SUHANA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench of this Court, by an order of reference, directed to place this Criminal Appeal before the Full Bench so as to consider the question whether the expression 'stock' in the definition of 'drug-offender' in Sec. 2(i) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 [hereinafter referred to as, 'KAA(P)A'], takes within its sweep, the possession by itself, of the drug. The Division Bench doubted the correctness of the findings in Ansar T.A. v. State Of Kerala [2017 (2) KHC 413], wherein reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court rendered by a Single Judge in Ashraf v. Inspector General of Police [2014 (3) KLT 722] to contend that mere possession of small quantity of narcotic drug by itself would answer the definition of a 'drug-offender' under Sec. 2(i) of KAA(P)A, wherefore, the detenu is liable to be considered as a 'goonda' as per Sec. 2(j) of KAA(P)A and consequently, a 'known goonda' under Sec. 2(o) of KAA(P)A. In the Reference Order, the Division Bench leaned in favour of the view expressed by this Court in Luciya Francis v. State of Kerala [2023 (5) KHC 255], wherein it was found that mere possession of a narcotic substance cannot be construed as part of stock unless it is manifested with evidence of intention to sell and further found that the word 'stocks' occurring in Sec. 2(i) of KAA(P)A must be in such nature kept in possession not for personal use. If any element of commercial motive surfaces, no doubt, such 'stocks' shall be classified as acts affecting public order. Hence, doubting the judgment in Ansar T.A (supra), the matter was referred to this Full Bench and we are called upon to answer the same.

(2.) Reference to the following relevant provisions is essential to analyse the issue:

(3.) It is also important to examine the relevant provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act') for a comprehensive understanding.