LAWS(KER)-2015-6-209

HARIKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On June 02, 2015
HARIKUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the conviction and sentence in CC No. 3 of 2003 of the Special Judge for NDPS Cases, Thodupuzha for offence punishable under S.20(a) r/w S.20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act, 1985 hereafter referred to as "the Act". The appellant was convicted for the above offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rupees Rs.10,000/- in default of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another three months.

(2.) The facts necessary for indictment were that on 07/12/2001 at 11.00 am the Sub Inspector, Nedumkandam Police Station got a telephonic information that appellant was cultivating ganja plants behind his residential house. He recorded that information into writing in the General Diary of the Police Station, reported the matter to his official superior, thereafter proceeded to the place of occurrence with the police party and conducted a search in the residential compound of the accused. During inspection, the Sub Inspector found four ganja plants aged five months cultivated behind the residential house of the appellant. The appellant was arrested on the spot itself and seized the ganja plants. Reaching at the Police Station, he registered Crime No. 327/2001. The Circle Inspector of Police, Nedumkandam conducted investigation and laid charge against the accused before Trial Court.

(3.) For establishing the penal liability, prosecution examined PW 1 to PW 7 and marked Exts. P1 to P17 and admitted MO 1 to MO 4 in evidence. During cross - examination of the prosecution witnesses, three documents were produced by the defence, which were marked as Exts. D1 to D3. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the appellant while questioning him under S.313 CrPC. He was also heard under S.232 CrPC. and he was asked to tender his defence. He did not adduce any defence evidence. The Trial Court after sifting and weighing the evidence on record convicted the accused.