Kerala High Court
Sreyas vs State Of Kerala on 20 February, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1941
Crl.MC.No.8489 OF 2019(A)
SC 395/2019 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM
CRIME NO.2396/2018 OF Ernakulam Central Police Station,
Ernakulam
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SREYAS
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O.RAJEEV KUMAR, RESIDING AT NALUMAKKAL VEEDU,
THUMPOOR.P.O., AALUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
CHALAKUDI, THRISSUR RURAL, KERALA, PIN-680307.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN
SRI.M.V.DAS
SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN
SRI.S.JAYAKUMAR
SMT.K.P.AMRUTHA
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682018.
SRI.C.K.PRASAD P.P
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.02.2020, THE COURT ON 20.02.2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.8489/2019
2
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
************************
Crl.M.C.No.8489 of 2019
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2020
ORDER
The petitioner is the sole accused in the case S.C.No.395/2019 pending before the Court of Session, Ernakulam.
2. The offence alleged against the petitioner in the final report filed by the police is under Section 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
3. The prosecution case is that, on 05.11.2018, at about 14.45 hours, at the road near the office of the BSNL in Ernakulam, the Sub Inspector of Police, Ernakulam found the petitioner having in his possession 0.06 milligrams of LSD (Lysergide).
Crl.M.C.No.8489/20193
4. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the accused for quashing Annexure-A3 final report filed against him by the police for the offence under Section 22(b) of the Act.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. There are several grounds stated in the petition for quashing the chargesheet filed against the petitioner. But, at the time of hearing of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged only one ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the quantity of LSD allegedly seized from the possession of the petitioner was only 0.06 milligrams and it amounts to "small quantity" and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 22(b) of the Act will not lie against the petitioner.
7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the quantity of LSD seized from the possession of the petitioner is larger than small quantity but below commercial quantity and therefore, the offence under Section 22(b) of the Act is attracted against the petitioner.
Crl.M.C.No.8489/20194
8. Section 22(b) of the Act prescribes the punishment for manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transport etc of any psychotropic substance in contravention of the provisions of the Act or any rule or order made thereunder, where the contravention involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity. On the other hand, Section 22(a) of the Act prescribes the punishment where the contravention involves small quantity and Section 22(c) of the Act prescribes the punishment where such contravention involves commercial quantity of psychotropic substance.
9. The specification of the small and commercial quantity of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances is contained in the Central Government Notification dated 19.10.2001. LSD comes as item No.133 in this notification. As per this notification, small quantity of LSD is 0.002 grams and commercial quantity of LSD is 0.1 gram.
10. In the instant case, the quantity of LSD allegedly seized from the possession of the petitioner was 0.06 milligrams. One gram is equal to 1000 milligrams. Then, 0.002 grams is Crl.M.C.No.8489/2019 5 equal to two milligrams. Therefore, small quantity of LSD would be upto two milligrams. Therefore, it is evident that the quantity of LSD allegedly seized from the possession of the petitioner, that is, 0.06 milligrams constitutes only 'small quantity'. It follows that only an offence punishable under Section 22(a) of the Act would be attracted against the petitioner for possessing 0.06 milligrams of LSD.
11. But, the aforesaid conclusion, does not mean that Annexure-A3 chargesheet filed against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. The allegations in the chargesheet would disclose commission of an offence punishable under Section 22(a) of the Act. Merely for the reason that the investigating officer has shown a wrong penal provision in the chargesheet, it cannot be quashed.
12. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps before the trial court to ensure that no charge is framed against him for an offence punishable under Section 22(b) of the Act. He is at liberty to take appropriate steps before the trial court for trying him only for an offence punishable under Crl.M.C.No.8489/2019 6 Section 22(a) of the Act.
13. Consequently, the petition is dismissed with liberty granted to the petitioner to take appropriate steps before the trial court as mentioned above.
(sd/-) R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE jsr Crl.M.C.No.8489/2019 7 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.2396/2018 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL ORDER DATED 27.11.2018 IN CRL.M.C.2305/2018 OF HON'BLE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.2396/2018.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL TRUE COPY PS TO JUDGE