This Appeal is preferred by the accused in S.C.No.36 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa.

2. A-1 was charged for the offences under Sections 20 (b) (i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "NDPS Act") for possessing ganja of 13 bags weighing 130 KGs on 04-01-2000. A-2 was also charged for 20 (a) (1) of the NDPS Act for cultivating ganja plants in the land measuring an extent of Ac.1-40 cents of Pochammareddipalli in Sy.No.128/2.

3. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 04-01-2000 at about 6-30 AM, the Inspector, his men and the mediators went to Pochammareddipalli village and when they were waiting near "Vanka" towards southern side of the village, at a distance of about 11/2 KM, a double bullock cart loaded with gunny bags was being driven by one person sitting on the cart and another person was following the cart. On seeing the police party, they attempted to run away. The police surrounded and caught hold of them. On ascertaining, they disclosed their identity as A.1 and A.2 and A-1 informed that he was eking out his livelihood by selling ganja by purchasing it from the village and selling them in towns. A-2 cultivated the ganja plants and agreed to sell the same at Rs.600/- per bag and as A-2 told him that he was having 13 bags of Ganja leaves, A-1 took the bullock cart, loaded the cart with bags with an intention to weigh them at his house and to pay the amount to A-2. A-1 informed the police that after cleaning the ganja leaves, he sells the same at Rs.1500/- per KG. On the said information, the police opened the bags and took the samples of ganja in separate plastic bags for chemical examination and affixed labels to the bags with the signatures of the panchayatdars, arrested the accused and sent them for remand. A report was prepared to that effect and the panchas signed on it, after seizure of the bags and arrest of the accused, the samples sent to the analyst discloses that the samples contain Narcotic Drugs and it is a Narcotic Drug defined under the Act. When the accused denied the charges, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-5 to establish the offence against the accused. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on defence side.

4. The learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that no seizure was effected from either of them; that the seizure and arrest of the accused was not done in the presence of a Gazetted Officer and that the procedure contemplated under the NDPS Act is not followed, therefore, the Judgment of the lower Court is liable to be set aside by acquitting the accused.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the police found the accused carrying ganja plants in gunny bags loaded on a double bullock cart; that they seized the gunny bags after the accused disclosing their identity and on confirmation that the material contained in the gunny bags is a ganja, therefore, the police took the samples in the presence of the mediators and the seizure of the material was effected in their presence and a panchanama was written incorporating the happenings at the time seizure and arrest of the accused. There is no illegality committed by the prosecution, therefore, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

6. In the light of the contentions raised by the parties, the point for consideration is:

"Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?"

7. PW-1, the Village Administrative Officer of the neighbouring village, was said to be one of the mediators for the panchanama prepared at the scene of offence. But, this witness did not support the prosecution version, therefore, he was declared hostile.

8. PW-2, the then M.R.O., Veerapanayunipalli, deposed that he was present when 13 bags of ganja was seized from the accused by the Excise Inspector at Pochamreddipalli. At the said time,