Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 216 OF 1995 ******** Against the judgment and order of conviction dated 2.8.1995 passed in G.O. No. 1 of 1994 (11/94) by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Madhubani. ****** TARACHAND YADAV S/O SHRI RAM LAKHAN YADAV R/O VILLAGE- PANDAUL, P.S.- PANDAUL, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. ……..….. Appellant Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …..………. Respondent ************ For the Appellant : Mr. Murari Narain Choudhary Adv. : Mr. Vijay Kumar Adv. For the Union of India : Mr. D. Surendra (C.G.C) P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ********* Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant has been convicted under Section 14 (i) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of which further period of 1 year by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Madhubani in G.O. No. 1 of 1994 (11/94) by the judgment dated 2.8.1995. 2. The case of the prosecution according to P.W. 1 is that on 14.2.1994 the petitioner while standing at a railway crossing was arrested on suspicion and from his possession 4 Kg. ganja was recovered. 3. During trial the prosecution examined 6 witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 is the complainant, P.W. 2 and 3 are seizure list witnesses, P.W. 4 is a supporting witness and P.W. 5 and 6 are tendered. 4. From the evidence of P.W. 2 and 3 who are independent witnesses, it is evident that ganja was recovered from the possession of the appellant on the date of occurrence of which a panchnama and seizure list had been prepared on which they made their signatures. During cross-examination they had stated that they did not know what was the content of the seizure list of the two documents since they had not been able to read the same not knowing English but from their evidence it does not appear that they were disputing the factum of search and seizure. 5. P.W. 1 who is the complainant is fully supported the fact of the petitioner being arrested with 4 Kg. ganja which was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the report was that it was ganja, the same was exhibited as exhibit-6. P.W. 4 also on the point of factum of occurrence has fully supported the case. 6. Under the circumstances, In my opinion, the prosecution has been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubt about the fact that the petitioner was arrested with ganja and, therefore, I find no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed. However, the sentence is modified to one already undergone by the appellant during trial. Patna High Court, ( Anjana Prakash, J. ) Patna Dated the 29th April, 2011 NAFR/ Fahad.