"'Bs-isaa 111!i:'31Stea APPELLANT: RESR3NDENT: HIGHCOU^TOF CHHATTiSGARH, BiLASPUR Criminal Appeal No.599 of 2008 Ramraten Kunjam, S/o Dev Singh, aged about 32 yaars, R/o Wllage Muhkot. Chouki Borai, P.8. Sihawa, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Sihawa. {Criminai appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Crimlnal Procedure, 1973} Preseni: Mrs. Uma Tiwari, counsei forthe appellant. Mr. Pankaj Shrivastava, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondent. Sinsle Bench: Hon'bte Mr. T.P, Sharma. J ORAL JUDGMENT (14-10-20!%) 1. By this appeal the appellant has chaflenged iegality and p-opriety of the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 20-3-20W passed by the Speciat Judge (NDPS Act), Dhamtari in Special Cnminal Csse N&.22/2007 whereby leamed Special Judge after holding the accused/ appeiiant guilty for cultjvation of the contraband article camiabjs plant (Ganja), conviested him under Section 20 (a) (f) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub^ances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'), sentenced him to undergo R.!. for three years & pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of flne to further undergo 8.1. fcr six months. 2. The judgment is chattenged on the ground that without any ctinching and credible evidence against the appeltant, the Court betow has convicted and sentenced him as aforementioned. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused Ramratan who is resident of Villags Muhkot, Polics Outpost Borai, Poiice Station Sihawa, Distt. Dhamtari had cultivated cannabis plant (Ganja) in his kitehen garden. On the information received from the mformant io Vnis effect, Mukhbir Panchnama was prepared vlde Ex.P-1 and Panchnama for non-procurement of search warrant was prepared \ride Ex.P-2. Investigating Officer K. Pradhan (PW-8), Assistant Sub Inspector !eft for Villags Muhkot along with the police forca and after reaching viiiage Muhkot, he servsd notice Ex.P-5 to the appellant and the appellant agreed for seareh of hte kitchen garden by the Investigating Officer. The ss iaa S3 Bi RS EB Bl BS IB3 ..•s^S'*'8'^. appsllant made seareh of the Police staff. Thereafter, the kitchen garden of the appetlant was searehed by the Police Officer and cannabis riant (Ganja) was found in the kitohen garden of the appellant. 91 cannabtsplants (Ganja) of 1 ft. to 7 ft. length were seized from the kitchen garden of the appellant vide Ex.P-7. The appellant was arrested vide Ex.P-8. Search & seizure were intimated to the superior officer vide Ex.P-9. Seized articles were produced before the Malkhana, same have been kept in Malkhana after making necessary entry in the Malkhana register vide Ex.P-18C. Spot map was prepared by the Range Assistant OfRcer, Sankra vide Ex.P-21 . Roznamcha was recorded under Ex.P- 16(0 and the F.I.R. was registered under Ex.P-14. The seized articles were sent for chemical anaiysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur vide Ex.P-10 and same was found to be cannabis plant (Ganja). 4. Aftsr completing investigation, charge sheet was flted before fte Special Judge, Rafpur and the same was transferred to the Special Judge, Dhamtari, aftercreaUon of new sessionsdivision, Dhamtari. 5. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses. Stetement of the appellant was recorded under Sectton 313 of the Gr.P.C. in which he denied the ciroumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence & false implication. The accused has aiso pteaded that the Police came wth cannabis piants and he has been falsely implicated by the Police. 6. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, tearned Special Judge tas convicted & sentenced the appellant in the aforesaid manner. 7 i have heard learned counsel for the [Mirties and perused the impugned judgment as also the record of the triai Court. 8. Learned counse! for the appellant submits that the prosecution has not proved its case by adducing reliable & cc^ent evidence. Gendlal (PW-5), who is Panch witness, is driver of some vshicle and he accompanied the Police Officer. The prosecution has not examined the independent witnesses of the iocality. It has not examined independent witness Rajuram who is resident of village Muhkot. 9. On the other hand, the judgment is supported on behalf of the State/ respondent. lO.ln.this case, the prosecution has adduced ocular, documentary & scientific evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. In order to appreeiste the contentions offrie parties, 1 have examinedthe evidence available on record. K. Pradhan (PW-8), who has conducted Investigation, has stated in his evidence that on 30-10-2005 he received Informatton from ttie informantthat the appetlant has cultiTOted cannabis plant (Ganja) in his Idtehen garden. He prepared Mukhbir Panchnama Ex.P-1 and also preparsd Panchnama Ex.P-2 for non-procurement of seareh warrant and also sent information to the superior offlcer. After recording Roznamcha, he proceeded for the spot where he served notice to the Panch witnesses Rajuram & Gendlat vide Ex.P-4. After calling the appellant, he informed him about his rght of seareh vide Ex.P-5. The accused agreed for seareh by the Investigating Officer. The appeltant has made search of the Police staff vide Ex.P-6 and thereafter, the Police Officer made search of the kitehen garden of the appeltant which was adjoining to the house of the appeliant and found 91 cannabis (dante (Ganja) which have been cultivated by the appellant with flowers. After removing the said plants, same have been measured vlde Ex.P-3 and seized vide Ex.P-7. Notice retating to license was served to the appeliant vide Ex.P-13, but the appeltant has not. produced any document relating to iicense. The accused was arrested vide Ex.P-8 and the F.t.R. was lodged vide Ex.P-14. K. Pradhan (PW-8) came to the Poiice Station along with the accused & cannabis piants and same was kept in the Malkhana after making necessary entry in the register. information was sent to the superior officer vide Ex.P-9 and also to the Judiciaf Magistrate, First Class, Dhamtari vide Ex.P-17. 11 Gendlal (PW-5) who has accompanied th? Police Officer has deposed in his evidence that he went to viitage h/tuhkot atong with the Police Officer and the Police has seized 91 cannabis plants (Ganja) from the kitchen garden of the accused vide Ex.P-7. M.D. Tiwari (PW-7) has supported the investigation and stated that the seized articles have been sent to Uie F.S.L. for chemica! analysis vide Ex.P-10 and alt the artcles were found to be cannabis piants (Ganja) vide Exs.P-11 & P-11A. Kapurchand Netam (PW-4) has stated that he has measured the length of cannabis plants vide Ex.P-3. Panchuram Kashi (RW-9) has specificaily stated that he has kept the seized property in the Malkhana register Ex.P-18 after making necessary entry therein. K.K. Singh Parihar ^>W-10), retired Deputy Ranger has deposed that he has prepared the map (Ex.P-21) of the kitchen garden of the appellant at ttie instance of the Poiice Officer, it was surrouncfed by fencing. 12. Defence has cross-examined K. Pradhan (PW-8) at length in which he has categoricaily stated regarding the procedure followed by him and he has atso stated that he has recovered 91 cannabis plants (Ganja) from the kitohen garden of the appeilant and the appellant has cultivated the said ptants In his kitchen garden. Gendlal (PW-5) has also admiBed in his examination-in-chief .'?• s.':i. °~?'';.'^^^^^IB!^S^^^^^^^;>;s?s^;*:1'!3°ay-' •\'.^S:S^^E~^_•. /.-^^.i'"^^ -sp^t "''^ •^:!ii^"' Soms & cross-examination that the Police Officer has recovered 91 cannabis plante (Ganja) from the kitchen garden of the appeltant. Panchuram Kashi (nA/-9) has stated that he kept the seized DroDertv in the Malkhana reaister. K.K. Singh Parihar (RW-10) has stated that he has prepared the map of the kitchen garden ofthe appellant which is situated in the forest land. 13. Defence has cross-examined the witnesses but it has not been able to eticit anything in their cross-examination to show that the appeitent was not in possession of ttie kitehen garden or the PoUce Officer has foisted the case against the appellant or no cannabis plants were found in the kitehen garden of the appeiiant. Evidence of K. Pradhan (PW-8) is corroborated on matarial particulare with other witnesses, documents & F.S.L. report which shows that the plants recovered from the kitchen garden ofthe appellant were found to be cannabis plants (Ganja). 14.After appreciating the evidence available on reeord, learned trial Court has convicted & sentenced the appellant under Section 20 (a) (i) crf the Act. The tt-iai Court has rightly convicted the appellant. Conviction of the appettant is sustainabte under law. As regards the sentence, ttie trial Court has sentenced the appetlant to undery) R.!. for three years & pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. This is a case of cultivation of cannabis ptants (Ganja) and 91 cannabis ptants were found in possession of the appellant. Taking into consideration, the huge quantity of cannabis plants recovered from the possession of fte appellant, the trial Court has imposed the sentence as aforementioned. Sentence imposed upon the appellantis ne er excessive nor unjust. 15 For the foregoing reasons, there is no force in the wpeal, same is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly, dismissed. _ Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge 'Y.; • -;• <-