Partly allowed

Alavi @ Ali v. Sub Inspector of Police, Kottakkal

Kerala HC17 Nov 2021CRL.A/1046/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction and sentence under NDPS Act where accused had already served substantive imprisonment. Court showed leniency on default sentence, reducing it from four months to one month while confirming other findings.

What did the court decide?

Modified default sentence from four months to one month rigorous imprisonment; confirmed conviction and other sentence.

Alavi @ Ali Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Kottakkal — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

CRL.A NO. 1046 OF 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC NO.70/2011 OF SPECIAL COURT (NDPS ACT

¶7

CASES), VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE

¶8

APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

ALAVI @ ALI AGED 44 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED, CHAKKIYATH HOUSE, THANALOOR AMSOM DESOM, PAKARA, NOW RESIDING AT BAPPU QUARTERS

¶10

BY ADV SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶12

1 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAKKAL

¶13

POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676001

¶14

2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶15

TIRUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676001

¶16

3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031

¶17

BY SRI. SUDHEER GOPALAKRISHNAN, PP

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.11.2021, THE COURT ON 17.11.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Crl.Appeal No.1046 /2015 2

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The appellant is the accused in S.C.No.70/2011 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge (NDPS Act Cases), Vatakara. The offence alleged against the appellant is under Sections 20(b)(ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’).

¶22

The prosecution case is that on 8.9.2011

¶23

at 9 p.m. in Othukungal amsom, Villur-Arichol Public road on the margin at Arichol, the accused was found to be transporting 5 kg. Ganja in a car bearing registration No.KL-10W-4844 for the

¶24

purpose of sale in contravention of the provisions of NDPS Act. Accordingly, the appellant was arrested and Crime No. 431/2011 was registered by Kottakkal Police Station. After completing the investigation, the police has submitted the charge

¶25

sheet for the offence mentioned above.

¶26

Crl.Appeal No.1046 /2015 3

¶27

In support of the prosecution case, PWs.1 to 11 were examined, Exhibits P1 to P13 were marked and MO1 to MO4 were identified.

¶28

After trial, the Sessions Court found the appellant guilty of the offence and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/- with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a further period of four months.

¶29

The present appeal is filed challenging the above conviction and sentence. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had already undergone the substantive sentence imposed upon him. He is also involved in two other criminal

¶30

cases of similar nature and he is undergoing substantive sentence imposed in those cases. As

¶31

the appellant has already undergone the

¶32

Crl.Appeal No.1046 /2015 4

¶33

substantive sentence pursuant to the conviction passed in this case, the learned counsel for the

¶34

appellant confines his argument to the fine imposed upon him and the default sentence thereon.

¶35

The learned counsel for the appellant

¶36

points out that the quantity involved is not a

¶37

commercial quantity and a lenient view is to be

¶38

taken in the matter of default sentence. The

¶39

learned Public Prosecutor opposes the said prayer.

¶40

It is a fact that the quantity involved is

¶41

not a commercial quantity. The appellant has already undergone substantive sentence of

¶42

imprisonment based on the conviction imposed in this case. The appellant was involved in two other

¶43

cases and is undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment pursuant to the same. However, considering the fact that the appellant has already undergone the substantive sentence, and

¶44

Crl.Appeal No.1046 /2015 5

¶45

also taking into account the fact that no commercial quantity is involved, some leniency can be shown, in the matter of default sentence imposed. Accordingly, the default sentence imposed upon the appellant is modified by reducing the same to rigorous imprisonment for one month instead of four months as ordered by the Sessions Court. With the above modification of sentence, the appeal is disposed of by confirming all other findings and sentence passed by the Sessions

¶46

Court.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶49

pkk

Alavi @ Ali v. Sub Inspector of Police, Kottakkal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alavi @ Ali v. Sub Inspector of Police, Kottakkal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co. (P) Ltd. Vs Suresh Kumar

Dr.C. Gangadharan Nambiar Vs State of Kerala

P.G.Koshy Panicker Vs State of Kerala

P.P.Raveendran Vs State of Kerala

Flemmy Vs State of Kerala

Subin Paulose Vs State of Kerala