2004 (3) TMI 769

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Act, 1985 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of ₹ 25,000.00 and in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year. THE High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has confirmed the said conviction and sentence and the appellant is now before us in this appeal. 2. Though many questions of law and facts have been argued in this case o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d, though they contended that it was kept in safe custody. It is the further case of the prosecution that they took the permission of the jurisdictional court on 13/10/1990 to take sample for the first time from the original stock of the contraband to send the same to the Chemical Examiner. But the same was sent only on 28/11/1990 nearly after a month the permission of the court was obtained. Till .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... licate the appellant forgetting that there is a statutory requirement to seal the seized articles. Under the provisions of S.55 of the said Act, this requirement may not be mandatory but on facts of this case, keeping the contraband articles in an unsealed condition for such a long time creates doubt in our mind. The period of non-sealing in the circumstances of this case does give rise to a doubt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X