These appeals could be disposed of by a common judgment, as the question of law raised in all these appeals is the same.
2. The facts in C.A No. 32 of 1993 are as follows: Sakunthala, the appellant herein was found in possession of 15 kg. of Ganja in her house and a case was registered against her under Sec. 20 (b) (i) of N.D.P.S Act. In this case, she was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo S.I for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100, in default to undergo S.I for one month.
3. The facts in C.A No. 33 of 1993; Kullan, the appellant herein was found in possession of 15 kg. of Ganja in his house and the case was filed against him under Sec. 20 (b) (i) of the N.D.P.S Act. In this case, he was convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo R.I for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 in default, to undergo S.I for one month.
4. The facts in C.A No. 34 of 1993: Chinnammal the appellant herein was found in possession of 15 kg. of Ganja in her house. The case was filed against the appellant Chinnammal and one Arjunan, the son of the said Chinnammal for the offence under Sec. 20 (b) (i) of the N.D.P.S Act. However, the said Arjunan was acquitted. The appellant alone was convicted and sentenced to undergo S.I for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 in default, to undergo S.I for one month.
5. In all these appeals, the point raised by the counsel for the appellants is that on the date of the seizure, that is on 10.8.1991, in all these cases, only Deputy Superintendent of Police is empowered to investigate and file the charge-sheet, but in the instant case the Inspector of Police has conducted investigation and filed the charge-sheet and as such the conviction is vitiated.
6. In order to substantiate the above submission, he cited the decision in Sivakumar alias Kumar alias Sugumar, In re., 1989 L.W (Crl.) 65 and Rajendran alias Kulla Rajendran v. State by Asst. Commissioner of Police, etc. 1993 L.W (Crl.) 412.
7. In reply to the said submission, the learned Government Advocate would bring to the notice that in these cases, the entire investigation was done by the Superintendent of Police who has been examined as one of the witnesses and as such, the decisions cited by the counsel for the appellants would not be applicable to these cases.
8. I have considered the submission and gone through the records.
9. In all these cases, the search and seizure was made in the presence of the Superintendent of Police, who has been examined as one of the witnesses in these cases. The question of competency in conducting investigation has never been raised either before the lower Court or in the grounds of appeal. The Superintendent of Police who has been examined as a witness in these cases would specifically state that he participated in the process of seizure and investigation. Moreover, the concerned Village Administrative Officer also has been examined and he has stated that the seizure was done by the Inspector of Police in the presence of the Superintendent of Police. Admittedly, both the Inspector of Police and the Superintendent of Police have been examined in all these cases. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention raised by the counsel for the appellants.
10. However, since there is no minimum sentence prescribed. I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment for one year could be reduced to three months to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment alone is modified to the effect that the appellants are sentenced to respective imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each, while confirming the conviction.
11. With the above modification in sentence, these appeals are dismissed.