RAJENDRAN @ THAMPURAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused, who was convicted by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram for offence punishable under Section 20(b) II(B) of the NDPS Act in Crime No.4/2012, has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The prosecution allegation was that, while the Excise Inspector was on a regular patrol duty, he got a secret information that one person was dealing with ganja. He sent two Excise Officers in mufti to have a surveillance, who confirmed the truth of the secret information. Thereupon the Excise Inspector along with his party went to the spot and intercepted the accused who tallied the distinct features conveyed in the information received by him. He introduced himself and expressed his intention to conduct a body search. On being informed about right of the accused to be searched in the presence of a Judicial Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, the accused did not make any reply. Hence intimation was passed on to the Excise Circle Inspector for procuring his presence. After he reached the spot, the search was conducted. From the plastic bag which accused was carrying, 1.100 kgs of ganja was recovered. Samples of 25 gms each were drawn from it. Thereafter, the accused was arrested. In the meanwhile, the contemporaneous documents which were the seizure mahazar, the arrest memo and the arrest intimation were also prepared. After the arrest, the accused was taken to the Excise Office and the Crime and Occurrence Report was prepared. Another Excise Inspector conducted the investigation and filed the final report under Section 20(b) II(B) of the NDPS Act. The accused was produced before the Sessions Court and he denied the allegations. On the side of prosecution, PW1 to PW6 were examined and Exts.P1 to P12 were marked. MOs 1 to 7 were identified. On an evaluation of the entire evidence, the court below found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay a fine of 10,000/- in default of which, he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence proved. He is undergoing conviction and an appeal has been preferred from the jail.

(3.) Mr. Lavaraj M.G. has filed vakalath on behalf of the accused. Heard both sides and examined the records.