WW,WW,W Present Mr. Abhay Tiwari, Advocd‘l'e Mr. N.K. Memo, Panel Lawwr for fhe respnndem-Sfa‘re. Per Dhirendra Mlshm J - This appeal is direc‘fed againsl' ‘l‘he judgmen‘l‘ of conviction and order of sentence dared 5'” August 2002 passed by learned Special Judge, under N.D.P.5. ACT, Bastar- a't J dalpur in Special Case No.14/02 whereby learned Special Judge has co victed the appellant under Section 20’(b) of the Narcotics Drugs d: Psych tropic Substances Act (for short ‘the Act’) and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 3 years & 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.7,000/-, in defautt of t of fine to further undergo R.I. for 09 months. Case of the prosecuti , in brief, is that on 28.4.2002 the informer gwe information that a person carrying cannabis in a packet is sitting in the bus stand, the said informati n was recorded in Sanha Mereafter a / p n o W m W1 200 mini (W) WWW 3941mm mmm WWifgérm %ai1%mm APPELLANT nnfosh Kumor Marai, 5/0 Mangloo Ram amt, Aged abouf 23 years, R/o Village qjnagar, P.S. Nugarnur, Dis‘h‘icf Bashr .6.) I ’ Vs RESPONDENT 5 a1-e of Chhaffisgnrh. XI—HC—78 @ WWW wmm WWW _z/ mmiwm Qwif-cmm The Act which was sent fo 1' Officer proceeded To the p bags. On imerrogm‘ion the J and he is taking The some f him, as required under Sec ion 50 of The AcT, and afTer obTaining his consenT search was made an in The said search 8.300 Kilograms of cannabis was seized in Two packeTs f polyThene afTer observing The formaliTies required under The law. On he basis of above seizure, charge sheeT was field under SecTion ZO-B o menTioned herein above. Learned counsel for ‘ *he appellanT submiTs ThaT boTh The seizure wiTnesses namely PW—l Karunakar é PW—4 Narayan Singh have noT supporTed The prosecuTion convicTion of The appellant Officer 5hri Tillu Singh invesTigaTion and filed The n there are major contradicti investigating officer, even then the Trial court ignoring The material contradictions in the version given by The punch witnesses and investigating officer relying upon the st ement of investigating officer convicted and WW in 200 mam-m (W) panchanamn of Ex.P-3 was prepared for proceeding under Sedion 42 (2) of 1e Superintendent of Police. The Invesiigo‘iing lace where the appeiian'i' was found carrying appellan'i' confessed fhaf he is carrying Ganja r fhe purposes of saie. A notice was given to The AcT and The appellanT was 'corwicTed as case and They have Turned hostile and The is based on The statement of Investigating Thakur (PW-2), who has conducted The :harge sheet. IT is further contended That ns in the statements of panch witnesses and ‘ @ WW,W,W Wm m 200 mm (W) WWW mm m WWW WW WTW $3ft‘awané31 (y en‘renced 1‘he appellant, as mentioned above. Reliance is placed an 2002a .L.J. 579 Bahadr Singh Vmus Stale of MJ’. On fhe oTher hand, learned l’anel Lawyer for lhe Sfa‘l'e submitted that where the evidence of Investigating Officer inspires confidence and the accused in his cross~examination has not been able to suggest any’ill-will lor mala fide on the part of the Inv stigating Officer, his testimony cannot be discarded solely on the basis of the panch witnesses, who have turned hostile. He further submits that -1 Karunakar, who is panch witness, has admitted that cannabis was seized in his presence though he has turned hostile and has made contradictory statement, however, he has not denied his signatures in the document of EXP-1, informer‘s report Ex.P-7, Panchnama prepared under Sectio 42 (2) of the Act (Ex.P-3), search panchnama (EXP-4), notice under 5 ction 5O of the Act (EXP-5), recovery k memo (Ex.P~6) etc. Similarly PW—4 Narayan Singh is also the witness of seizure and he has also admitte that cannabis was recovered in his presence and the accused was also sent at the place of recovery. I have heard learned counsel or the parties In the matter of Bohadur 5 ngh (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme ¢ourt considering the doubtful entries in x.P-15 regarding the amount and as to when same were made has held tha under the aforesaid circumstances the appellant cannot be convicted on th sole testimony of the police witnesses and extended benefit of doubt to the appellant. However, in the instant FS/246 2/2007 50,000, GRPRJ e EW,W,W q Wm 1:1 200 mam (13W) 'mmm WWW WWW{@W mwm awimm / $€ , ,yr ‘\ Ky Roshanl- case Inves‘rign'ring Officer Tillu Singh (PW—2) has defailed The procedure adopted affer fhe informafion was received by him from the informer regarding commission of offence and during investigofion, and from which i'l' is ,amply ciear Thar requirement under The AcT for search and seizure of The conTraband have been d followed. The defence in The cross- examinaTion of This wiTness ha noi- been able To bring such circumsTance which may Throw a doubT in The eraciTy or genuineness of The invesTigaTion. STaTemenT of This wiTness fin s corroboraTion from The sToTemenT of Norayan Singh (PW—4) who is al o a wiTness of seizure and has sToTed ThaT when The seizure was effecTed PW-l Karunakar, oTher panch wlTness and accused was also presenf There The seizure wiTnesses, Though They have been declared hostile, buT The have admiTTed Their signaTures over The documenTs prepared during The nvesTigaTion'ond in These circumsTances I am of The considered opinion Th The courT below has noT commiTTed any illegaliTy or infirmiTy by reachi To The conclusion ThaT The appellanT was involved in The crime in quesTion. In The resulT, The appeal being devoid of subaance is liable To be ed. ‘ x2e» ‘Qv ' dismissed and iT is hereby dismis Sd/- WlDHHuEHHUKLbSHRA " Judge