NAZEER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.)

(2.) THE case against the accused is as follows. THE 4th accused is a ration dealer. He obtained delivery of 2 barrels of pamolein on 9-12-1987 as per Ext. P11 (a) indent. He sold these two barrels of Pamolein to the first accused. THE first accused with the help of 2nd and third accused got constructed a shed and these two barrels of pamolein was stored there for the purpose of distributing the same in black market. PW 1, the Sub Inspector of Police, Tellicherry got information on 10-12-1987 that pamolein was unauthorisedly stored in a shed. He prepared a search memorandum and proceeded to the sea-shore, where the shed was constructed. On the rear side of the building bearing No. T. M. C. 20/599 PWI saw a thatched shed and at about 5 p. m. he searched the premises of the shed and recovered the two barrels of pamolein.

(3.) AS regards the complicity of the first accused there is the evidence of PWs 1 to 4. It is not very much in dispute that two barrels of pamolein was recovered from the shed. The article recovered from the shed was sent for chemical analysis and Ext. P 27 is the report of the ASsistant chemical Examiner of the Government of Kerala. In the report it is stated that the samples were identified to be genuine pamolein. PWl recovered pamolein from a shed situated near the sea-shore. He prepared a mahazar and the mahazar was attested by PW2 and 3, Ext. P1 is the mahazar. From the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 it is clear that pamolein was recovered under Ext. P1 mahazar from the shed.