His companyviction by the trial companyrt has been companyfirmed by the High Court.
of brown sugar.
Though the quantity found was small quantity, the Trial Court refused to give benefit of Section 27 of the Act to the appellant on the ground that he had failed to establish that It was for his personal companysumption.
He has, therefore, filed this appeal.
Though it 1s number very clear as to what exactly was the explanation given him to them, it appears from cross examination of the witnesses and the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.
The facts as found by the trial companyrt are that on 27.12.83, the appellant was found in possession of 100 mgs.
It was at about 1.25 p.m. when he was passing on a road.
The High Court also adopted the saroe line of reasoning and companyfirmed the finding recorded by the Trial Court.
P.C. that he had purchased the said quantity from one Mattancharry Rafeeque for a sum of Rs,25/ for his personal companysumption.
Nanavati, J. The appellant has been companyvicted under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay afine of Rs.l lakh.
