Raju Alias Salam v. State Of Kerala .

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant was found, on 27-12-1989 at about 1.25 p.m., in possession of 100 mg of brown sugar while passing on a road. From the cross-examination of witnesses and the statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, it appeared that his explanation was that he had purchased the 100 mg from one Mattancharry Rafeeque for Rs 25 for personal consumption.

The trial court treated the quantity as a “small quantity” but refused to extend the benefit of Section 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) on the ground that the appellant had failed to establish that it was for his personal consumption. Proceeding on the basis that the possession was for sale, the trial court convicted him under Section 21 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1 lakh. The High Court confirmed the conviction and adopted the same reasoning. The appellant then filed the present appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, on the facts found (possession of 100 mg of brown sugar valued at Rs 25), the appellant’s conviction ought to be under Section 21 of the NDPS Act or altered to Section 27 on the basis that the quantity was “small” and was for personal consumption.
2. Whether the courts below erred in rejecting the appellant’s defence for want of defence evidence and by relying on the absence of withdrawal symptoms during trial custody.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The courts below did not properly consider the defence that 100 mg was a “small quantity” kept for personal consumption.
• The trial court wrongly rejected the plea because the appellant led no evidence, and because it assumed that an addict would show withdrawal symptoms—yet no such symptoms were observed at any stage of trial.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that the prosecution had led no evidence to show that the appellant was an addict or regularly consumed brown sugar. In that context, the Court found it improper for the courts below to reject the appellant’s defence on the ground that, while in custody during trial, he did not exhibit withdrawal symptoms.

The Court further treated it as undisputed that the appellant was carrying a “small quantity” and emphasized the low value involved (Rs 25). On these facts, the Court considered it doubtful that such a small quantity would have been purchased for sale to make any profit, and it observed that there was no evidence from which such an inference (possession for sale) could be drawn.

The Court held that these aspects had not been considered by the trial court and the High Court. On that basis, it concluded that the appeal should be allowed and that the conviction should be altered from Section 21 to Section 27 of the NDPS Act.

Holding and Implications

ALLOWED; CONVICTION ALTERED — The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, altered the appellant’s conviction from Section 21 to Section 27 of the NDPS Act, and reduced the sentence from 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1 lakh to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs 5000, with a default sentence of three months’ further imprisonment.

The direct consequence was that the appellant’s liability was confined to the lesser offence under Section 27, reflecting the Court’s view that the record did not support an inference of possession for sale given the “small quantity,” low value, and absence of supporting prosecution evidence. The opinion does not indicate that any broader precedent was being laid down beyond altering the conviction and sentence on these facts.