 in S.C. No. 38/2008 and thus, while confirming the finding of the learned Judge regarding the first seizure, the finding under second point as per its earlier judgment with respect to the second seizure has been set aside and this Court remanded the matter back to the trial court for disposal and awarding adequate punishment on the basis of the outcome on fresh consideration after the remand of the matter, since the quantum of punishment depends upon the correctness of the second seizure effected by the police.