Republic v Shee (Criminal Case E016 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 272 (KLR) (25 June 2026) (Judgment)

Republic v Shee (Criminal Case E016 of 2026) [2026] KEMC 272 (KLR) (25 June 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] KEMC 272 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Lamu Law Courts Criminal Case E016 of 2026 FM Mulama, RM June 25, 2026 Between Republic Prosecutor and Abubakar Shee Accused Judgment A. Brief Facts 1.The accused is charged with a single count of being in possession of narcotics contrary to section 3(1) as read with 3(2)(a) of the Narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances control Act. 2.It is said the accused on the 18/1/2026 at around 1130hours within Mkomani he was found in possession of 1sachet of cannabis sativa in a clear polythene paper and with a street value of Kshs.500/= and which was not in medical preparation form. 3.2 witnesses were called by the prosecution whereas on the hand the accused upon being found to have a case to answer the accused gave sworn evidence and closed his case. 4.I have considered all their testimonies and the exhibits produced. The Prosecution’s case. 5.It is the evidence of the prosecution that police officers among them Pw 1 and 2 while from duty in one of the churches where they offer security services met the accused and who looked restless on seeing them. They stopped him and conducted a search on him and they recovered a greenish substance they suspected to be cannabis. They arrested him and escorted him to the police station where an inventory was prepared and later the greenish substance was subjected to analysis at the government analyst and it was proved to be cannabis. The report and the inventory were produced as exhibits. Upon cross examination, it was said that the bhang was recovered from his pocket. Defence case 6.Mr. Shee in his defence denied the charges once more and confirmed that despite the police arresting him, they did not find him with anything. He admitted that in as much as he uses bhang, on that particular day he was not found with any. B. Issue For Determination. 7.The following are the issues for determination by this court;a.Whether the accused person was in possession of the substance suspected to be bhang.b.That the substances found in possession of the accused are narcotic drug within the meaning of the Act. C. Analysis And Determination. Whether the accused person was in possession of the substance suspected to be bhang. 8.In order to prove the offences against the accused person, it was the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses that they intercepted the accused person on the material date and time and who looked restless. A search was then conducted on him and 1 sachet of bhang was retrieved 9.There is no proper challenge on the evidence by the prosecution on the issue of possession and the accused other than merely saying he was not found in possession, he did not displace the evidence by the prosecution on possession. He further admits that in as much as he uses bhang, on that particular date he did not have one in his possession. He did not strictly challenge the evidence pointing towards possession of the substance suspected to be bhang. 10.Furthermore, an inventory on which he signed acknowledging possession was produced in evidence and the accused had no issues with it at the point of preparation and/or its production. I am thus convinced beyond doubt that the accused was in actual possession of the 1 sachet of bhang. Whether the substance found in possession of the accused is a narcotic drug within the meaning of the Act. 11.On the 2nd issue as to whether the substance in the 1 sachet was bhang, a government analyst report dated 5/2/2026 was produced as an exhibit. The said report confirms that the substance in the 1 sachet after examination was found to be cannabis which is a narcotic drug under the Act. Similarly, the accused did very little to challenge the said report. Infact he did not challenge it at all. I am thus satisfied that the substance in the one sachet was and indeed is cannabis. D. Conclusion And Disposition. 12.Considering the evidence and the exhibits produced, I am convinced beyond doubt that the prosecution proved the sole count the accused person faces in this case. 13.The accused person is thus guilty as charged to wit being in possession of narcotic drugs contrary to section 3(1) as read with section 3(2)(a) of the narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Control Act No. 4 of 1994 and he is accordingly convicted in that counts under section 215 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 14.Orders accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT LAMU LAW COURTS THIS 25THDAY OF JUNE 2026.F.M. MULAMARESIDENT MAGISTRATE.In the presence of:Idris Tomno for DPP.Court Assistant:- Abuswaleh.Abubakar Shee