SIDHIK Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in Crl.Appeal No.126 of 2016 is the first accused in S.C.(NDPS) No.39 of 2015 of the Special Court for the trial of NDPS Act cases, Thodupuzha, and the appellant in Crl.Appeal No.894 of 2016 is the second accused therein. They challenge the conviction and sentence against them under Section 20(b)(ii)B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act .

(2.) The prosecution case is that when the Excise Inspector of the Narcotic Special Squad, Adimali searched the house of the first accused on 29.8.2014 on the basis of secret reliable information, the first accused was found possessing 1.425 Kgs of dried ganja at the kitchen of his house, and the second accused was also seen there examining the quality of ganja as the person who came there to purchase ganja from the first accused. The Excise Inspector arrested the two accused on the spot, and seized the quantity of ganja as per a mahazar. On the basis of the arrest and seizure, he registered the crime and occurrence report, and investigation was taken over by a Circle Inspector of Excise. Another Circle Inspector of Excise of the Squad closed the investigation, and submitted final report in Court.

(3.) The two accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them by the trial court under Section 20(b)(ii) B of the NDPS Act, and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined seven witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P17 documents in the trial court. Both the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The second accused projected a defence that he has nothing to do with the ganja, and that he had not at any time come to purchase ganja from the first accused. The first accused projected a defence that he has no connection with the house searched by the Excise Inspector. In defence, the accused examined a witness as DW1, and proved Exts.D1 and D2 documents. The MO1 and MO2 properties were also identified during trial.