ABDUL SALAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a jail appeal filed challenging the conviction and sentence in S. C. No. 66/2014 on the files of the Court of the Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Vatakara. The conviction is under Section 20(b)ii(B) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (herein after referred to as "NDPS Act"). The appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only), with default rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of this case is as follows:

(3.) When the appeal came up for hearing, Adv. Sri. P. P. Padmalayan appearing as State Brief, submitted before this Court that, here is a case, where police due to prior animosity, implicated the appellant in a false case and created false evidence. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that, this aspect will be evident from the stand of the appellant, while he was questioned under Section 313 of Cr. P. C before the trial court. He specifically stated before the court that earlier, there was a case against him, in which he was acquitted by the trial court and due to that reason, again a false case has been foisted. To substantiate the submission of the learned Counsel, the learned Counsel submitted before this Court that the allegation against the appellant is that he had committed a grave and a serious offence, ie, he has violated the provisions of NDPS Act. But it is a fact that, when the crime as alleged is very serious, there should be scrupulous observation of provisions therein. In this case, as Sub Inspector of Police is the detecting officer, his case is that appellant was seen with a plastic bag containing ganja. The positive case of the detecting officer is that, he got prior information and thereon the detection was made. His case is that the appellant did not demand to be searched in front of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. In support of the same, the prosecution is highlighting Ext. P2. But a perusal of the same will show that he was not actually given such a consent or there is compliance of the requirement under Section 50 of NDPS Act. It is the submission made before this Court that the information given as per Ext. P2 is that