KUNJALAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in Cri.A.No.827/2015 is the 1st accused in S.C.No.69/2008 of the Court of Session, Thrissur, and the appellant in Crl.A.No.186/2015 is the 2nd accused therein. They faced trial before the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur under Section 20(b)(ii)B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, "the NDPS Act") on the allegation that at about 7.20 p.m., on 2.6.2007 at Kodunga, within the limits of the Vellikkulangara Police Station, they were found possessing and transporting 10.600 kgs of ganja on the motorcycle No.KL-8/Y-6050. The offence was detected by the Sub Inspector of Police, Vellikkulangara during his patrol. He saw the 1st accused as the rider of the motorcycle, and the 2nd accused as the pillion rider carrying a sack containing something on his lap. When the Sub Inspector gave signal to stop the vehicle, but the 2nd accused jumped off with the sack in his hands. After moving forward for a short distance, the 1st accused abandoned the motorcycle and escaped. The 2nd accused was arrested by the Sub Inspector on the spot, and the sack found in his possession was opened and examined. It was found containing 10.600 kgs of ganja. Body search of the 2nd accused was also conducted by the Sub Inspector. Though he was informed of his right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, the 2nd accused waived his right, and consented to be searched by the Sub Inspector himself. No contraband article was seized on body search. The huge quantity of ganja found in the sack carried by the 2nd accused was seized as per a mahazar, and the 2nd accused was arrested on the spot. The Sub Inspector registered a crime on the basis of the arrest and seizure made by him, and investigation was taken over by the Circle Inspector. During investigation, the 1st accused was detected and he was arrested. On the basis of the statements given by the accused Nos.1 and 2, the police arraigned 3rd accused also as the person for whom the quantity of ganja was transported. The case against the 3rd accused was split up and refiled when he remained consistently absent.

(2.) The accused Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the learned trial Judge, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them. The prosecution examined eight witnesses and proved Exts.P1 to P17 documents in the trial court. The MO1 property was also identified during trial. The two accused denied the incriminating circumstances and projected a defence of total denial. In defence, they examined two witnesses, and also proved Ext.D1 document. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found both the accused guilty. On conviction, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 31.12.2014, the two accused have come up in appeal.

(3.) On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials, I find no reason for interference in appeal in the conviction made by the court below under Section 20(b)(ii)B of the NDPS Act. PW1 is the Sub Inspector, who detected the offence and PW8 is the Circle Inspector, who investigated the case. There is nothing to show that there was any flaw or irregularity or illegality in the investigation conducted by PW8. PW2 is the police officer, who assisted the Sub Inspector in the process of detection. PW3 examined as independent witness to prove the search and seizure turned hostile. The main evidence is that of PW1 and PW2.