Case Title:
Sasi Vs. State of Kerala
Date:
21st August 2001
Bench:
Justice J Koshy
Justice K M Shafi
Subject
An appeal was filed by the appellant aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court against the seizure of brown sugar.
Important Provisions
Section 21 of the NDPS Act-Punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations.
Section 52 of the NDPS Act - Disposal of persons arrested and articles seized.
Section 55 of the NDPS Act - Police to take charge of articles seized and delivered.
Overview
- On 08/02/1997 the Additional Sub-Inspector of Kasba Police Station received an information that Auto driver Sasi (accused) was engaged in the sale of brown sugar near Kalluthan Kadavu Colony.
- Sasi was stopped by the SI and told that he was suspected for selling brown sugar and that he will have to be searched.
- The accused was informed of his right to be searched by a magistrate or gazetted officer and the same was communicated through writing.
- The accused declined to be searched by a magistrate of gazetted officer and consented to be searched by the police and communicated the same through writing.
- On search, the accused was found with gilt papers and 2 grams of brown sugar. The accused was arrested.
- The crime was registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act.
Issues raised
- Whether Section 55 of the NDPS Act was mandatory?
Advancements made by the appellants
- The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the brown sugar along with the packets were found and weighed together. Therefore, the actual weight was unknown.
- The brown sugar seized was below 250 ml. gms. Or less thereby he was entitled to the benefit of Section 27 of the NDPS Act.
- The SI had power to seize materials under Section 42 of the NDPS Act but had not power to keep it with him. The materials seized were kept with him till it was produced in the court. Therefore, it was a violation of Section 52 and 55 of the NDPS Act.
Judgment Analysis
- The Court observed that the FIR showed that the accused and the seized materials were brought to station and entrusted it with the Circle Inspector of Police and the case was registered the same day. Therefore, there was no violation of Section 52 of the NDPS Act.
- In the case of Joseph Vs. State of Kerala (1995 (1) KLT 454) it was stated that under Section 55 of the NDPS Act, the officer in charge of a police station shall allow any officer who accompanied him to affix the seal.
- In the case of Paul Kuki Vs. State of West Bengal ((1993) 3 Crimes 660 (Cal) (DB)) it was stated that the provisions of Section 55 of the NDPS Act was merely directory and not mandatory. The accused as well as the seized materials were produced at the police station immediately after seizure, the crime was registered on the same day, therefore no prejudice to the accused was caused.
- There was no delay and violation of Section 52 and Section 55 of the NDPS Act.
- The evidence adduced clearly showed that the materials were seized from the accused in the presence of two independent witness. The accused had himself given consent in the form writing stating that he can be searched by the police and not in the presence of a magistrate or a gazetted officer.
Conclusion
The Court concluded by stating that there was no ground modify the conviction and sentence passed by the lower court. Therefore, the criminal appeal was dismissed.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
To learn more about NDPS Act, Click Here.
