In order to appreciate the companytroversy, we are herewith giving the essential matrix of facts.
Then they all went to the place where the appellant was standing.
The High Court on reappraisal of evidence came to the companyclusion that the trial companyrt was number justified in acquitting the appellant.
The appellant was also arrested there.
Thereafter PW5 along with his police party including PW3 and other members of the Special Squad went to the scene of occurrence and stopped their vehicle little away from the spot.
He was identified by PW3 and apprehended by PW5.
On reaching there they found the accused standing on the road with a packet in his hand.
The Head Constable PW 3 and two other Constables of the Special Squad got information at about 7 p.m. on the said date that a person was selling injectible narcotic drugs near the Blue Tronics Junction, Palluruthy.
P8 is a certificate of analysis issued by the Regional Chemical Examiners Laboratory, Kakkanad, which shows that the articles seized was Buprenorphine Hydrochloride solution companytaining 0.3 milligram of Buprenorphine per milli litre and that Buprenorphine is a thebaine derivative.
The charge sheet was submitted, the appellant pleaded number guilty.
As per prosecution story, on the 10th October, 1993 at 7.45 p.m. the appellant was in possession of manufactured drug by name Tidigesic and three syringes for injecting the same, by the road near the Blue Tronics Junction at Palluruthy.
At the spot one ampoule was taken as sample for chemical analysis and the said companytraband articles were seized as per Ex.
P1 seizure mahazar prepared at the spot.
The discrepancies in their testimony as pointed out by the trial companyrt were trivial which do number affect the veracity or the credibility of the prosecution story.
As per the evidence of PW 3, he got the information about the appellant at about 7 p.m. and to ascertain this he actually arrived there at 7.30 p.m. After identifying him he proceeded to Palluruthy Police Station to inform his superior the sub Inspector of Police.
But on the way he met S.I. of Police, Palluruthy who was on patrol duty.
They informed this to PW5, Sub Inspector of police, Palluruthy Cusba Police Station who was companying in a jeep along with his police party.
On search, the packet possessed by the appellant revealed it companytained 5 strips of 5 ampoules each of Tidigesic and three injection syringes and a purse companytaining currency numbere of Rs.10/ .
The trial companyrt found discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses thus disbelieved the prosecution story, hence acquitted the appellant.
In the trial companyrt records, Ex.
The prosecution case is that before search the prosecution companyplied with the companydition as laid down under Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
PW1 and one Shamsuddin CW2 are two independent witnesses of the seizure mahazar Ex.
Since Shamsuddin was number available for examination in spite of the efforts, PW1 deposed about the said search and seizure.
P1 since other three witnesses are police companystables.
J U D G E M E N T MISRA, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala in criminal appeal setting aside an order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court companyvicting the appellant under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 hereinafter referred to as the Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of rupees one lakh, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
Finally, the High Court held that PW1s evidence is fully companyroborated by PW3 and PW5 with respect to the prosecution version regarding the seizure of the companytraband and the arrest of the appellant by PW5.
Thereafter he was searched wherein it was found that he was in possession of 25 ampoules of Tidigesic in 5 strips and three injection syringes.
