{"id":151004,"date":"2009-08-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-jojo-jojo-vs-the-narcotic-control-beureau-on-14-august-2009"},"modified":"2016-12-01T05:30:45","modified_gmt":"2016-12-01T00:00:45","slug":"arun-jojo-jojo-vs-the-narcotic-control-beureau-on-14-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-jojo-jojo-vs-the-narcotic-control-beureau-on-14-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Arun Jojo @ Jojo vs The Narcotic Control Beureau on 14 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Arun Jojo @ Jojo vs The Narcotic Control Beureau on 14 August, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 2100 of 2004(C)\n\n\n1. ARUN JOJO @ JOJO,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE NARCOTIC CONTROL BEUREAU,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :.\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN\n\n Dated :14\/08\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                      M.N. KRISHNAN, J.\n                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                Crl. Appeal NO. 2100 OF 2004\n                               AND\n                 Crl. Appeal NO. 426 of 2005\n                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n          Dated this the 14th day of August, 2009.\n\n                        J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      Crl.Appeal 2100\/04 is filed by the first accused in<\/p>\n
S.C.1042\/03 whereby he has been convicted u\/s 21(c) of the<\/p>\n
N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment<\/p>\n
for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000\/- and<\/p>\n
in default to undergo a further imprisonment for a period of<\/p>\n
two years. The other appeal 426\/05 is filed with a prayer to<\/p>\n
set aside the judgment of acquittal passed against the accused<\/p>\n
u\/Ss.23(c), 27A, 28 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Since the<\/p>\n
subject matter is one and the same and part and parcel of the<\/p>\n
same transaction the appeals have to be disposed of jointly.<\/p>\n
      2.   It is the case of the prosecution that on 26.4.2003<\/p>\n
at about 8 a.m. the Intelligence Officer attached to the Narcotic<\/p>\n
Control Bureau, regional Intelligence Unit, Thiruvananthapuram<\/p>\n
got a secret information that one Abdul Vaheed had conspired<\/p>\n
to send a consignment of heroin, a narcotic drug, to Mali by<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal NO. 2100 OF 2004 &
\nCrl. Appeal NO. 426 of 2005
\n                                -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
Flight I.C.963 dated 26.4.2003 through a carrier by name Arun<\/p>\n
Jojo @ Jojo. The information thus received was reduced into<\/p>\n
writing and forwarded to the Superior Officer.         Later the<\/p>\n
officials reached the Airport, apprehended the accused,<\/p>\n
conducted a search on him but was unable to find anything<\/p>\n
with him and therefore he was of-loaded from the aircraft,<\/p>\n
taken to the Medical College Hospital and was administered<\/p>\n
purgatives and he passed two motions and on the first motion<\/p>\n
there were 35 capsules and in the second time 29 capsules<\/p>\n
thereby totaling 295 gms. of heroin. The Court after elaborate<\/p>\n
consideration of the materials found that there is no evidence<\/p>\n
to find guilt of Abdul Vaheed and again it also held that there is<\/p>\n
no evidence to convict the 1st accused u\/Ss. 23(c), 27A, 28 and<\/p>\n
29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The Court arrived at that finding on the<\/p>\n
basis that the conspiracy alleged by the prosecution is not<\/p>\n
proved to the satisfaction of the Court. So the Court found the<\/p>\n
first accused also not guilty u\/s 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The<\/p>\n
Court also held that there is no evidence to prove the offence<\/p>\n
u\/s 28 relating to attempt to commit such offence. It also held<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal NO. 2100 OF 2004 &
\nCrl. Appeal NO. 426 of 2005
\n                                -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
that the involvement of the first accused in regard to the<\/p>\n
alleged trafficking of narcotic drug is not proved and therefore<\/p>\n
found him not guilty u\/s 27A of the N.D.P.S. Act.          As the<\/p>\n
narcotic drug carried by the first accused has not been<\/p>\n
exported the Court found the offence u\/s 23 of the N.D.P.S Act<\/p>\n
is also not attracted.\n<\/p>\n
      3.   I had heard the learned counsel for the appellant in<\/p>\n
Crl.Appeal 426\/05 as well as the other case. The finding of the<\/p>\n
Court below regarding the non availability of evidence and<\/p>\n
materials to find out the first accused guilty u\/s 23, 27A, 28<\/p>\n
and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act is correct in the backdrop of the<\/p>\n
discussion made by the Court after adverting to all the<\/p>\n
materials on record. The materials are not sufficient to reverse<\/p>\n
the finding of acquittal under those Sections.<\/p>\n
      4.   Now the main question is regarding the conviction of<\/p>\n
the first accused u\/s 21(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act. 21(c) refers to<\/p>\n
commercial quantity.     Commercial quantity of heroin comes<\/p>\n
into play when it is more than 250 gms. According to the<\/p>\n
prosecution since it is 295 gms. that is recovered it will amount<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal NO. 2100 OF 2004 &
\nCrl. Appeal NO. 426 of 2005
\n                                 -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
to commercial quantity and therefore the conviction u\/s 21(c)<\/p>\n
of the N.D.P.S. Act is sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    Before adverting to that question it may be<\/p>\n
necessary in the light of the appeal filed by the accused to find<\/p>\n
out whether he can be roped into any of the offences u\/Ss.21<\/p>\n
of the Act.     As stated by me earlier on getting specific<\/p>\n
information the offence has been detected. It is stated that<\/p>\n
the first accused had swallowed the capsules even while he was<\/p>\n
sitting in the hotel, then he left for the airport and reached the<\/p>\n
airport and he was followed by the narcotic officers. With the<\/p>\n
aid and help of PW1 and in his presence he was apprehended<\/p>\n
and was examined.        In an ordinary physical examination<\/p>\n
nothing could be detected or traced out from him and therefore<\/p>\n
as per the evidence available he was off-loaded from the<\/p>\n
aircraft and was taken to the hospital namely Medical College<\/p>\n
Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. There the Doctor administered<\/p>\n
him some purgatives and the first motion he had at 10.30 a.m.<\/p>\n
brought out 35 capsules and in the next motion about 29<\/p>\n
capsules and PW4 had given details about the same. From<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal NO. 2100 OF 2004 &
\nCrl. Appeal NO. 426 of 2005
\n                               -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
these 64 capsules a total of 295 gm of heroin was found out.<\/p>\n
The correctness of this was challenged in the light of non<\/p>\n
examination of some of the persons and a decision was also<\/p>\n
cited namely Narcotic Control Bureau v. Abdul Hussain<\/p>\n
(2003 SCC (Crl) 1608).           The Court distinguished that<\/p>\n
decision basing on the reason the doctor who had administered<\/p>\n
the purgative was through out available with the accused and it<\/p>\n
was with his aid the capsules came out and he was personally<\/p>\n
present and therefore it is a solid form of evidence and it does<\/p>\n
not lack any legal sanctity. As discussed by me earlier from<\/p>\n
the materials it is very clear that the first accused was<\/p>\n
apprehended from the airport. He was tested, he was brought<\/p>\n
to the Medical College Hospital and with the help of the Doctor<\/p>\n
purgative was administered which brought out 64 capsules of<\/p>\n
heroin. So the possession of 295 gms. of heroin is proved<\/p>\n
beyond doubt in this case and there is no legal or procedural<\/p>\n
lacunae in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
     6.    But now the question arises is whether these 295<\/p>\n
gms itself can be taken as a quantity or not. This matter came<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal NO. 2100 OF 2004 &
\nCrl. Appeal NO. 426 of 2005
\n                               -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
up for consideration before the Apex Court in the decision<\/p>\n
reported in Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer<\/a> (2008 (2)<\/p>\n
KLT 36). The Court held that,<\/p>\n
           “Under the rationalized sentence structure,<\/p>\n
     the punishment would vary depending upon the<\/p>\n
     quantity of offending material. Thus, we find it<\/p>\n
     difficult to accept the argument advanced on<\/p>\n
     behalf of the respondent that the rate of purity<\/p>\n
     is irrelevant since any preparation which is more<\/p>\n
     than the commercial quantity of 250 gms. And<\/p>\n
     contains 0.2% of heroin or more would be<\/p>\n
     punishable under S.21(c) of the NDPS Act,<\/p>\n
     because the intention of the legislature as it<\/p>\n
     appears to us is to levy punishment based on<\/p>\n
     the content of the offending drug in the mixture<\/p>\n
     and not on the weight of the mixture as such.<\/p>\n
     This may be tested on the following rationale.<\/p>\n
     Supposing 4 gms. of heroin is recovered from an<\/p>\n
     accused, it would amount to a small quantity,<\/p>\n
     but when the same 4 gms. Is mixed with 50<\/p>\n
     kgs. of the powdered sugar, it would be<\/p>\n
     quantified as a commercial quantity.       In the<\/p>\n
     mixture of a narcotic drug or a psychotropic<\/p>\n
     substance with one or more neutral substance\/s,<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal NO. 2100 OF 2004 &
\nCrl. Appeal NO. 426 of 2005
\n                               -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
     the quantity of the neutral substance\/s is not to<\/p>\n
     be taken into consideration while determining<\/p>\n
     the small quantity or commercial quantity of a<\/p>\n
     narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. It is<\/p>\n
     only the actual content by weight of the narcotic<\/p>\n
     drug which is relevant for the purposes of<\/p>\n
     determining whether it would constitute small<\/p>\n
     quantity or commercial quantity. The intention<\/p>\n
     of the legislature for introduction of the<\/p>\n
     amendment as i appear to us is to punish the<\/p>\n
     people who commit less serious offences with<\/p>\n
     less severe punishment and those who commit<\/p>\n
     grave crimes, such as trafficking in significant<\/p>\n
     quantities, with more severe punishment. When<\/p>\n
     any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance is<\/p>\n
     found   mixed    with   one   or   more     neutral<\/p>\n
     substances for the purpose of imposition of<\/p>\n
     punishment it is the content of the narcotic drug<\/p>\n
     or psychotropic substance which shall be taken<\/p>\n
     into consideration.”\n<\/p>\n
     7.   Now, I will refer to a decision of this Court reported<\/p>\n
in Naushad v. Intelligence officer, Narcotics Control<\/p>\n
Bureau (2007 (2) KLT SN 77 C.No.102). It was held in<\/p>\n
that case unless proved by approved scientific methods,<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal NO. 2100 OF 2004 &
\nCrl. Appeal NO. 426 of 2005
\n                                  -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
including quantitative test, it is not proper to conclude what is<\/p>\n
the percentage of diacetylmorphine. The learned Judge held<\/p>\n
that admittedly heroin or diacetylmorphine is a combination of<\/p>\n
more than one component and quantitative test has to be<\/p>\n
conducted to find out the exact percentage of the components<\/p>\n
which constitute the substance. The Court below found the<\/p>\n
accused guilty for the offences punishable u\/s 21(c) and 28<\/p>\n
and 29 of the N.D.P.S. ct. This finding was on the basis of the<\/p>\n
prosecution allegation that the contraband articles seized from<\/p>\n
accused Nos.1 and 2 of one kg. each. So the dictum laid down<\/p>\n
in the above two decisions are to the effect that when the<\/p>\n
actual content of diacetylmorphine is as described for small<\/p>\n
quantity, intermediate quantity or commercial quantity it is<\/p>\n
that quantity which has to be taken into consideration to<\/p>\n
decide the question of type of quantity held by a particular<\/p>\n
person. It is in such circumstances it is imperative that there<\/p>\n
must be a quantitative test conducted to find out the actual<\/p>\n
content of diacetylmorphine in a particular sample seized or<\/p>\n
the quantum seized from a particular person. Unfortunately in<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal NO. 2100 OF 2004 &
\nCrl. Appeal NO. 426 of 2005
\n                                  -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
the case before us though it is taken out no quantitative test is<\/p>\n
conducted    to   find   out   the   exact   quantity  of   these<\/p>\n
diacetylmorphine. Therefore the Court is in the dark as to the<\/p>\n
exact content of the above said diacetylmorphine in the total<\/p>\n
heroin seized. When it is so, necessarily the benefit has to go<\/p>\n
to the accused. Whatever it may be, there will be at least a<\/p>\n
negligible percentage in that drug which is seized from him<\/p>\n
and therefore it will at least attract an offence u\/s 21(a) of the<\/p>\n
N.D.P.S. Act. Therefore as there is no quantitative test done<\/p>\n
in this case the conviction passed u\/s 21(c) has to be set aside<\/p>\n
and it has to be made under S.21(a) of the N.D.P.S. Act.<\/p>\n
When it is so the punishment prescribed is rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for a term which may extent to six months or<\/p>\n
with fine which may extent to Rs.10,000\/- or with both. I am<\/p>\n
informed that the accused is undergoing imprisonment for the<\/p>\n
last six years. He is in custody from 27.4.2003 onwards. He<\/p>\n
has never been released on bail. So almost more than six<\/p>\n
years have elapsed. Therefore under the circumstances it may<\/p>\n
not be correct to impose a sentence of fine on him over and<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal NO. 2100 OF 2004 &
\nCrl. Appeal NO. 426 of 2005
\n                               -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
above the imprisonment for six years. Therefore u\/s 21(a) of<\/p>\n
the N.D.P.S. Act he is sentenced to undergo rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for a period of six months.\n<\/p>\n
     In the result Crl.Appeal No.2100 of 2004 is disposed as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
     1) Finding of guilt u\/s 21(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act and the<\/p>\n
conviction and sentence passed thereunder are set aside.<\/p>\n
     2)    He is found guilty u\/s 21(a) of the N.D.P.S. Act and<\/p>\n
he is convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo rigorous<\/p>\n
imprisonment for a period of six months.\n<\/p>\n
     3)    Since he has already undergone the period of<\/p>\n
imprisonment for more than six years he is not bound to suffer<\/p>\n
any more punishment for this offence and he shall be released<\/p>\n
from jail if he is not required in connection with any other<\/p>\n
criminal case.\n<\/p>\n
     Crl.Appeal No. 426\/05 is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
ul\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Arun Jojo @ Jojo vs The Narcotic Control Beureau on 14 August, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 2100 of 2004(C) 1. ARUN JOJO @ JOJO, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE NARCOTIC CONTROL BEUREAU, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY For Petitioner :SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR For […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-151004","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nArun Jojo @ Jojo vs The Narcotic Control Beureau on 14 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-jojo-jojo-vs-the-narcotic-control-beureau-on-14-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arun Jojo @ Jojo vs The Narcotic Control Beureau on 14 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-jojo-jojo-vs-the-narcotic-control-beureau-on-14-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-01T00:00:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-jojo-jojo-vs-the-narcotic-control-beureau-on-14-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-jojo-jojo-vs-the-narcotic-control-beureau-on-14-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Arun Jojo @ Jojo vs The Narcotic Control Beureau on 14 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-01T00:00:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-jojo-jojo-vs-the-narcotic-control-beureau-on-14-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2012,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-jojo-jojo-vs-the-narcotic-control-beureau-on-14-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-jojo-jojo-vs-the-narcotic-control-beureau-on-14-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-jojo-jojo-vs-the-narcotic-control-beureau-on-14-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Arun Jojo @ Jojo vs The Narcotic Control Beureau on 14 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-01T00:00:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-jojo-jojo-vs-the-narcotic-control-beureau-on-14-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-jojo-jojo-vs-the-narcotic-control-beureau-on-14-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-jojo-jojo-vs-the-narcotic-control-beureau-on-14-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arun Jojo @ Jojo vs The Narcotic Control Beureau on 14 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Arun Jojo @ Jojo vs The Narcotic Control Beureau on 14 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-jojo-jojo-vs-the-narcotic-control-beureau-on-14-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arun Jojo @ Jojo vs The Narcotic Control Beureau on 14 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-jojo-jojo-vs-the-narcotic-control-beureau-on-14-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-01T00:00:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-jojo-jojo-vs-the-narcotic-control-beureau-on-14-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-jojo-jojo-vs-the-narcotic-control-beureau-on-14-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Arun Jojo @ Jojo vs The Narcotic Control Beureau on 14 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-01T00:00:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-jojo-jojo-vs-the-narcotic-control-beureau-on-14-august-2009"},"wordCount":2012,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-jojo-jojo-vs-the-narcotic-control-beureau-on-14-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-jojo-jojo-vs-the-narcotic-control-beureau-on-14-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-jojo-jojo-vs-the-narcotic-control-beureau-on-14-august-2009","name":"Arun Jojo @ Jojo vs The Narcotic Control Beureau on 14 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-01T00:00:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-jojo-jojo-vs-the-narcotic-control-beureau-on-14-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-jojo-jojo-vs-the-narcotic-control-beureau-on-14-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arun-jojo-jojo-vs-the-narcotic-control-beureau-on-14-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arun Jojo @ Jojo vs The Narcotic Control Beureau on 14 August, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151004","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=151004"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151004\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151004"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151004"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151004"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}