P AJAYABABU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Grievance highlighted on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel is that uncharitable, unmerited and irrelevant remarks have been made by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge against the petitioner for non compliance of S.42 and 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') and also for conducting investigation after detecting the crime by the petitioner, who was the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara Police Station at the material time of detecting and investigating crime No. 132 of

(2.) The learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, on an evaluation of the evidence led by the prosecution in support of its case, came to the conclusion that there was violation or contravention of S.42 and 50 of the Act by the petitioner and also found fault with the petitioner for conducting the investigation by himself.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor submitted before me that in view of the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Khader v. State of Kerala ( 2001 (2) KLT 407 ), the petitioner cannot be faulted for conducting the investigation of the crime No. 132 of Kottarakkara Police Station detected by him. This Court