THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1355 OF 2003 ORDER: This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge for Trial of cases under N.D.P.S.Act- cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam in S.C.No.34 of 1999 on 15.12.2003. The appellant herein was prosecuted for the offence under Section 8 (b) read with 20 (a) of N.D.P.S. Act alleging that on 20.11.1998, on reliable information P.W.8 raided the agricultural fields of Pedda Earlapudi village along with P.Ws.1 to 7 and at about 15.00 hours they noticed Ganja plants in the cotton fields, which were cultivated by the accused. The said Ganja plants were uprooted and seized in the presence of mediators and they are 159 Ganja plants worth Rs.15,000/- and samples were collected under the cover of panchanama and sent the same for chemical examination through Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Khammam and the F.S.L report discloses that the samples are Cannabiool an active constituent of well grown cannabis plant commonly known as Ganja, which is considered as a narcotic substance. After arresting of the accused, the charge sheet was filed by the police against the accused. The learned Special Judge has framed the charge under Section 8 (b) read with 20 (a) of N.D.P.S. Act against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty for the said charge. In order to establish the said charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. The learned Special Judge by taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence found accused guilty for the offence under Section 8 (b) read with 20 (a) of N.D.P.S.Act, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed by the accused. Now, the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the prosecution could able to establish the charges under Section 8 (b) read with 20 (a) of N.D.P.S.Act against the accused beyond reasonable doubt? P O I N T: The case of the prosecution is that on 20.11.1998 at 15.00 hours on reliable information P.W.8 has conducted raid in the agricultural fields of Pedda Earlapudi village and found 159 Ganja plants in the cotton fields cultivated by the accused and they have seized the plants and collected the samples and destroyed the remaining Ganja plants and the chemical analysis report discloses that the said samples containing narcotic substance. The appellant’s counsel has pleaded that P.W.1, who is an independent witness and P.W.2, who is the owner of the land, have not supported the version of the prosecution with regard to finding 159 Ganja plants in the agricultural fields of the accused and the samples were not sent to chemical examination through proper channel and the chemical examiner was not examined to prove that the samples were containing narcotic substance. On behalf of the Public Prosecutor, it is argued that the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 7 establishes the cultivation of Ganja plants in the cotton fields by the accused and the chemical examiner need not be examined and marking of report is sufficient to establish the contents of the report and the lower Court has rightly convicted the accused. P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer. According to him, on 20.11.1998 at 12.00 hours, he received credible information about the cultivation of Ganja in the fields of Islavath Kalu (accused) and another. He informed the same to the M.R.O. and requested him to come to Veerlapudi village. He along with his staff i.e. K.Srinivasa Rao, P.C., P.W.5 and P.W.6 photographer proceeded to Veerlapudi village. After some time P.Ws.3 and 4 joined with them at the village. Then he secured the presence of mediator P.W.7 and another K.Venkateswarlu. P.W.1 identified the field as it belongs to the accused, they searched the field of the accused and found cotton crop raised in the said land and also found 159 Ganja plants scattered in the cotton field of the accused. He got the said plants photographed and conducted a panchanama after uprooting the 159 Ganja plants and taken three (3) samples of Ganja and he has destroyed the remaining Ganja in the presence of M.R.O. and mediators. Thereafter, he returned to the Police Station and prepared the crime details form Ex.P.4 and recorded the statements of witnesses and issued F.I.R. Ex.P.5. On 23.11.1998, he arrested the accused and interrogated him and sent him to judicial custody. The three samples seized were sent to F.S.L, Hyderabad for report, through Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Khammam. Ex.P.6 is the F.S.L. report and the Expert opined that the samples were of Ganja. The said evidence of Investigating Officer was supported by P.W.3 Revenue Inspector and P.W.4, who was working as M.R.O at that time. Both of them have categorically stated that P.W.2 is pattadar of the land and the land is being cultivated by the accused and they found chilli and cotton crops in the said land and also found Ganja plants in the said field. They uprooted 159 plants from the said field in the presence of mediators and the samples were taken in their presence by the Investigating Officer P.W.8. P.W.5, who is the Police Constable, also supported the version of P.Ws.3, 4 and 8. P.W.7 the mediator for the Panchanama also supported the version of prosecution. According to P.W.7 on 20.11.1998 he along with M.R.O., R.I., and S.I of Police, and other panch witnesses with some other police constables went to the field of accused and inspected the same. They found 159 Ganja plants cultivated therein, which were grown to a height of 4 feet. The Ganja plants were uprooted and samples were taken. The signature slips were pasted on the said samples. Ex.P.6 is the Panchanama and it bears his signatures. P.W.1, who is said to be eyewitness to the incident, has not supported the version of the prosecution. But he has identified the land of the accused. According to him, he cultivated chilli crop in his land and the accused cultivated red gram and green gram crops in his land. The other witness P.W.2, who is the pattadar of the said land, which is being cultivated by the accused, in his chief-examination has stated that he along with the police and M.R.O, went to the land being cultivated by the accused and found few Ganja plants in the land being cultivated by the accused. But in the cross-examination, he has stated that he did not find any Ganja plants in the land and by the time he went to the land of accused, he found Ganja plants on the bund of his land and he do not know from where those Ganja plants were uprooted and the said Ganja plants were not cultivated in his land. P.W.2 admitted in his chief-examination that the accused has cultivated Ganja plants, but denied the same in his cross-examination. Even if the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is excluded, the other evidence as discussed above is sufficient to establish the raid conducted by P.W.8 in the field of accused and finding of 159 Ganja plants in the cotton crop raised by the accused. From the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5 and 7 it is established that P.W.8 has taken samples from the said Ganja plants. According to P.W.8, he has sent the said samples for chemical examination through Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Khammam and received Ex.P.6 report. Since P.W.8 has sent the samples to the F.S.L. through Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Khammam, it cannot be said that the samples were not sent to F.S.L., through proper authority. P.W.8 has marked the F.S.L. report received by Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Khammam. The contention of the appellant’s counsel is that the chemical examiner was not examined to prove the contents of Ex.P.6, cannot be accepted, and in view of Section 293 (1) of Cr.P.C. the chemical examiner’s report can be received in Evidence and the marking of Ex.P.6 F.S.L. report is sufficient to establish the result of the analysis. The report clearly shows that the samples sent to him are Cannabiool an active constituent of well grown cannabis plant commonly known as Ganja, which is a narcotic substance. Thus, the prosecution could able to establish that the accused has raised Ganja plants in the land cultivated by him. Thus, the charge under Section 8 (b) read with 20 (a) of N.D.P.S. Act is proved against the accused. With regard to quantum of sentence, the lower Court has imposed the minimum sentence of rigorous imprisonment of One year and fine of Rs.2,000/- in default simple imprisonment for one month, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.34 of 1999 on 15.12.2003 by the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under N.D.P.S.Act-cum- I Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam is hereby confirmed. _______________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 09th September, 2011 KSP