Kerala High Court
Noufal K vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2026
CNR : KLHC010834202025
2026:KER:54568
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2026 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1948
CRL.A NO. 1882 OF 2025
CRIME NO.37/2019 OF Chittarikal Police Station, Kasargod
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.09.2025 IN SC NO.393 OF 2019 OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT - II, KASARAGOD
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1:
NOUFAL.K
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.MUSTHAFA C.H, KAKKADINNAKATH HOUSE, KUNNUMKAI,
BHEEMANADI VILLAGE, VELLARIKUNDU TALUK, KASARAGOD
DISTRICT., PIN - 671533
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAM ISAAC POTHIYIL
SMT.S.SURAJA
SHRI.MUHAMMED SUHAIR C.A
SMT.SINDURA SREENIVASAN
SMT.AKSHAYA N.K.
SMT.BINEETHA THOMAS
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJEEV.P.K
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.07.2026,
THE COURT ON 21.07.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 2 CNR : KLHC010834202025
2026:KER:54568
CR
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of July, 2026
Judgment in S.C.No.393/2019 on the files of the Special Court
under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for
short, ‘the NDPS Act‘ hereinafter) (Additional Sessions Court – II),
Kasaragod, is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the 1 st
accused in the above case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/1 st accused
and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the judgment
under challenge along with the records of the Special Court.
3. The prosecution case is that at 19.30 hrs. on 03.02.2019
at Poongod, Bheemanadi, on the Moukkod – Kadumeni Tar Road,
accused Nos.1 and 2 were found in conscious possession of 112
kilograms of ganja in an Innova car, bearing Reg. No.KL 60 L 6360,
while transporting the same. It is further alleged that the 3 rd accused
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 3 CNR : KLHC010834202025
had conspired with accused Nos.1 and 2 to purchase the ganja and
had financed its purchase by transferring ₹ 10,000/- on 29.01.2019
to the bank account of accused No.2 maintained at the Federal Bank,
Bheemanadi Branch, and ₹37,500/- on 30.01.2019 to the bank
account of accused No.2 maintained at the Federal Bank, Rajapuram
Branch, through CW23, Shereef P.K. Thus, the prosecution alleges
commission of offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 27A
and 29 of the NDPS Act, by the accused.
4. In this matter, the Special Court framed charge for the
above offences and proceeded with trial. During trial, PW1 to PW18
were examined, Exts.P1 to P48, and MO1 to Mo6 series were marked
on the side of the prosecution. DW1 and DW2 were examined and
Ext.D1 was marked on the side of the defence.
5. On an analysis of evidence, the learned Special Judge
found that the appellant/1st accused committed offence punishable
under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and he was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 4 CNR : KLHC010834202025
fine of ₹ 1 Lakh and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three months, while acquitting accused
Nos.2 and 3.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant/1 st accused raised
three legal questions while assailing the judgment. The first point
argued is that, in this case, there is non-compliance of Section 42 of
the NDPS Act. Secondly, it is submitted that there is no evidence to
show that the contraband seized on 03.02.2019 reached the court
without tampering. The delay in forwarding the contraband from the
court has also been pointed out to contend that there is no
convincing evidence to establish that the contraband allegedly seized
from the accused reached the hands of the scientific expert without
any tampering. Apart from that, the learned counsel also pointed out
non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
7. Strongly supporting the verdict impugned, the learned
Public Prosecutor would submit that in this case, the contention
raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/1 st accused that there
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 5 CNR : KLHC010834202025
was non-compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, is bereft of any
merits, as the evidence available as that of PW8, supported by
Ext.P13 report and Ext.P13(a) GD entry would convincingly show
compliance of Section 42. As regards the contention raised by the
learned counsel for the appellant/1 st accused that there is no
convincing evidence to establish that the contraband seized had
reached the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) without any
tampering, the said contention is also unsustainable, as the evidence
on record would show that the contraband had been produced before
the learned Magistrate on 04.02.2019 and, pursuant to the direction
issued by the learned Magistrate, it had been produced before the
Sessions Court on the following day. As far as non-compliance of
Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the learned Public Prosecutor would
point out that in this case, nothing recovered on search of the body of
the appellant/1st accused and therefore, the same has no application.
Accordingly, it is submitted that none of the contentions raised by
the learned counsel for the appellant/1st accused to assail the
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 6 CNR : KLHC010834202025
impugned judgment is legally sustainable and, therefore, the
impugned judgment is liable to be confirmed.
8. Adverting to the rival arguments, the points arise for
consideration are;
(i) Whether the contentions raised by the appellant/1st
accused regarding non-compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the
NDPS Act are sustainable?
(ii) Whether the Special Court was right in holding that
the appellant/1st accused committed offence punishable under
Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act?
(iii) Whether the verdict would require interference?
(iv) The order to be passed?
Point Nos.(i) to (iv)
9. In this case, PW8, the Sub Inspector of Police of
Chittarikkal Police Station detected the crime and according to him,
on 03.02.2019, when he was on patrol duty, the Sub Inspector of
Police attached to the District Anti-Narcotics Special Action Force
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 7 CNR : KLHC010834202025
telephoned him and informed that ganja was transporting in a car
near Kunnumkai area. Soon thereafter, he reached the police
station, recorded the information in the General Diary, and prepared
the report under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. It was through PW8
that Ext.P13 report prepared under Section 42 of the NDPS Act and
Ext.P13(a) relevant General Diary entry were marked in evidence.
According to him, soon thereafter, he had forwarded the report to the
Deputy Superintendent of Police and had also informed him over the
telephone. On obtaining permission, he, along with the Assistant Sub
Inspector Kumaran, SCPO Sunilkumar, and CPO Manoj, had
proceeded to the vicinity of the house of Riyas at Poongod and found
the vehicle, which was allegedly transporting ganja through the
Moukkod-Kadumeni Tar Road, coming from the direction of
Moukkod at about 20.00 hours at a high speed. Then, by using the
police station jeep, the car was blocked. Soon thereafter, the person
who was seated on the left front seat opened the door and ran away.
PW8 further deposed that he had enquired with the person who was
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 8 CNR : KLHC010834202025
in the driver’s seat regarding his identity, and he had disclosed his
name as Noufal K., S/o.Musthafa. When PW8 asked him why the
other person ran away, he did not give any reply. Thereafter, he had
opened the back door of the car bearing Reg.No.KL-60 L 6360 and
found packets wrapped in brown paper and he also felt severe smell
of ganja. He further deposed that, on being questioned, Noufal had
stated that the person who ran away was Roni Varghese, a resident of
Kalikkadavu. Thereafter, when PW8 had enquired whether Noufal
required the presence of a Gazetted Officer for conducting his body
search, Noufal had replied in the affirmative and had given the same
in writing. The said request had been marked as Ext.P4. Thereafter,
Sri.Biju Kumar was called and body search was conducted in the
presence of Appukkuttan K. and Anu P.V., the independent witnesses
and search list so prepared got marked as Ext.P15. He also deposed
that during body search of the accused, from the left pants pocket of
Noufal, ₹1140/-, Federal Bank ATM Card, Pan Card, Driving License,
Aadhar Card, Mobile phone, and one Wrist Watch were recovered.
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 9 CNR : KLHC010834202025
Thereafter, he had examined the packets found behind the left seat of
the driver and found 52 packets in the brown wrapper and found
smell of ganja and it was found that the same were ganja containing
leaves, fruits, and flowers. When Noufal was questioned as to
whether the ganja was being transported on the strength of any
documents, he disclosed that it had been transported from Andhra
Pradesh for the purpose of sale. Thereafter, he was informed of the
offence committed by him, and his arrest was recorded at 21.30
hours. Ext.P6 arrest memo and Ext.P7 inspection memo were
tendered in evidence through PW8. He also identified Exts.P1 to P4
and MO1 to MO4 (₹1140/-, Federal Bank ATM Card, Pan Card,
Driving License, Aadhar Card, Mobile phone, and one Wrist Watch).
According to him, thereafter, he had seized the ganja and the car
used for transporting the same and Ext.P18 seizure mahazar was
prepared and the same also tendered in evidence through PW8. In
this regard, he had forwarded report under Section 57 of the NDPS
Act and he identified the report as Ext.P21. Ext.P22 identified as the
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 10 CNR : KLHC010834202025
seizure mahazar prepared at the time of seizure of MOs and
according to him, Ext.P23, he had forwarded the items including
ganja to Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg. He also
deposed about filing of Ext.P24, application for preparation of
inventory and also identified the signature of the learned Magistrate
therein. He also deposed about the collection of 8 samples marked
as S1 to S8 from the contraband and he identified Ext.P24(a) as the
inventory prepared and signed by himself and the learned Magistrate
and also identified Ext.P24(b) as the certificate signed by the learned
Magistrate. According to him, the learned Magistrate instructed to
take only one sample and accordingly, one sample each were taken.
He also identified Ext.P25 series photographs taken during
preparation of inventory and Ext.P26 as the CD of the same
photographs. He identified the sample collected as S1 to S8 as MO6
series 8 in numbers. He also identified Noufal/the 1 st accused, who
was arrested by him on the date of detection at the dock. He also
identified the 2nd accused also.
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 11 CNR : KLHC010834202025
10. Since the evidence of PW2, the Senior Manager of Federal
Bank, Rajapuram Branch and PW3, the Bankman at Federal Bank,
Bheemanadi Branch, during the relevant period has no relevance as
far as the complicity of the appellant/1 st accused, the same need not
be discussed.
11. PW4, who was the Village Officer, Bheemanadi, during the
relevant period, deposed that, at the request of the police and on the
basis of the mahazar furnished by them, he had inspected the place
of occurrence and prepared Ext.P10 site plan. He further deposed
that, as per Ext.P10, the place of occurrence was situated at Poongod
in Bheemanadi Village and was marked as ‘Y’ and ‘X’ therein.
12. PW6, who was engaged in the vehicle business, deposed
that he had entrusted an Innova car bearing registration No. KL 60 L
6360 to Muhammed Saheer for sale. According to him, there was an
outstanding loan of ₹4½ lakhs with Mahindra Finance in respect of
the vehicle. He further deposed that Muhammed Saheer had asked
him whether the vehicle could be entrusted to Roni, to which he had
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 12 CNR : KLHC010834202025
consented. He stated that, on 28.01.2019, he had entrusted the
vehicle to Muhammed Saheer and had gone to Mumbai in the month
of February. He further deposed that Muhammed Saheer had later
telephoned him and informed him that the vehicle had been
intercepted with ganja. He also deposed that he did not know who
the purchaser of the vehicle was.
13. PW7, to whom the Innova vehicle bearing registration No.
KL 60 L 6360 had been entrusted, deposed that he had purchased
the said vehicle from Muhammed Saheer. He further deposed that
the vehicle had been entrusted to him on 28.01.2019. On the same
day, at about noon, Roni Varghese had telephoned him and
requested that the Innova vehicle be given to him. According to PW7,
Roni Varghese had stated that he required the vehicle for three days
and that, if he found it suitable, he would purchase it. PW7 further
deposed that the vehicle had been given to Roni Varghese on rent on
receipt of ₹6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand Only) towards rent and
that Roni Varghese had furnished his identity card. After three days,
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 13 CNR : KLHC010834202025
when PW7 contacted Roni Varghese and demanded the return of the
vehicle, Roni Varghese had requested that he be permitted to retain
the vehicle for two more days. PW7 further deposed that, one day
before the agreed date of return of the vehicle, he had come across a
news item in the WhatsApp group of his native place regarding the
seizure of ganja. On opening the message, he had found that 112
kilograms of ganja had been seized from vehicle No. KL 60 L 6360.
When he attempted to contact them over the phone, their phones
had been switched off. He identified accused No.2 as the said Roni
Varghese. He further deposed that Roni Varghese had called him at
about noon on 28.01.2019 and that he had instructed him to reach
the place by 4.00 p.m. However, Roni Varghese had reached only at
about 6.30 p.m. Since he had arrived late, the agreement had not
been executed, and therefore, PW7 had obtained the identity proof of
Roni Varghese. He further deposed that the said identity proof had
been marked as Ext.P12. According to him, at the request of the
police, he had produced the identity proof, which had been seized
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 14 CNR : KLHC010834202025
under Ext.P11 seizure mahazar, in which he had signed as a witness .
14. PW9, an attestor to Ext.P27 scene mahazar, deposed that,
on 04.02.2019, he had come to know that ganja had been seized. He
further deposed that, on 05.02.2019, at about 11.00 a.m., he had seen
the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Sub Inspector, and the
police party at Poongod, and that he had been informed that ganja
had been seized from the said place on the previous day. He further
deposed that he had signed Ext.P27 scene mahazar prepared by the
police. According to him, the place of occurrence was situated in
front of the house of Riyas and that his residence was located nearby.
15. PW11, an attestor to the seizure mahazar, deposed that, in
the second month of 2019 (he did not remember the exact date), at
about 8.00 p.m., when he reached Poongod, he had seen the Sub
Inspector of Police, Chittarikkal, along with three or four police
personnel. He further deposed that he had enquired about the
matter, called the Ward Member, and informed him that the police
had reached there. According to him, the Panchayat Member and he
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 15 CNR : KLHC010834202025
had reached the place of occurrence at about 8.30 p.m., near the
house of one Shamsudheen. He further deposed that he had asked
the Sub Inspector what the matter was. He had seen some material
objects in an Innova car and had also seen the police calling the
Excise party. Thereafter, the Excise officials had reached the place.
He further deposed that Noufal, who was inside the vehicle, and the
vehicle had been examined. According to him, Panchayat Member
Anu had been along with him. He further deposed that the
registration number of the vehicle was KL 60 63 with ‘L’ registration.
He had seen packets inside the Innova car. The Excise officials and
the police personnel had told him that the packets contained ganja.
He further deposed that the body search of Noufal had been
conducted. There were 52 packets. A purse containing ₹1,140/-, a
Bank ATM Card, PAN Card, Aadhaar Card, and Driving Licence had
been found in the possession of Noufal. He further deposed that, as
told by the police, 2 kilograms each were found in the 52 packets.
They had been kept in seven plastic covers and seized. He also
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 16 CNR : KLHC010834202025
deposed that, in each packet, there were 15 kilograms each. He
further deposed that he and Anu had signed Ext.P18 seizure mahazar
prepared at the place of occurrence. He had signed Ext.P16 at the
time of the arrest of the accused. He further deposed that he had
signed on the material objects also. He identified accused No.1 as the
person arrested from the place of occurrence. During re-
examination, he identified Exts.P2 and P3 as the documents seized
from the possession of accused No.1. He also identified MOs.1 to 3 as
the material objects seized from the place of occurrence.
16. PW13, who was the Sub Inspector of Police attached to the
Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanhangad, deposed
that he had taken the first accused, Noufal, who was in police
custody, along with the Inspector of Police, Nileshwar, to Andhra
Pradesh for investigation. He further deposed that at about 9.00
a.m., on 17.02.2019, the 1st accused Noufal had shown them a place at
Annavara, Godavari Village, from where, according to him, one
Kabareesh had supplied ganja. He further deposed that an
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 17 CNR : KLHC010834202025
observation mahazar had been prepared there. According to him, at
about 11.00 a.m., as led by accused Noufal, they had reached
Sreedevi Lodge, where Noufal had informed them that he had stayed
in Room No.303 on 30.01.2019 in the name of one Suresh. He
further deposed that the relevant records had been seized under a
seizure mahazar. He further deposed that, on 11.03.2019, he had
been present when the Manager of Federal Bank, Rajapuram Branch,
had produced the receipt relating to the remittance of ₹37,500/-
(Rupees Thirty-seven Thousand Five Hundred Only) made by
Shereef P.K., and that he had signed Ext.P7 seizure mahazar under
which the receipt had been seized. He further deposed that, on
15.03.2019, as instructed by the Investigating Officer, he had seized
two vouchers relating to the remittance of ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand Only) and ₹7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Only) in the
names of accused Nos.2 and 1, respectively, which had been
produced by the Bank Manager under Ext.P9 seizure mahazar. He
further deposed that he had also visited the Federal Bank,
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 18 CNR : KLHC010834202025
Rajapuram Branch, and had viewed the CD produced by the Senior
Manager by playing it on a computer. According to him, the CD
showed a young man remitting the amount. He further deposed that
the CD had been seized under Ext.P29 seizure mahazar. The sealed
cover containing the CD was opened in open court, and the CD was
marked as Ext.P13, subject to the objection raised by the learned
counsel for the defence that no certificate under Section 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act accompanied the same. At the time of hearing,
the admissibility of Ext.P13 was considered, and it was found that
Ext.P13 had been marked without a certificate under Section 65B of
the Indian Evidence Act and, therefore, was not admissible in
evidence.
17. PW14, who was the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Kanhangad, during the relevant period, deposed that he had assisted
in the investigation of the case. He further deposed that at about
12.45 hrs. on 01.08.2019, the Deputy Superintendent of Police had
arrested accused No.3 in the case and that he had signed Ext.P31
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 19 CNR : KLHC010834202025
arrest memo prepared in connection therewith. He further deposed
that he could identify the accused.
18. PW15, who was working in the office of the Sub Regional
Transport Officer during the relevant period, deposed that he had
inspected the Toyota Innova car bearing registration No. KL 60 L
6360 pursuant to the request made by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Kanhangad. He further deposed that the colour of the car was
silky silver, whereas, as per the RC records, the colour of the vehicle
was superior white. According to him, the chassis number and engine
number tallied with the RC records. He further deposed that sun
films had been pasted on the left and right side window glasses of the
vehicle as well as on the rear glass. Ext.P13 was the certificate issued
by him. He further deposed that changing the colour of the vehicle
without permission constituted a violation under the Motor Vehicles
Act and that affixture of sun films was also a violation. According to
him, one could not see inside the vehicle. He further deposed that
Manoj S., the Regional Transport Officer, was his superior officer
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 20 CNR : KLHC010834202025
and that he could identify the signature of Manoj. He identified
Ext.P33 as the RC particulars issued by the Regional Transport
Officer, Manoj. According to Ext.P33, the registered owner of the
vehicle was Basheer M., S/o K.A. Muhammed, Fathima Manzil,
Koippady, Kumbla, and the colour of the vehicle was shown as
superior white. He further deposed that PW16, PW17, and PW18
were the Investigating Officers.
19. Here, despite the production of Ext.P13 report prepared
under Section 42 of the NDPS Act and Ext.P13(a) General Diary
entry evidencing the information received by the Detecting Officer,
the learned counsel for the appellant/1st accused contended that
there was non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act.
According to the learned counsel, though the Sub Inspector of Police
attached to the District Anti-Narcotics Special Action Force was the
first person to receive the information, he had neither recorded the
same anywhere nor reported it, in any manner and therefore, the
Sub Inspector of Police attached to the District Anti-Narcotics
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 21 CNR : KLHC010834202025
Special Action Force failed to comply Section 42 of the NDPS Act.
20. In this context, it is relevant to refer to Section 42 of the
NDPS Act, which reads as follows:
42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest
without warrant or authorisation
(1) Any such officer (being an officer superior in
rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) to the
departments of central excise, narcotics, customs,
revenue intelligence or any other department of the
Central Government including para-military forces
or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by
general or special order by the Central Government,
or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank
to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs
control, excise, police or any other department of a
State Government as is empowered in this behalf by
general or special order of the State Government, if
he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or
information given by any person and taken down in
writing that any Narcotic Drug, or Psychotropic
Substance, or controlled substance in respect of which
an offence punishable under this Act has been
committed or any document or other article which
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 22 CNR : KLHC010834202025may furnish evidence of the commission of such
offence or any illegally acquired property or any
document or other article which may furnish
evidence of holding any illegally acquired property
which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture
under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in
any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may
between sunrise and sunset-
(a) enter into and search any such
building, conveyance or place;
(b) in case of resistance, break open any
door and remove any obstacle to such
entry;
(c) seize such drug or substance and all
materials used in the manufacture thereof
and any other article and any animal or
conveyance which he has reason to believe
to be liable to confiscation under this Act
and any document or other article which
he has reason to believe may furnish
evidence of the commission of any offence
punishable under this Act or furnish
evidence of holding any illegally acquired
property which is liable for seizure or
freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of
this Act; and
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 23 CNR : KLHC010834202025
(d) detain and search, and, if he thinks
proper, arrest any person whom he has
reason to believe to have committed any
offence punishable under this Act:
PROVIDED that in respect of holder of a licence
for manufacture of manufactured drugs or
psychotropic substances or controlled substances
granted under this Act or any rule or order made
thereunder, such power shall be exercised by an
officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector:
PROVIDED FURTHER that if such officer has
reason to believe that a search warrant or
authorisation cannot be obtained without affording
opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility
for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search
such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any
time between sunset and sunrise after recording the
grounds of his belief.
(2) Where an officer takes down any
information in writing under sub-section (1) or
records grounds for his belief under the proviso
thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy
thereof to his immediate official superior.
21. A thorough scrutiny of the statutory wordings under
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 24 CNR : KLHC010834202025
Section 42 of the NDPS Act would indicate that any officer referred
to in Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act when intends to exercise the
procedure laid down in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Section 42(1) of
the NDPS Act shall take down in writing the information given by
any person or the source of the personal knowledge before
proceeding to exercise the procedure laid down in clauses (a), (b), (c)
and (d) of Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act. Similarly, when an officer
takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) as dealt
hereinabove shall within seventy-two hours send a copy of the
written information to his immediate superior. If so, every officer
dealt in Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act, if they are not intended to
follow the procedure in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (1)
of Section 42 of the NDPS Act need not take down in writing the
information either from his personal knowledge or given by any
other person. At the same time, it is mandatory for the officer, who
intends to follow the procedure stated in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d)
of Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act. To put it differently, if an
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 25 CNR : KLHC010834202025
information is received by an officer, who comes within the purview
of Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act, such officer, merely because he is
an officer referred to under Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act, need not
record the same in writing if he simply forwards the information to
another officer and does not opt to follow the procedure laid down in
clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 42 of the
NDPS Act. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel
for the appellant/1st accused in the instant case that the Sub
Inspector of Police attached to the District Anti-Narcotics Special
Action Force failed to comply Section 42 of the NDPS Act, found to
be unsustainable and therefore, the said contention must fail.
Otherwise, PW8, the officer, who followed the procedure in clauses
(a), (b), (c) and (d) of Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act, complied the
mandate of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, as per his evidence dealt in
detail.
22. Coming to the contention raised by the learned counsel for
the appellant/1st accused regarding tamper-proof production of a
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 26 CNR : KLHC010834202025
contraband before the court and tamper-proof production of the
same before the Forensic Science Laboratory, it could be seen that
the contraband was intended to be produced before the Sessions
Court (Special Court under the NDPS Act). It is true that initially, the
same was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-
I, Hosdurg, for the purpose of making first remand of the accused on
04.02.2019, even though the thondy list was addressed to the
Sessions Court, Kasaragod. As per the entry made by the learned
Magistrate, the property was ordered to be produced before the
Sessions Court by the learned Magistrate and on 06.02.2019 and on
the same day, the Sheristadar received the same. According to the
learned counsel for the appellant/1 st accused, the prosecution failed
to adduce evidence to find out, who produced the contraband taken
from the Magistrate Court to the Sessions Court. In fact, the
evidence of PW8 would show that he had produced the contraband
before the court. The evidence given by PW8 during his re-
examination by the learned Public Prosecutor is that the contraband
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 27 CNR : KLHC010834202025
and the material objects (MOs) produced before the court were not
seen by him thereafter. Based on this evidence, it is contended by
the learned counsel for the appellant/1st accused that there is no
evidence to show production of the contraband from the Magistrate
Court to the Sessions Court. In fact, PW8 was not cross-examined in
this regard and his evidence regarding production of the contraband
before the court during chief examination would remain as un-
challenged. Therefore, this contention cannot be appreciated. As per
the forwarding letter, it is decipherable that the sample collected
from the contraband was forwarded to the Forensic Science
Laboratory.
23. In this regard, it is relevant to refer Ext.C1 Chemical
Analysis Report. It is true that as per Ext.C1, the samples reached the
Forensic Science Laboratory on 01.04.2019. In the report, it is
specifically stated that “One sealed brown paper parcel, seals tallied
with the seal impression given in the forwarding note and the seals
were intact” was the received item. This would show that the sample
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 28 CNR : KLHC010834202025
of the contraband seized from the appellant/1 st accused reached the
Forensic Science Laboratory in a tamper-proof condition and on
examination of the same, the expert opined that the material objects
in Item Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 are ganja, supporting the
prosecution case. Therefore, this contention raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant/1st accused also would necessarily fail.
24. It is relevant to note that the learned counsel for the
appellant/1st accused submitted that Section 50 of the NDPS Act also
not complied. In fact, this submission appears to be too childish and
has no legs to stand. This aspect seems to have been advanced as the
leared counsel for the appellant/1 st accused could not find any
sustainable contentions to upset the verdict impugned. Going by the
evidence of PW8, it is perceptible that before body search of the
appellant/1st accused, the appellant/1st accused given Ext.P4
intimation to opt his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or
a Magistrate and accordingly, PW8 called Sri.Biju Kumar, the Range
Excise Inspector, Hosdurg, and body search was conducted in his
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 29 CNR : KLHC010834202025
presence, though no contraband recovered. In fact, in the instant
case, Exts.P4 intimation and P15 search list signed by the Gazetted
Officer would show that body search was conducted in the presence
of the Gazetted Officer in tune with the mandate of Section 50 of the
NDPS Act. Even otherwise, since no contraband recovered from
body search and the contraband was recovered from the Innova car,
non-compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, is of no consequence.
Therefore, this contention also must fail.
25. Thus, on re-appreciation of evidence, it is held that the
learned Special Judge is the right in finding that the appellant/1 st
accused committed offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of
the NDPS Act. Therefore, the conviction does not require any
interference.
26. Coming to the sentence, the sentence imposed by the learned
Special Judge is the least minimum possible. In this connection, it is
relevant to note that the appellant/1st accused is a person having
involvement in six more crimes, out of which, five crimes are under the
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 30 CNR : KLHC010834202025
NDPS Act. The list of crimes are as under:
1) Hosdurg PS Cr. No. 1115/21 u/s 22(a) NDPS Act.
2) Hosdurg PS Cr. No. 574/21 u/s 27(b) NDPS Act.
3) Hosdurg PS Cr. No. 676/23 u/s 22(a) NDPS Act.
4) Hosdurg PS Cr. No. 850/23 u/s 22(b) NDPS Act.
5) Bekal PS Cr. No. 527/2025 u/s 27(a) of NDPS Act.
6) Konaje PS Cr. No. 37/24 u/s 3(5) BNS & 3(1), 25(1)(B)
of Arms Act (Karnataka State)
In view of the above, the sentence also could not be interfered with.
In the result, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The
conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge are
confirmed.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Special
Court, forthwith, for information.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
Bb
CRL.A.NO.1882 OF 2025 31 CNR : KLHC010834202025
APPENDIX OF CRL.A NO.1882 OF 2025
APPELLANT’S ANNEXURES
Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
DR.ZUBIN ADLRAJA ABOOBAKER, SENIOR
RESIDENT, GENERAL SURGERY, YENEPOYA
MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, MANGALORE, DATED
22.09.2025
Annexure B THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL DOCUMENTS OF
THE PETITIONER FROM 2023 ONWARDS
Annexure C THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
02.02.2026
Annexure D THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
11.03.2026
Annexure E THE TRUE COPY OF THE CRL.M.A.2/2026
RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURES : NIL
