Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member Services -- Sign up today and get free trial for one month.
Kerala High Court
Muhammed Mubashir V. P vs State Of Kerala on 20 May, 2024
Author: Mary Joseph
Bench: Mary Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
CRL.A NO. 586 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.08.2021 IN SC (NDPS) NO.134 OF
2019 OF SPECIAL COURT (NDPS ACT CASES), VATAKARA
CRIME NO.409/2019 OF Kozhikode Town Police Station, Kozhikode
APPELLANT:
MUHAMMED MUBASHIR V. P.,
AGED 25 YEARS,
S/O. MUHAMMED MUNDOLIPPARAMBA (H), WEST MANKAVU,
MANKAVU P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 007.
BY ADVS.
BALU TOM
BONNY BENNY
BEJOY JOSEPH P.J.
VISHNU NARAYANAN
JINSAB M.P(K/001332/2020)
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTING SHO, KOZHIKODE TOWN POLICE STATION,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 001
IN CRIME NO.409/2019.
RENJITH GEORGE (SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
08.07.2022 AND THE COURT ON 20.05.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.A. No.586 of 2021
-:2:-
MARY JOSEPH, J.
-----------------------
Crl.A. No. 586 of 2021
-----------------------
Dated this the 20th day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
The above appeal is originated from a judgment passed by Special Judge (NDPS Act cases), Vatakara (for short, 'the trial court') on 17.08.2021 in S.C. (NDPS) No.134/2019. The sole accused in the above case was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (For short, 'the N.D.P.S Act') and was convicted and sentenced.
2. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) for the offence under Section 22 (c) of the NDPS Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month in default of payment of fine. The accused was also sentenced to undergo rigorous Crl.A. No.586 of 2021 -:3:- imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act. The substantive sentences of imprisonment are ordered to run concurrently.
3. Aggrieved by the judgment, the accused has approached this Court in the appeal on hand.
4. It was contended by Sri.Balu Tom, the learned counsel for the accused that as per the prosecution case, the weight of LSD stamps recovered from the accused is 0.150 mg but in Ext.P10, the Chemical Examiner has noted it's weight as 181.10 mg. According to him, the prosecution failed to establish safe custody of the contraband after seizure till it's production before the court as well as before the Chemical Examiner and in the context where the quantum is stated differently, chances of tampering cannot be ruled out. According to him, the trial court failed to appreciate the evidence in the above backdrop and had it been done, it ought not have arrived at a finding of guilt of the accused, for the offence charged against him and convicted and sentenced him. According to him, the prosecution case is also defeated for non- Crl.A. No.586 of 2021 -:4:- compliance of Sections 50 and 57 of the NDPS Act. According to him, PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 12 were examined to prove that the actual weight of LSD stamps is only 0.150 mg and that its weight is wrongly shown in various documents marked in evidence and relied on by the prosecution as Ext.P1 (seizure mahazar), Ext.P4 (FIR), Ext.P6 (inventory) and Ext.P7 (the mahazar prepared while drawing sample from the contraband). According to him, the sample of the contraband was examined by the Chemical Examiner and in the certificate issued and marked in evidence as Ext.P10, the weight of LSD stamps was shown as 181.10 mg. According to him, the weight of the contraband shown in Ext.P6 inventory which forms primary evidence being 0.150mg, that itself is sufficient to treat the prosecution case as one foisted against the accused.
5. The prosecution examined the Magistrate who verified the correctness of the contraband with the inventory and certified it, as PW12. According to him, the ganja and the LSD stamps seized from the accused were produced before him alongwith an inventory prepared and marked as Ext.P6. Crl.A. No.586 of 2021 -:5:- According to him, the LSD stamps were reported in Ext.P6 as having a weight of 0.150 mg. He would also say that the weight of LSD stamps seven in numbers would never be 0.150 mg. According to him, the trial court has drawn a conclusion from the above version of PW12 that the difference in the weight shown was only an arithmetical error. According to the learned counsel, the safe custody of the contraband till it's production before the court as well as before the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory was not proved by the prosecution and therefore, it cannot say with precision that the contraband was not tampered or altered at any point of time. Therefore, he urged for grant of that benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. The learned counsel contended further that independent witnesses examined by the prosecution as PWs 9 and 10 also turned hostile to the prosecution by deposing against and thereby the prosecution case also lost independent support.
6. The learned counsel urged vehemently on non- compliance of the mandatory directions under Sections 50 and Crl.A. No.586 of 2021 -:6:- 57 of NDPS Act and canvassed for a reversal of the finding of guilt of the accused on that basis.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the arguments advanced as above and contended that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was truly appreciated by the trial court and arrived at a finding of guilt of the accused. He canvassed for maintaining the finding of guilt of the accused for the offences as well as the orders of conviction and sentence, passed against the accused.
8. As per the case of the prosecution, at about 2.40 p.m on 26.06.2019, one person was found by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kozhikode and his party, engaged in vehicle checking in south beach, Kozhikode, proceeding in a scooter. Though they signaled to stop the scooter, he proceeded ahead ignoring that. He was intercepted at the next traffic signal and detained. The shoulder bag carried by him was examined and some packets were recovered by the Sub Inspector therefrom. The packets were opened and examined and the contents, identified as ganja and LSD stamps, seven in numbers. An electronic Crl.A. No.586 of 2021 -:7:- weighing machine was brought by a gold appraiser to the spot on the request of the Sub Inspector and the contraband was weighed from a 'thattukada' situated nearby. The ganja weighed 130 gram and LSD stamps, 0.150 mg. Those were seized and the accused was arrested after duly complying with the formalities of arrest. A crime was also registered against him at the Police Station alleging commission of offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act.
9. The accused was produced before the court and remanded to judicial custody. The contraband was also produced before the court alongwith an inventory prepared by the investigating officer. Two samples of 65 mg were drawn from the contraband by a Civil Police Officer in the presence of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kozhikode (for short, 'the Magistrate') . The samples drawn from the ganja were packed separately and seals of the Station House Officer as well as the Magistrate court were affixed on the packets. Marking as S1 and S2 were also made on it. LSD stamps, seven in numbers Crl.A. No.586 of 2021 -:8:- were also packed together and sealed in similar manner and marking was made as S3.
10. The correctness of the contraband was ascertained through the Magistrate and certified. The samples drawn from the ganja and the LSD stamps as such were forwarded to the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory for analysis and a certificate was obtained confirming the samples forwarded as ganja and the stamps as LSD.
11. Investigation was conducted and on completion, a final report was laid chargesheeting the accused for the offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) and 22(c) NDPS Act and the trial court took cognizance of that. The presence of the accused was procured from judicial custody. After holding a preliminary hearing, charge was framed against the accused under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act. It was read over and explained, but he pleaded not guilty and faced trial.
12. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 12 were examined and Exts.P1 to P18 were marked. MOs 1 to 7 and 7(a) were also identified. On completion of the prosecution Crl.A. No.586 of 2021 -:9:- evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances brought against him in evidence by the prosecution. He denied all those and took a stand that he was falsely implicated. Grounds having not been made out to record an order of acquittal of the accused, he was asked to enter on his defence, but he failed to adduce any evidence.
13. The Sub Inspector of Police of Town Police Station, Kozhikode was examined as PW1. He deposed categorically that ganja and LSD stamps, seven in numbers were recovered from the shoulder bag carried by the accused. According to him, those were weighed by an electronic weighing machine procured to the scene through a gold appraiser. According to him, the contrabands were weighed at a 'thattukada' situated in Kozhikode beach. Though he deposed categorically about the recovery of seven LSD stamps, it was spoken as weighed 0.150 mg. PW1 also deposed in corroboration with that of PW2. PW3 and PW4 also deposed to the extent of their involvement in the process of detection, seizure and other formalities. PW12 the Crl.A. No.586 of 2021 -:10:- Magistrate, who witnessed the drawal of samples from the ganja deposed that two samples each of 65 mg were drawn from the ganja and packed and seven numbers of LSD stamps as such were also packed. Though he had spoken about the weight of the LSD stamps as 0.150 mg, he expressed doubt on it and stated that the weight would be more than that.
14. Two independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution as PWs 9 and 10. They deposed to have no involvement in the process of search and seizure. They deposed as if the seizure of the contraband was not witnessed by them. They only went to the extent of stating that the contraband was seen by them in the Police Jeep.
15. According to PW10, the accused was found by him sitting inside the Police Jeep at the relevant time. Though they turned hostile to the prosecution case of seizure of the contraband from the accused, they admitted their presence at the spot on the relevant day and time. They also deposed to have seen the accused at the spot at the relevant time. Each of them also admitted to have authored signatures in the seizure Crl.A. No.586 of 2021 -:11:- mahazar, which according to PWs 1 and 2, prepared from the spot, contemporaneous to the performance of various formalities associated with search, seizure, packing and sealing of the contraband and arrest of the accused by a team of officers led by PW1. Each of them also deposed as if he had witnessed the affixture of signature by the other in the seizure mahazar from the spot of seizure of the contraband. Therefore, the versions of PWs 9 and 10 to that extent being supportive, can be relied on by the prosecution.
16. The Chemical Examiner who examined and analysed the samples of the contraband has issued a certificate, marked in evidence as Ext.P10. Ext.P10 is admissible in evidence without examining it's signatory. Even then, the prosecution examined the Chemical Examiner during trial as PW5. The weight of the LSD stamps at the time when it was received by the Chemical Examiner at the Laboratory was reported in Ext.P10 as 181.10 mg. Three packets where marking was given as S1, S2 and S3 were also spoken as received by him Crl.A. No.586 of 2021 -:12:- and those after analysis was certified by him respectively as ganja and LSD stamps.
17. It appears from the above discussion of the oral evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses that they were very much convinced when they spoke that the LSD stamps seized from the accused are seven in numbers. Therefore, the question of utmost relevance in the context on hand is whether the accused is prejudiced by the difference in the weight of LSD stamps noted in various documents relied on by the prosecution.
18. As per the prosecution case itself, seven numbers of LSD stamps were seized from the possession of the accused on 26.06.2019. It is their specific case that seven numbers of LSD stamps after it's seizure from the accused were also produced before the Magistrate. The Magistrate has verified the correctness of the contraband produced before it with the inventory furnished to him and certified the number of LSD stamps as seven and the quantity of ganja as 130gm. Therefore, the prosecution has a consistent version with respect Crl.A. No.586 of 2021 -:13:- to the quantity of ganja seized. The only inconsistency brought to notice was regarding the weight of LSD stamps. As already stated, samples were not drawn from the LSD stamps, seized from the accused and the stamps as a whole was forwarded to the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory for analysis. PW5, the Chemical Examiner also admitted to have received a packet with marking S3, containing seven numbers of LSD stamps. Therefore, with regard to recovery of seven numbers of LSD stamps, from the accused, the evidence of the prosecution is static and clear. During his examination under Section 313(1)
(b) Cr.P.C, the accused took a stand of total denial of seizure of the contraband from him and his false implication in the case. With regard to the number of LSD stamps seized from the possession of the accused, the documentary evidence relied on by the prosecution is also consistent. Therefore, the prosecution case that seven numbers of LSD have been seized from the accused on 26.06.2019 was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Crl.A. No.586 of 2021-:14:-
19. True that an error has been crept in while reporting the weight of LSD stamps. It was shown differently in the various documents relied on by the prosecution. The accused was chargesheeted by the police after holding investigation into an accusation of being in unauthorized possession of ganja and seven numbers of LSD stamps. Charge was also framed by the trial court against him for unauthorized possession of 130 gms of ganja and seven numbers of LSD stamps. Witnesses of the prosecution have also consistently spoken about the weight of ganja and the number of LSD stamps seized from the accused.
20. The version of PW2 was also that LSD stamps seven in numbers have been recovered by him and forwarded to the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory for analysis. According to him, the analysis reveals to him that the seven stamps together weigh 181.10 mg. The Chemical Examiner, has also reported in Ext.P10 that LSD stamps weighed 181.10 mg.
21. As PW5, the Chemical Examiner also deposed that LSD stamps weighed 181.10 mg. The learned counsel Crl.A. No.586 of 2021 -:15:- contended in the backdrop of difference in weight of LSD stamps that it was not the quantity seized from the accused that reached before the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory.
22. It has been held by the Apex Court in E.Micheal Raj Vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau [(2008) 5 SCC 161] that when any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is found mixed with one or more neutral substance/s, for the purpose of imposition of punishment, the actual content of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance shall be taken into consideration by the accused. A question was referred to the larger bench of the Apex Court for consideration whether quantity of neutral substance (s) was to be taken into consideration with the actual content of the contraband, while determining small or commercial quantity in relation to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances in mixture with one or more neutral substance(s), in Hira Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others [AIR 2020 SC 3255], the court answered the reference by holding that an interpretation of the relevant provisions of the statute canvassed on behalf of the Crl.A. No.586 of 2021 -:16:- accused and the intervener that quantity of neutral substance
(s) was not to be taken into consideration and it was only the actual content of the weight of the offending drug, which is relevant for the purpose of determining whether it would constitute small quantity or commercial quantity, could not be accepted.
23. The Apex Court while answering the point in the affirmative observed:-
" The problem of drug addicts was international and the mafia is working throughout the world. It was a crime against the society and it had to be dealt with iron hands. Use of drugs by the young people in India had increased. The drugs were being used for weakening of the nation. During the British regime control was kept on the traffic of dangerous drugs by enforcing the Opium Act, 1857. The Opium Act, 1875 and the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930. However, with the passage of time and the development in the field of illicit drug traffic and during abuse at national and international level, many deficiencies in the existing laws have come to notice. Therefore, in order to remove such deficiencies and difficulties, there was urgent need for the enactment of a comprehensive legislation on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, which led to enactment of NDPS Act. The Act was a special law Crl.A. No.586 of 2021 -:17:- and had a laudable purpose to serve and was intended to combat the menace otherwise bent upon destroying the public health and national health. The guilty must be in and the innocent ones must be out. The punishment part in drug trafficking was an important one but its preventive part is more important. Therefore, prevention of illicit traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 came to be introduced. The aim was to prevent illicit traffic rather than punish after the offence was committed. Therefore, the Courts will have to safeguard the life and liberty of the innocent persons. Therefore, the provisions of NDPS Act were required to be interpreted keeping in mind the object and purpose of NDPS Act impact on the society as a whole and the Act was required to be interpreted literally and not liberally which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and preamble of the Act."
24. The court further observed:-
" It was required to be noted that illicit drugs are seldom sold in a pure form. They were almost always adulterated or cut with other substance. Caffeine was mixed with heroin, it causes that heroin to vaporize at a lower rate. That could allow users to take the drug faster and get a big punch sooner. Aspirin, crushed tablets, they could have enough powder to amend reversal doses of drugs. Take example of heroin. It was Crl.A. No.586 of 2021 -:18:- known as powerful and illegal street drug and opiate derived from morphine. This drug can easily be cut with a variety of different substances. This means that drug dealer would add other drugs or non-intoxicating substances to the drug so that they could sell more of it at a lesser expense to themselves. Brown-sugar/smack is usually made available in power form. The substances was only about twenty percent heroin. The heroin was mixed with other substances like chalk powder, zinc oxide, because of these, impurities in the drug, brown- sugar was cheaper but more dangerous. These were only few examples to show and demonstrate that even mixture of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance was more dangerous. Therefore, what was harmful or injurious was the entire mixture/tablets with neutral substance and Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances. Therefore, if it was accepted that it was only the actual content by weight of offending drug which is relevant for the purpose of determining whether it would constitute small quantity or commercial quantity, in that case, the object and purpose of enactment of NDPS Act would be frustrated. There may be few punishment for commercial quantity. Certainly that would not have been the intention of the legislature"
25. In the case on hand, a complete strip having 6 LSD stamps and another one having only one, have been seized Crl.A. No.586 of 2021 -:19:- from the custody of the accused. Therefore, the case of the prosecution was that the accused was in possession of 130 gms of ganja and a strip containing 6 LSD stamps and another containing only one, and those were seized from his possession. From the discussion hereinabove made, this Court is convinced that the prosecution has proved its case that the accused was in possession of ganja weighing 130 gms and seven numbers of LSD stamps totally weighing 0.150 mg. Seizure mahazar was prepared from the spot and it is the primary document prepared contemporaneously with the performance of the formalities envisaged under the NDPS Act, pursuant to seizure of a contraband. Seizure mahazar is marked in evidence as Ext.P9. As per Ext.P9 the total weight of seven LSD stamps was 0.150 mg. In the crime registered following the seizure of the contraband also the total quantity of the LSD stamps was shown as 0.150 mg. The FIR is marked in evidence as Ext.P4. An inventory was prepared by the detecting officer under Section 52A(2) of NDPS Act and forwarded to Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kozhikode which is marked in evidence as Crl.A. No.586 of 2021 -:20:- Ext.P6. The total weight of LSD stamps was also found reported in Ext.P6 as 0.150 mg.
Sub Section (4) of Section 52 (A) reads:-
52-A Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances:-
xxx "(4)Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every Court trying an offence under this Act, shall treat the inventory, the photographs of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances and any list of samples drawn under subsection (2) and certified by the Magistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such offence."
Therefore, the inventory, correctness of which is certified by the Magistrate as envisaged under Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 52A shall be treated as primary evidence in respect of the offence with reference to the possession of contraband for which the accused was tried. Therefore, the trial court ought to have relied on Ext. P6 as the primary evidence rather than Crl.A. No.586 of 2021 -:21:- Ext.P10 for deciding the quantity of the contraband that was recovered from the accused.
26. Immediately after the seizure and arrest of the accused, a full report of all particulars regarding the arrest and seizure was forwarded by the detecting officer to his immediate official superior as contemplated under Section 57 NDPS Act and that is marked in evidence as Ext.P5. A mahazar was also prepared while drawing samples of the contraband and that is marked in evidence as Ext.P7. In Ext.P5 as well as in Ext.P7, the total weight of LSD stamps is shown as 0.150 mg. A final report was laid on completion of investigation in the crime and there also the total weight of LSD stamps was shown as 0.150 mg. The number of LSD stamps find a place in all the above documents as 7. As per Ext.A9, sample was not drawn from seven numbers of LSD stamps for the purpose of analysis at the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory.
27. As per the case of the prosecution, seven numbers of LSD stamps seized from the possession of the accused as such were forwarded to the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory for Crl.A. No.586 of 2021 -:22:- analysis. Certificate of Chemical Examination was also obtained by the court and marked in evidence as Ext.P10. The Assistant Chemical Examiner who conducted analysis of LSD stamps was also examined as PW5. It was found reported in Ext.P10 that the LSD stamps weighed at the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory as 181.10 mg. The Assistant Chemical Examiner when examined as PW5 also deposed about the total weight of LSD stamps in a corroborative manner. On a verification of the court charge, it is found that the total quantity of LSD stamps was shown there as 150 mg instead of 0.150mg.
28. Therefore, in most of the documents relied on by the prosecution as discussed hereinabove, the total weight of LSD stamps was shown as 0.150 mg. In the certificate of Chemical analysis marked in evidence as Ext.P10, the LSD stamps were weighed with its packing materials and a plastic container having a screw cap and therefore found as 181.10 mg. The Chemical Examiner during examination before the court as PW5 also deposed that the LSD stamps with plastic container having Crl.A. No.586 of 2021 -:23:- a screw cap and packing materials was weighed and found as 181.10 mg.
29. In the charge framed by the court, the total quantity of LSD stamps was shown as 150 mg. The court charge is framed based on the materials proposed to be relied on by the prosecution and made available to the court. When the weight of LSD stamps was shown in the documents produced before the court alongwith the chargesheet, report it as 0.150 mg, the weight crept into the court charge as 150 mg can only be consider ed as a mistake crept in due to the oversight of the court concerned while framing charges. When the difference in the weight noted in Ext.P10 is self explanatory, the trial court ought not to have relied on that while arriving at a finding of illegal possession of commercial quantity of LSD by the accused and punishing him for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) NDPS Act.
30. With regard to the number of LSD stamps, the prosecution witnesses examined before the court and the documents relied on by the prosecution in evidence have consistency and the number is seven. 0.002 gm is small Crl.A. No.586 of 2021 -:24:- quantity of LSD and 0.1g is commercial quantity. The total weight of LSD consistently reflected in various documents relied on by the prosecution being 0.150 mg, that alone ought to have been considered by the trial court to fix the exact weight of the contraband.
31. The prosecution in the case on hand has established by the evidence adduced by it before the trial court that 130 gms of ganja and 7 numbers of LSD stamps having a total weight of 0.150 mg were seized from the possession of the accused. As far as the weight of ganja is concerned 130 gms is only small quantity and as far as weight of LSD is concerned, 0.150 mg, is only intermediary quantity.
32. When the contraband was established by the prosecution as seized from the accused, the presumption under Section 54 NDPS Act would be attracted that the accused has committed an offence under the Act in respect of the contraband seized from him, for the possession of which he fails to account satisfactorily, unless and until the contrary is proved by him. In the case on hand, evidence of any nature was not Crl.A. No.586 of 2021 -:25:- adduced by the accused availing the opportunity granted by the trial court to establish on the contrary. While being examined under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C also, he has taken a stand of denial of the commission of the offence and false implication. But he failed to adduce any evidence to rebut the presumption under Section 54 NDPS Act. Even in the appeal on hand, the challenge was raised only against the quantum of contraband seized and not against it's possession. Therefore, it appears as if the accused has admitted the seizure of 130 gms of ganja and 7 LSD stamps from him. This Court finds that the finding of guilt arrived at by the trial court is only to be maintained. The conviction of the accused and the sentence imposed on him for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) NDPS Act is only to be confirmed. The finding of guilt of the accused under Section 22(c) NDPS Act, orders of conviction and imposition of sentence thereunder are liable to be reversed.
In the result, the appeal on hand is allowed in part. The judgment to the extent it found the accused guilty for illegal possession of LSD stamps is confirmed and he is convicted and Crl.A. No.586 of 2021 -:26:- punished as if he was in possession of intermediary quantity of LSD stamps. Thus he is convicted for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and also to pay `1,00,000/- as fine. He is also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year in case of default in payment of fine. Set off is also allowed under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The substantive sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH JUDGE JJ