- (1.) These two appeals are by second accused (P. K. Naushad) and third accused (A. K. Mehaboob) in a case wherein three persons were arraigned before the trial court to face a charge for the offence under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The trial court acquitted these appellants of the offences, but convicted only 1st accused (N. P. Divakaran) for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment and fine in accordance with law. The aforesaid convicted person preferred an appeal before the "high Court in challenge of the conviction and sentence. In the meanwhile, respondent also filed an appeal in challenge of the order of acquittal passed in favour of the present appellants. Both appeals were heard together by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. While dismissing the appeal preferred by 1st accused, learned Single Judge reversed the order of acquittal passed on the appellants and convicted them also under Sections 21 and 29 of the Act and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. 00.
(2.) The substance of the case against the three accused was this: On the strength of sleuth information the Intelligence Officers of Narcotics Control Bureau lead by Superintended of Narcotics Control Bureau, Cochin (PW-1 and PW-2) raided the house of the appellant Naushad on 6.3.1994 at about 10. 00 a. m. They found Divakaran (A1) and appellant Mehaboob (A3) sitting in one room. On search, 251 grams of brown sugar and had been recovered from Divakaran - A1. It was followed by another search made in the house of said Divakaran at about 7. 00 p. m. and then also a quantity of 251 grams of brown sugar had been recovered from a suit case kept in that house. All the three accused were arrested. Their statements were recorded under Section 67 of the Act.
(3.) The case against appellant - Naushad depends entirely on Exhibit P-8 statement made to the officer under Section 67. There is no dispute that if the said statement is found to be genuine and reliable - Naushad has no escape from conviction, for, it contained vivid description of the transaction he entered into with Divakaran in the trafficking of narcotics drug "heroin" and "brown sugar".;