RAMACHANDRAN @ UNNI vs STATE OF KERALA
- Court
- Kerala High Court
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TH
THURSDAY, THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2026/14TH KARTHIKA,
1948
CRL.A NO. 814 OF 2018
CRIME NO.2/2014 OF KOTTARAKKARA EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE,
KOLLAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.06.2018 IN SC NO.409
OF 2016 OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM
APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED:
BIJU @ KOODALI BIJU
MARY BHAVAN, CHEKKOOTTUKONAM BHAGAM,
VILANGARA MURI, UMMANNOOR VILLAGE,
KOTTARAKKARA TALUK.
BY ADV SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT :
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
KOCHI-682 031.
SRI.SAJEEV P K, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEAD ON
12.10.2026, ALONG WITH CRL.A.960/2018, THE COURT ON
05.11.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TH
THURSDAY, THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2026/14TH KARTHIKA,
1948
CRL.A NO. 960 OF 2018
CRIME NO.2/2014 OF KOTTARAKKARA EXCISE CIRCLE OFFICE,
KOLLAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.409 OF
2016 OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM
APPELLANT/ ACCUSED NO.2 :
RAMACHANDRAN @ UNNI
AGED 37 YEARS
RADHIKA BHAVAN, CHERRIKONAM MURI,
THRIKKOVIL VATTOM, KOLLAM TALUK.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
SMT.DIVYADEVI V.G.
SMT.DEVANANDA S.
RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT/ S TATE :
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE EXCISE CIRCLE INSPECTOR,
KOTTARAKARA IN CRIME NO.02/2004
SRI.SAJEEV P K, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.10.2026, ALONG WITH CRL.A.814/2018, THE COURT ON
05.11.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
3
CR
COMMON JUDGMENT
th
Dated this the 5 day of November, 2026
These are appeals filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in
S.C.No.409/2016 on the files of the Special Court under the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act' for short) (Additional
Sessions Judge-III), Kollam, challenging conviction and
sentence imposed on them in the said case, as per judgment
dated 19.06.2018.
2. Heard the respective learned counsel for the
appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Public
Prosecutor in detail. Perused the judgment under challenge
and the available records.
3. Here, the prosecution alleges commission
of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS
Act by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2. In this case, on
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
4
finding 3.700 kg of ganja in the conscious possession of
accused Nos.1 and 2 at 3.10 p.m. on 04.12.2014 by the
detecting officer and on seizure of the contraband, crime was
registered alleging commission of offence punishable under
Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act by accused Nos. 1 and 2.
4. When final report was filed before the Special
Court, the Special Judge framed charge for the said offence
and proceeded with trial. During trial, PW1 to PW11 were
examined, Exts.P1 to P25 and MO1 to MO5 were marked on
the side of the prosecution. Exts.D1 to D6 were marked on the
side of the defence.
5. On appreciation of the evidence, the
learned Special Judge found that the appellants/accused
Nos.1 and 2 had committed the offence punishable under
Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. Accordingly, they were
convicted for the said offence and sentenced as under:
“67. In the result, the two accused are found
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
5
guilty of committing offence punishable u/s 20 (b) (ii)
(B) of NDPS Act and convicted them and sentenced
them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 (Ten)
years each and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each (Rupees
One lakh each). In default of payment of fine, accused
are directed to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment
for 6 (six) months each. Set off allowed.”
6. The respective learned counsel appearing
for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 zealously argued to
unsettle the verdict, mainly urging that the procedure
followed for collection of samples from the contraband
separately detected, weighing 1.850 kg each, is improper.
It is submitted that the contraband recovered from two
bags weighing 1.850 kg each was mixed together for the
purpose of taking the samples. Therefore, the entire recovery
is in the midst of doubts which would entitle acquittal of the
appellants. Therefore, the learned counsel for the
appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 pressed for interference
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
6
in the verdict impugned to record acquittal of the accused
persons.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other
hand, supported the verdict impugned and submitted that, if
the mixing of the contraband seized from two bags did not
cause any prejudice to the accused, the same is of least
consequence. It is argued further that even ignoring the
quantity seized from one among the bag, the remaining alone
would constitute intermediate quantity to attract the offence
under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The learned
learned Public Prosecutor placed decision of the Apex Court
in Sumit Tomar v. State of Punjab , reported in 2012 KHC
4633 SC, to buttress his contention. Paragraph No.10 of the
said decision reads as under:
“10. The next contention, according to the learned
senior counsel for the Appellant, is that the
prosecution has committed an irregularity by mixing
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
7
up the contraband found in the bags and taking
samples thereafter. We find no substance in the
said argument. The present Appellant was driving
the car in which two bags of contraband were
loaded. He further pointed out that in view of
Section 15 (c) of the NDPS Act, which prescribes
minimum sentence of 10 years and which may
extend to 20 years where the contravention involves
commercial quantity, the mixing of two bags is a
grave irregularity which affects the interest of the
Appellant. We are unable to accept the said
contention. It is true that Section 15 of the NDPS
Act speaks about punishment for contravention in
relation to poppy straw. As per Sub-section (a)
where the contravention involves small quantity, the
rigorous imprisonment may extend to six months or
with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees
or with both whereas under Sub-section (b) where
the contravention involves quantity lesser than
commercial quantity but greater than small quantity,
rigorous imprisonment may extend to 10 years and
with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. Sub-
section (c) provides that where the contravention
involves commercial quantity, the rigorous
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
8
imprisonment shall not be less than 10 years but
which may extend to 20 years and shall also be
liable to line which shall not be less than one lakh
rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees.
Merely because different punishments have been
prescribed depending on the quantity of contraband,
we are satisfied that by mixing the said two bags,
the same has not caused any prejudice to the
Appellant. Even after taking two samples of 250
grams each, the quantity measured comes to 69.50
kgs which is more than commercial quantity (small
quantity 1000 gms/commercial quantity 50 kgs. and
above). In view of the same, the contention that the
police should have taken two samples each from
the two bags without mixing is liable to be rejected.”
8. Adverting to the rival contentions, the
questions arise for consideration are;
1. Whether the Special Judge is justified in
holding that accused Nos.1 and 2
committed the offence punishable under
Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act?
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
9
2. Whether the impugned verdict would require
interference?
3. Order to be passed.
9. Point Nos.1 to 3.
PW6 examined in this case is the then Circle
Inspector of Excise, Kottarakara, and the detecting officer.
He supported the prosecution case, including detection of the
contraband, in tune with the version of PW1. He deposed
that at about 2.18 p.m. on 04.12.2014, he had received an
information on his official mobile phone from Sri.Anil Kumar,
(PW9), an Excise Inspector in the Special Squad of Excise
Commissioner, that there was every chance of transporting
ganja by two persons on a bike through Sadanandapuram-
Plappally road within one hour. He had recorded that that
information, and forwarded the grounds of belief and letter to
his immediate official superior, which were marked as Ext.P5
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
10
series. PW6 further testified that he and his excise party went
to Changoormukku, half kilometers away from
Sadanandapuram Motel Junction in the above road and had
reached there at 3.10 p.m. He deposed that PW9, Sri.Anil
Kumar, and his excise party had already been present there
and they had conducted combined vehicle check. According
to him, while so, they had seen red colour bike coming
towards them, carrying two persons in the motor bike and
they had seen a bag containing something over the petrol
tank of the bike. He testified that even though he had
signalled the rider to stop the bike, the rider stopped 25
meter away from them. Soon, he along with the excise party
had reached near the bike. While so, the pillion rider ran
away. Though they had chased him, they could not catch
him. He further stated that he had no previous acquaintance
with the pillion rider, who ran away. When he had asked the
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
11
rider of the bike, why the pillion rider had run away, the rider
had informed that the bag in his possession, which had been
placed over the petrol tank, contained ganja and he ran away
from there on afraid of the excise party. Thereafter, he had
asked the rider to come out from the bike and he had
informed him that he was an authorized excise official to
detect the offences under NDPS Act and informed him that
witness wanted to search his body. He was further informed
of his right to be searched personally (body search) in the
presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The rider of
the bike informed PW6 that he did not require the presence
of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and he could be searched
on his body by PW6 and party. He further deposed that he
had first conducted body search of the rider in the presence
of other witnesses and had searched the bag kept on the top
of the petrol tank of the bike and he had found two packets,
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
12
each wrapped in brown paper and sealed with brown plastic
tape. He stated that he had opened the first packet in the
presence of witnesses and had noticed the smell of ganja
from the contents in the packet. He had taken a small
quantity, crushed and smelled it and satisfied that the content
in the packet were ganja. He further stated that the packet
contained dried leaves, flowers and flowering top of cannabis
plant. He had also convinced the witnesses and the excise
officials present that the substance was ganja. He further
testified that on opening the second packet, he had also
found ganja in the packet. He had also convinced the
witnesses and the other officials in the excise party that ganja
was in the second packet also.
10. According to PW6, by using the weighing
balance available in the department vehicle, he had weighed
the ganja contained in the first packet, which was found to be
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
13
1.85 kg. The ganja in the second packet was also weighed
and found its weight as 1.85 kg. The paper in which the ganja
was packed was weighed and its weight was found to be 215
gram. Thereafter, he had conducted body search of the rider
of the motorbike. When the name of the rider was asked, he
told his name as Biju @ Koodali Biju, S/o. Danial, residing at
Mary Bhavan, Chekkottukonam, Vilangara Muri, Ummannoor
Village, Kottarakkara Taluk. A Nokia mobile phone was found
in the left pocket of his shirt containing a battery and a
Vodafone SIM card. Regarding the search, he had prepared
Ext.P1 search list and obtained the signatures of Biju @
Koodali Biju, and independent witness thereon and he had
also put his signature on Ext.P1. He convinced Biju about the
gravity of the offence committed by him and arrested him
after complying with all legal formalities. He had identified the
arrested person, Biju, the accused, at the dock. He had
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
14
prepared Ext.P6 arrest memo, Ext.P7 arrest intimation and
Ext.P8 custody memo. When PW6 questioned the arrested
person, Biju, regarding the pillion rider, who ran away, he
disclosed the name and address of the pillion rider as
“Ramachandran @ Unni, Radhika Bhavan, Cherrikkonam
Muri, Thrikkovilvattom Village, Kollam Taluk”. On further
enquiry regarding the ganja, the first accused stated that the
ganja had been brought by Ramachandran, the second
accused, and he alone knew the source from where it had
been brought. He further stated that both of them were
together possessing and transporting the ganja from
Nellikkunnam through Plappally towards Sadanandapuram.
Accordingly, it was found that they were possessing and
transporting the ganja against the provisions of NDPS Act.
st
Thereby the person arrested got arrayed as the 1 accused
nd
and the absconding pillion rider, Ramachandran, as the 2
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
15
accused and accordingly, this crime was registered.
11. PW6 testified further that since it was found
that the ganja in both the packets were identical, PW6 mixed
the ganja in the packets and took sample of 25 grams each
in two polythene covers and the covers were hot sealed,
packed separately in brown paper, tied with twine, and
sealed with his personal seal bearing the impression 'JPKR'
and taken into custody. The remaining 3.650 kg ganja was
also packed, sealed in the same manner and taken into
custody. The brown paper in which the ganja had originally
been packed was separately packed in brown paper, tied and
sealed as per law, and taken into custody. The plastic bag in
which the ganja had been brought was also packed
separately, tied and sealed as stated above and taken into
custody. He affixed labels with a brief note of the case, along
with the signatures of the accused, the witnesses and his
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
16
signature on the two sample packets, the balance ganja
packet and the other packets. The two sample packets were
marked as S1 and S2 respectively. The witness identified the
S2 sample before the Court as MO1. The packet containing
the remaining ganja was marked as ‘T’ and he identified the
same before Court, which was already marked as MO2. He
identified the packet in which the brown paper was packed
marked as MO3. The witness also identified MO4, the packet
containing the bag. PW6 took the mobile phone into custody
and affixed a label containing the signatures of the
witnesses, the accused and himself and identified the mobile
phone before Court, marked as MO5. He affixed a similar
label to the motorbike and prepared Ext.P9 inventory. Ext.P2
mahazar was prepared at the place of detection in the
presence of witnesses and obtained their signatures on it. He
also signed on Ext.P2 mahazar. He recorded Ext.P10
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
17
st
confession statement of the 1 accused, which was signed
st
by both the 1 accused and himself. Thereafter, he brought
the accused, the thondy articles and records before the
excise office and registered crime No.2/2014 against both
accused persons. Ext.P11 is the crime and occurrence
report. He prepared Ext.P12 thondy list, Ext.P13 test memo
and P14 forwarding note. He forwarded Ext.P15 report under
Section 57 of the NDPS Act to his immediate official superior.
Thereafter, he produced the accused, thondy articles before
Court.
12. PW6 testified further that he had obtained
Ext.P3 site plan from the Village Officer. He also forwarded
requests to the Hi-Tech cell, Thiruvananthapuram for
providing ownership details and call records of the mobile
st
phone recovered from the 1 accused and to the Joint R.T.O,
Punalur, for furnishing ownership details of the vehicle.
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
18
Moreover, he had requested ownership details of the mobile
number to which the last call from the recovered mobile
phone was caused. Thereafter, he went to the house of the
nd st
2 accused. During cross-examination by the 1 accused,
PW6 stated that Ext.P5(a) was recorded at 2.18 pm on
04.12.2014, though the time of recording was not noted in
Ext.P5. He stated that log book was maintained for the
department jeep. He denied the suggestion that Ext.P5 and
P5 (a) were fabricated. He stated that he was a Gazetted
Officer at the time of the detection of the offence. He denied
the suggestion that he failed to inform the accused of his
right regarding search of his body in the presence of a
Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. He also denied the
suggestion that Ext.P15 did not comply the mandatory
provisions of the Act. The witness further denied the
suggestion of accused No.1 that MO5 was not recovered
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
19
from him. Thus during cross-examination of PW6, nothing
elicited to shake his candid version regarding detection and
recovery of the contraband and other aspects spoken by him.
13. Apart from the evidence of PW6, PW9, who
accompanied PW6, also gave evidence supporting the
version of PW6 in all respects, including collection of
samples in a tamper proof manner and he also identified
MO1.
14. In this case, as regards the compliance of
the statutory requirements, apart from the evidence of PW6,
PW11, the Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kollam, testified
that he had received report forwarded by PW6 under Section
42(2) of the NDPS Act, as per Ext.P5. He also supported that
he had affixed his dated signature in it and accordingly the
same got marked as Ext.P24. Regarding compliance of
Section 57 of the NDPS Act, PW11 testified that he had
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
20
received it and Ext.P25 is the said acknowledgment.
15. Here, apart from the evidence of PW6 and
PW9, PW1, a journalist residing at Aryakkal, who had
witnessed the occurrence, also fully supported the
prosecution. According to him, while he was going to an
interior place from Sadanandapuram, he had seen the excise
party opening a packet after placing the same on the top of a
red colour car. The officer had also taken another packet
from a bag kept on the bike, parked near the car. The person
who had been riding the motor bike was in the custody of the
excise officer. PW1 further testified that the excise officer had
searched the person in his custody, the bag and the motor
bike. After conducting the search at the place of occurrence,
the excise officer had prepared Ext.P1 search list, and he
had signed therein as a witness. He identified his signature in
Ext.P1. He further stated that the excise officer had prepared
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
21
Ext.P2 mahazar at the place and he had signed in Ext.P2 at
the place of detection of the offence. He also identified his
signature in Ext.P2. PW1 deposed that the excise officer had
recovered ganja from the possession of the accused. The
officer had taken a small quantity from the seized article and
crushed and smelled the article and identified the same as
ganja. PW6 had also smelled the seized article and satisfied
that the same was ganja. He further testified that the excise
officer had taken sample from the ganja recovered from the
person in his custody. He had identified his signature in the
reserve sample marked as 'S2' and the sample was marked
as MO1. He also stated that the balance quantity of ganja
had been packed and sealed and thereafter, the excise
officer had put the mark 'T' in the label affixed in it. PW1 had
affixed his signature in the label in that packet, marked as 'T'
and he had identified his signature in the packet with mark
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
22
'T'. The packet was marked as MO2. PW1 further stated that
the brown paper in which the accused had brought ganja had
been separately packed, sealed and labelled, and he had
signed the label affixed in the packet. He had identified his
signature on the label before the Court and the packet was
marked as MO3. He also deposed that the plastic cover in
which the ganja was kept had been packed in brown paper,
sealed and labelled by the excise officer at the place of
detection, and he had signed the label affixed to it. He had
identified the packet and his signature in the label before
Court and the said packet was marked as MO4. PW1 further
testified that a mobile phone had been recovered from the
person in the custody of excise officer. The officer had
labelled the mobile phone and PW1 had signed the label
affixed in the mobile phone. He identified his signature in the
label affixed in the phone before Court and the mobile phone
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
23
was marked as MO5. He had received a notice from the
excise office and went to the excise office. He had given a
statement to the excise officer regarding the facts he had
witnessed.
16. When PW1 was cross-examined, he
testified that he had witnessed the excise officials taking
samples from the ganja recovered from the person in their
custody. He also denied the suggestion that the signatures
on the labels in the MOs were not his signature. He admitted
his signature in Exts.P1, P2 and MOs. During cross-
nd
examination by the counsel for the 2 accused, PW1 stated
nd
that he could not identify the 2 accused. He asserted that
he had been present at the place of detection, when the
excise officials had recovered the ganja from the person in
custody and prepared the records.
17. In fact, during cross-examination, the
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
24
evidence of the independent witness not at all shaken.
18. Ext.P3 scene plan was proved through
PW2, the Village Officer.
19. According to the learned counsel for the
second accused, nothing was recovered from the conscious
possession of the second accused, since the second
accused had run away from the place of occurrence, as per
the prosecution case itself. However, the learned Special
Judge relied on the evidence of PW5, the mother of the first
accused, pertaining to a mobile phone alleged to be used by
the second accused, found in possession of the first
accused, to find a link between the first accused and the
second accused. The learned Special Judge also relied on
the statement of the first accused to find that the second
accused was the person who had run away on seeing the
excise party.
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
25
20. PW5 is the mother of accused No.2,
Sri.Ramachandran. She identified accused No.2,
Sri.Ramachandran, who was at the dock as her son. She
deposed that the excise official had reached her house on
enquiring Sri.Ramachandran and she had given information
about Ramachandran as required by the excise official. She
further stated that her husband died 7 years back and
Sri.Ramachandran had no contact with her after the demise
of her husband. PW5 deposed that though she had identified
the photograph of Ramachandran shown to her by the
excise, she did not give the photograph to the official. She
admitted her signature in Ext.P4 mahazar prepared by the
nd
excise official pertaining to the photograph of the 2
accused. She admitted that she had a mobile phone and was
taken by Ramachandran from her possession, when her
husband died and he did not return the same. During cross-
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
26
examination, she stated that she had no connection with
Ramachandran and she would not permit him to enter her
house. She further stated that Kottiyam Police regularly
visited her house on enquiring her son, Ramachandran, in
connection with a case. PW5 also deposed that when the
excise official prepared Ext.P4 at her house, she had
informed excise official that Ramachandran had not been
coming to her house after the death of her husband, who was
his father. She further deposed that her husband had
committed suicide. She denied the suggestion that the excise
official had taken the mobile phone from her house.
21. In addition to the above evidence, PW7
tendered Ext.P16 to prove the ownership of the mobile
phone. The RC particulars of the vehicle used for
commission of the crime, viz.,vehicle No.KL25 K 6221 was
furnished by PW8, the Jt.RTO, Punalur, and the same got
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
27
marked as Ext.P18. Going through the evidence tendered, it
could be gathered that Exts.P16 and P17 have been proved
through PW7. Ext.P16 shows that the phone number
7034156778 is registered in the name of Ramachandran R,
926, Radika Bhavan, 16, Thrikkovilvattom, Kollam. Ext.P16
reveals that regular calls were made to and received from
mobile phone No.7558952148, which is registered in the
name of Vasantha, Chirayil Veedu, Thrikkovilvattom, Kollam.
She is the mother of the second accused. Exts.P16 and P17
fully corroborated the confession statement of accused No.1
as per Ext.P10 and these evidence fully corroborated the oral
evidence of PW9, PW6, PW10 and PW5.
22. The contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the second accused that the second accused did
not commit the offence cannot be countenanced in view of
the above evidence. As regards the contention raised by the
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
28
learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 that
since the contraband in two packets were mixed together for
the purpose of taking samples and the same is a reason to
throw out the prosecution case as such, it is settled law that
taking samples after mixing the contraband, in any way,
would not prejudice the accused, the same is of no
consequence. In Sumit Tomar’ s case (supra) also, the Apex
Court while addressing the consequences of mixing of
contraband found in two bags, it was categorically held that
“ the contention that the police should have taken two
samples each from the two bags without mixing is liable to
be rejected”. Here is a case that the contraband seized in
two packets, weighed 1.85 kg each, and therefore, even
ignoring one among the packets weighing 1.85 kg, the other
item alone would suffice the quantity to hold the contraband
seized as intermediate quantity coming under Section 22 (b)
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
29
of the NDPS Act.
23. Thus, on re-appreciation of evidence, it is
held that the learned Special Judge has rightly found that the
accused persons had committed the offence punishable
under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and therefore, the
said conviction does not require interference.
24. Coming to the sentence, as per the report
submitted by the Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison and
Correctional Home, Poojappura, as on 09.10.2026, the
second accused had undergone substantive sentence of
imprisonment for three years nine months and elevan days in
this case viz., S.C.No.409/2016, as on 08.10.2026. It is also
reported that in another case, viz., SC No.15/2016, involving
offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, on the
files of the Special Court for NDPS Cases, Thodupuzha, he
had completed six years of sentence on 08.06.2023 and the
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
30
present sentence had began on 09.06.2023. The report
would also show that the second accused/second appellant
herein was convicted in SC No.1134/2018 on the files of the
Additional Sessions Court-II, Kollam, for five years finding
commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the
NDPS Act and the sentence in the said case yet to begin.
Whereas the first accused had undergone imprisonment only
for three months and 8 days, since he was released on bail,
as per order of this Court in Crl.M.A.No.3646/2018 dated
23.07.2018.
25. Here, in the present case, the second
accused, Sri.Ramachandran, had undergone sentence of
imprisonment for a period of three years, nine months and
eleven days as on 08.10.2026, after completing his six years
imprisonment in S.C.No.15/2016. It is relevant to note that he
was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment in
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
31
S.C.No.1134/2018 for a period of five years and the sentence
is yet to commence. The offence found to be committed in
the instant case is one punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B)
of the NDPS Act and the punishment provided under Section
20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is rigorous imprisonment for a
term which may extend to ten years and with fine which may
extend to Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus, no minimum sentence is
provided. Having noticed the above fact, I am inclined to
modify the sentence.
26. In the result, these appeals stand allowed
in part. The conviction imposed by the learned Special Judge
on the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 finding commission of
offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is
confirmed. The sentence is interfered and modified as under:
The appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 2 are
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of four years and to pay a fine of 50 ₹ ,000/-
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
32
(Rupees fifty thousand only) each, for the offence
punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS
Act. In default of payment of fine, the
appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall undergo
further imprisonment for a period of four months.
Set off, if any, is allowed.
27. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this
judgment to the Jail Superintendent concerned, insofar as
the second accused is concerned, for information. The
nd
release of the 2 accused shall be on expiry of the modified
sentence imposed by this Court and further subject to grant
of bail, if any, in S.C.No.1134/2018 on the files of the
Additional Sessions Court-II, Kollam, where five years
sentence remains to be undergone by the second accused,
and also on satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent that his
CNR : KLHC010088252018
2026:KER:85379
CRL.A Nos.814 and 960 of 2018
33
further detention in custody in another case/cases if not
required.
Insofar as the first accused is concerned, since he
had been granted bail by this Court by suspending sentence,
the said order and the bail bond stand cancelled. The first
accused is directed to surrender before the Special Court
Kollam to undergo the modified sentence forthwith, failing
which, the Special Judge is directed to execute the modified
sentence, without fail, in accordance with law.
Registry is further directed to forward a copy of this
judgment to the Special Court, forthwith for information and
compliance.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
nkr