ABOOBACKER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 9.2.2007 made in SC 11/2006 on the files of the Special Court (NDPS Act Cases) Vadakara. The conviction is under Section 20(b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act. The sentence is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

(2.) The prosecution case in a nutshell is that on 5.10.2004 at about 11:30 a.m. a secret information was received by the Additional Sub Inspector of Edacheri police station that a person was selling ganja on the Vatakara-Mahi National highway, in front of a house bearing No. A.P.XIV/398. The police proceeded to seize the same after recording the information in the general diary. Regarding the same, a report was sent and a telephonic information was also given to the C.I. of Police. The officials reached at the place at 11.30 a.m and therein they found a person tallying with the said information. The police approached him and informed him regarding their intention to search his body and also informed him regarding his right to be searched in front of a Magistrate or a gazetted officer. The accused informed them that he can be searched by the officer himself and the said consent was obtained in writing, which was marked as Ext.P2. Accordingly, body search of the accused was conducted by the Additional Sub Inspector. Thereon, Rs. 3,000/- was seized from the accused and the ganja found in a carry bag carried by him was also seized which weighed 1 kg and 30 gms. The accused was arrested. Two samples of 10 grams each were taken and the balance ganja was also packed and sealed and after reaching at the police station, crime was registered. Thereon Ext.P7, detailed report as contemplated under Section 42 of the NDPS Act was sent to the C.I. of Police. The seizure mahazar was marked before the court as Ext.P3. Prosecution altogether examined 5 witnesses and Exts.P1 to P13 were marked. MOs 1 to 5 were also identified. After appreciating the evidence the court below convicted the accused and sentenced as stated above.

(3.) When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted before this court that here is a case where the property was not forwarded forthwith. Even though the detection was on 5.10.2004, the seized property reached before the court only on 8.10.2004. Thus it can be seen that it is not a case where the property was forwarded to the court forthwith. In the case of search and seizure, even C.R.P contemplates that the articles so seized should be forwarded to the court forthwith.