ORDER : This is a jail appeal brought by the accused in S.C.No. 482 of 2011 of the Court of Session, Ernakulam. He challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). 2. The prosecution case is the at about 5.00 p.m. on 13.6.2011 at Vallarpadam near the Gosree Bridge, the accused was found possessing huge quantity of 691 ampules of Lupigesic injection and 109 ampules of Phenergan injection carried in a plastic kit. The offence was detected by the Sub Inspector of Police, Mulavukad. He received information from reliable source at about 4.30 p.m. on 13.6.2011. Immediately, he recorded the information in the general diary, and prepared report under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. After promptly sending it to the concerned officer, he proceeded to the place of incident with the police party. When he reached there, he saw the accused in a suspicious situation holding a plastic kit in his hands. The accused was found perplexed on seeing the police party. When the Sub Inspector examined the kit on suspicion, it was found containing huge quantity of 691 ampules of Lupigesic injection (buprenorphine) and 109 ampules of Phenergan injection. The accused was arrested on the spot, and the quantity of psychotropic substance was seized as per mahazar. Body search of the accused was not conducted under Section 50 of the NDPS Act because, the contraband article was found in a kit carried by him in his hands. The Sub Inspector registered the crime against the accused, and later investigation was taken over by PW6, the Circle Inspector of Police. After investigation, he submitted final report in court under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. 3. The accused appeared before the trial court and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses and proved Exts.P1 to P12 documents. MO1 to MO7 properties were also identified during trial. 4. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and projected a defence of total denial. He did not adduce any evidence in defence. 5. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty. MO1 to MO7 properties were also identified during trial. 4. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and projected a defence of total denial. He did not adduce any evidence in defence. 5. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty. On conviction, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh, by judgment dated 10.5.2012. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the accused has come up in appeal. 6. When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, appointed on State Brief, submitted that there are some irregularities in the process of detection, and that the details of the Chemical Examination Report was not put to the accused during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 7. On an appreciation of the entire evidence, I find that there is no infirmity or illegality in the process of detection, or in the investigation process. I find that things were properly and legally done by the Sub Inspector of Police, and the case was properly investigated by PW6. There is nothing to show that there was any flaw, or illegality, or irregularity in the investigation conducted by PW6. 8. PW1 is the Sub Inspector of Police who detected the offence, PW2 is the Civil Police Officer who assisted the Sub Inspector in detection process, PWs 3 and 4 are the two independent witnesses examined by the prosecution, and PW5 is the Village Officer who prepared the Ext.P11 scene plan. The two independent witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution. However, they admitted their signature in the detection mahazar. On an examination of the evidence given by these two witnesses, I find reason to believe that these persons had in fact seen or witnessed the detection, but during trial, they turned hostile to support the accused. 9. PW1 has given definite and consistent evidence proving the process of detection. Ext.P1 is the report sent by him under Section 42 of the NDPS Act on getting information from reliable source. This report contains the details of the information received, and the details of the accused mentioned in the report. Ext.P8 is the report sent by the detecting officer under Section 57 of the NDPS Act to his superior officer. Ext.P1 is the report sent by him under Section 42 of the NDPS Act on getting information from reliable source. This report contains the details of the information received, and the details of the accused mentioned in the report. Ext.P8 is the report sent by the detecting officer under Section 57 of the NDPS Act to his superior officer. This was also sent well within time, and this report contains all the required details including the details of the detection process, the sampling process, and also the details of the accused. 10. Of course, it is true that body search of the accused was not conducted under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. In fact, this is not a case where such search was required because, the contraband article was found in a kit carried by the accused in his hands. PW2 has well corroborated PW1 on all material particulars including the seizure of the psychotropic substance from the hands of the accused and also the sampling process at the spot of detection. PW1 is definite that he saw the accused with a plastic kit in his hands, and on seeing the police party, the accused got perplexed. When he examined the plastic kit, it was found containing three packets. When he examined the three packets, he found huge quantity of Lupigesic (buprenorphine) injection ampules. He examined and verified the properties thoroughly and meticulously, and found that all the injection ampules were identical in nature carrying identical labels, and so, he collected representative samples from the total quantity of ampules. The accused was arrested on the spot, and the quantity of contraband article was seized as per Ext.P4 mahazar. All the samples were properly packed and sealed. The remaining quantity of contraband articles was also well packed and sealed at the spot of detection. I find nothing to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 regarding the detection process. These two witnesses have no reason to foist a false case against the accused. Ext.P12 is the report of Chemical Analysis. This relates to the samples collected from the total quantity of articles seized from the hands of the accused. The samples were identified a Buprenorphine, on analysis at the laboratory. Of course, the quantity of articles stated by the prosecution is ampule wise or volume wise. Ext.P12 is the report of Chemical Analysis. This relates to the samples collected from the total quantity of articles seized from the hands of the accused. The samples were identified a Buprenorphine, on analysis at the laboratory. Of course, the quantity of articles stated by the prosecution is ampule wise or volume wise. It was submitted that the actual quantity of psychotropic substance in grams will have to be assessed. This point is answered by this Court in Binu v. Union of India and Others (2011 (2) KHC 817) that weight of the total quantity will have to be assessed for the purpose of deciding whether the quantity comes within commercial quantity or not. The huge quantity of contraband articles seized from the possession of the accused is 691 ampules of buprenorphine injection. Of course, Phenergan is not included in the schedule to the NDPS Act as narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. But Lupigesic or Buprenorphine comes under the schedule and it is notified as psychotropic substance. The quantity seized is 691 ampules of Lupigesic. 11. Another contention raised by the defence is that the details of the Ext.P12 chemical analysis report was not put to the accused properly when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. Of course, I find that the document was wrongly or mistakenly referred to as Ext.P10 whereas, it is actually Ext.P12. But I find from the question put to the accused that the document specifically put to him is the "Chemical Analysis Report". Whether it is Ext.P12 or Ext.P10, the question is very clear, that it was on the "Chemical Analysis Report" and not on any other document. I do not find that any prejudice was caused to the accused. The accused was properly and thoroughly examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on all the incriminating circumstances. The accused is not entitled for the benefit of any doubt on this aspect. I find that the process of detection including the sampling process is well proved in this case by the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. I find that PW1 had well complied with the procedures and formalities under Sections 42 and 57 of the NDPS Act. The conviction against him is only to be confirmed in appeal. 12. Now the question of sentence. The sentence imposed by the court below is rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.1 lakh. I find that PW1 had well complied with the procedures and formalities under Sections 42 and 57 of the NDPS Act. The conviction against him is only to be confirmed in appeal. 12. Now the question of sentence. The sentence imposed by the court below is rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.1 lakh. This is the minimum possible under the law for the possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substance. I find no scope or reason for any sort of interference in the matter of sentence. The huge quantity of psychotropic substance seized from the possession of the accused will spoil and ruin the life of hundreds of youngsters. I find that sentence imposed by the court below is quite reasonable and adequate. It does not require any interference in appeal. In the result, this appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence against the appellant under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act in S.C.No. 482 of 2011.