KADER MOHIDEEN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the conviction and sentence of the appellant passed by the Special Judge for N.D.P.S. Court, Coimbatore in C.C. No.111 of 1995, wherein the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for an offence punishable under Sec. 20(b)(1) of N.D.P.S. Act.

(2.) ON 13.2.1994, P.W.6, the Inspector of Police, Kodumudi on information took P.W.2, Head Constable and other constables to the house bearing Door No. 128, Railway Station Road, Kodumudi which belongs to the appellant. Before proceeding there, he sent prior intimation, Ex.P-5 to the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kodumudi that he was going to search the house of the appellant. He took P.W. 1, Village Administrative Officer also along with other witnesses to the house of the appellant. After introducing himself to the appellant, P.W.6, made a search of the house and on the southern side of the room, he noticed M.O.1, gunny bag and when the appellant was questioned as to whether he wanted to have the search done in the presence of any gazetted officer, the accused replied that the police could make the search and thereafter, he examined the gunny bag which contained 10 packets of Ganja each weighing 1 kg. He also weighed the same then and there and took 200 grams of Ganja as sample, divided them into two, packed them and got the signature of the appellant also. He also got the signature of P.W.1 and Ponnusamy in the search list. Thereafter, he took the appellant to the Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.90 of 1994 and then forwarded the accused for remand. He also gave Ex.P-7 requisition to send the sample for analysis. The Chemical Examination Report has been marked as Ex.P-8. He examined witnesses, prepared Ex.P-9 sketch of the scene of the occurrence and also observation mahazar. P.W.7, the Inspector, who took up further investigation verified the investigation done by P.W.6 and then filed the charge sheet against the accused appellant. The case of the appellant is one of denial. He did not examine any witness on his side.

(3.) THE facts of that case are hereunder: P.W.3, Head constable got information with reference to the appellant, only at about 7.00 p.m. that the person is selling injectable narcotic drugs near Blue Tronics Junction, Palluruthy. When he proceeded for Palluruthy Police Station to give this information to his immediate superior, Sub Inspector of police, P.W.5, he found P.W.5 along with his police party, who were on patrol duty coming, hence the said information was communicated there by P.W.3 to P.W.5. THEreafter, P.W.5, along with his police party and P.W.3 immediately proceeded towards the place where the appellant was standing. Had they not done so immediately, the opportunity of seizure and arrest of the appellant would have been lost. How P.W.5 could have recorded the information given by P.W.3 and communicated to his superior while he was on motion, on patrol duty, in the jeep before proceeding to apprehend him is not understandable. Had they not acted immediately, the appellant would have escaped. On the above facts, their Lordships did not draw inference that there has been any violation of Sec.42 of the Act.