SULAIMAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant stands convicted of the offence under S.21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (called "the Act" hereinafter), on a charge that he was found in possession of 5 grams of brown sugar (diacetyl morphine) at or about 6 p.m. on 17-9-1988 at Chakkumkadavu by P.W. l. Head Constable. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years, and to a fine of Rs. l lakh, with a default sentence of two years. The court below relied on the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 5, 6 & 7 to find the charge.

(2.) P.W. 1 would say that he found the appellant under suspicious circumstances, that he accosted him, that he searched his person, and that he recovered 5 gms. of brown sugar under Ext. P1. He took one gram from this, divided it into two parts and produced the balance before court as MO1. P.W.2 another Head Constable, speaks on the same lines. According to him, one gram of brown sugar was divided into two parts as samples. P.W.6, a third Head Constable, states that he conducted the investigation, while P.W.7 Sub Inspector states that he "verified" the investigation. According to P.W.8, a clerk of the Magistrate's Court, each of the sample bottles contained one gram of brown sugar (Ext. P10 certificate). Appellant denied the charge.

(3.) Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the conviction is vitiated for the reason that the mandatory provisions of S.50,52,53,55 & 57 of the Act, were violated. Elaborating the contention, he submitted that the investigation was made by an officer, lower in rank than the officer named in S.53, that the samples were not sealed, and that the other safeguards in the Act were breached. He submitted further, that the evidence is unreliable and that a conviction cannot be based on such.