This criminal appeal challenged conviction and consecutive sentencing under the NDPS Act. The High Court upheld the conviction regarding drug possession but modified the sentence order, directing terms to run concurrently rather than consecutively.
Direction that the sentences shall run concurrently instead of consecutively; appellant released forthwith.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1937
CRL.A.No. 678 of 2009
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 26/2007 of SPECIAL COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), VADAKARA DATED 01-01-2009
APPELLANT/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MUNEER K.M.,
AGED 45 YEARS, S/O P.K.KADERKUTTY, SOUDA MANZIL, PURATHAYIL VARAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.C.KHALID
SRI.N.GOPINATHA PANICKER SRI.T.P.SAJID SMT.M.A.SULFIA SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
BY SMT. S. HYMA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
Crl. Appeal No.678 OF 2009
Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2015.
J U D G M E N T
The accused in this case was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 18(c) and 21(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. He was found guilty on both counts and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- under Section 18(c) with default clause of rigorous imprisonment for six months and was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- under Section 21(b) with default clause of rigorous imprisonment for six months. The substantive sentences were directed to run consecutively. Set off as per law was allowed.
Crl. Appeal No.678/2009
2
at a place called Purathiyil coming under the Chakkarakallu Police Station, a person by name Khader resides with his son Muneer and Muneer was nabbed with 12 kg of Opium from Rathlam in Madhya Pradesh and the police had arrested him. In pursuance thereof, the Superintendent of Police directed PW1 to search the house of the accused. PW1 prepared report under Section 42 of NDPS Act and sent the same to his superior officer which is marked as Ext.P1. He along with PW5 and others reached the place. Khader, the father of Muneer was present there. He was informed about the visit of police officers and search was conducted. They found that on the first floor at the western end, a room was seen kept locked. The father of the accused told them that it was the room used by the accused. Since the key was not available, the door was pushed open. PW1 speaks in detail about the various articles seized from that place which need not be repeated in this judgment. It is sufficient to say that samples were taken from each of the separate articles found on the room. Search list prepared is Ext.P2. Thereafter PW1 returned to the police station and registered crime as per Ext.P3 First Information Report. The articles and the samples were
Crl. Appeal No.678/2009
3
produced before court on the next day and Ext.P4 is the property list.
Crl. Appeal No.678/2009
4
formalities, charge for offences under Sections 18(c) and 21(b) of NDPS Act was framed. To the charge, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Crl. Appeal No.678/2009
5
not analysed the evidence in the proper perspective and they simply followed what has been stated by PWs 1 and 5 without ascertaining whether there is any independent evidence to corroborate the evidence of PWs 1 and 5. It is also contended that there is nothing to show that the house exclusively belonged to the accused and therefore, the court below could not have fastened liability on the accused if at all any contraband was found in his house. Unless it is shown that the premises was in the exclusive possession of the accused, it was not proper for the court to find the accused guilty. Finally, it was contended that at any rate the sentences ought to have been directed to run concurrently and there was no justification to direct them to run consecutively.
Crl. Appeal No.678/2009
6
documents and the contraband were promptly produced before court. The accused had been formally arrested from Madhya Pradesh and brought down to the State. All formalities have been completed and there is nothing to show that there is any manipulation or fabrication of documents. Moreover, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, the court below was convinced that the evidence of PWs 1 and 5 are convincing enough and are sufficient to warrant a conviction. Accordingly, it is contended that there are no grounds made out to interfere with the conviction and sentence.
7
Crl. Appeal No.678/2009
the articles seen at the place of occurrence and seized by them. PW5 speaks in detail about sampling done by him and also labeling the sample. It is significant to notice that both Sections 42 and 57 of NDPS Act have been complied with by PW5. As part of search of the house of the accused, search of the house of the wife of the accused was also conducted. Except for a book containing the map of India and certain names of places in Rajasthan, nothing else were recovered.
when PWs 1 and 5 went to the house where search was conducted, Khader, father of accused, was present there. What is important is that one room was seen locked. Khader told the officers that it was the exclusive room used by the accused. Since no key was available, the door was pushed open. It is from there that contraband articles were seized.
Crl. Appeal No.678/2009
8
signatures in some of the documents. It is not the law that evidence of police officers or excise officers as the case will always have to be corroborated by independent evidence. If the evidence of the official witnesses are found to be convincing enough and inspires confidence in the mind of court, there is no reason as to why it should not be accepted. It would be imprudent on the part of court to reject all those items of evidence on the basis that there is no evidence corroborating their version. After all corroboration is a rule of prudence and not a rule of law. The accused has no case that the officers had any ill motive to falsely implicate him in the case. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, the evidence furnished by PWs 1 and 5 are consistent and convincing enough. Even though they were cross examined at length, nothing was brought out in their evidence to discard the prosecution version. Therefore, there is no reason as to why their evidence should not be accepted. It is not as if that the evidence of PWs 1 and 5 has not been corroborated at all. The contemporaneous documents Exts.P2, P4 etc and prompt production of seized articles and documents before court further confirm the fruitfulness of the
Crl. Appeal No.678/2009
9
prosecution case.
Crl. Appeal No.678/2009
10
be unduly harsh.
For the above reasons, while upholding the conviction and sentence passed by the court below for the offences under Sections 18(c) and 21(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the direction that the sentences shall run consecutively is substituted by stating that the sentences shall run concurrently. If the substantive sentences are to run concurrently, the period of imprisonment is already over and so also the default clause sentence in respect of fine imposed for each offence. The convict shall be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case.
This Criminal Appeal is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE
smp
// True Copy //
P.A to Judge.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction of the accused under Sections 18(c) and 21(b) of NDPS Act should be upheld based on police testimony.
Whether the direction for sentences to run consecutively imposed by the court below was legally sustainable.
Whether the appellant should be released forthwith given the period served and the concurrent running of sentences.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
MUNEER K.M.
STATE
P. BHAVADASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
