The court found the accused guilty of possession of Ganja based on consistent evidence from witnesses and dismissed the appeal.

JUDGMENT

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J. - The judgment, dtd. 19/1/2009 in Sessions Case No.3 of 2008, on the file of Special Judge for NDPS Cases-cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole ("Special Judge" for short), is under challenge in the present appeal filed by the unsuccessful Accused, who faced trial for the charge under Sec. 20(b)(ii)(B. r/w 8(c. of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act" for short. and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 1/2 years and to pay fine of Rs.500.00 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The State, represented by the Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Ongole, filed a charge sheet in PR.No.150/2007-08 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Ongole, alleging the offence under Sec. 20(b)(ii)(B. r/w 8(c. of the NDPS Act.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 7/12/2007 L.W.8-K. Venkateswara Rao, Prohibition and Excise S.I. along with L.W.3-Ch. Harinarayana, P.C.1040" L.W.4-Sk.Md. Rafi, P&EC.228 L.W.5-P. Narapureddy, P.C.1988; L.W.6-M. Rajasekhara Reddy, P.C.1534 and L.W.7-T. Ratnakumar, P.C.1634, Prohibition & Excise Station, Ongole, conducted vehicular checking for Prohibition & Excise offences at the scene of offence. At about 2-30 a.m., they stopped one APSRTC Bus bearing No.A.P.28-Z-1850 going to Tirupati. They requested the passengers to act as mediators, but they refused to do so. Then, they requested L.W.1-Ravilla Krishnama Naidu and L.W.2- Chinthamakula Sivaiah, the drivers of the said APSRTC bus to act as mediators and they accepted to act as mediators. Then the Prohibition & Excise S.I. served search proceedings under Sec. 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short. on L.W.1. During search of the bus, they noticed the accused in the last seat of bus in a disturbed mood. He was in possession of one cream colour suitcase at his feet along with one zip bag. On questioning, the accused stated that they belonged to him and it contains Ganja. Then L.W.8 informed to L.W.9-M. Bhaskara Rao, P&E Inspector. Thereafter, L.W.9 reached to the scene of offence. They informed the accused about Sec. 50 of the NDPS Act procedure in writing, for which the accused refused the same. On verification of suitcase and bag, they found wet Ganja with leaves, buds, seeds, etc. They also found one ticket with the accused. The accused revealed his identity particulars and confessed the commission of offence. L.W.9 got weighed the Ganja in suitcase which is of 8.500 kgs. and the zip bag contains Ganja of 4.500 kgs. L.W.9 took 50 grams of Ganja from the suitcase and zip bag as samples, kept the remaining Ganja in the very same suitcase and zip bag. He seized the same along with bus ticket. He arrested the accused under the cover of mahazarnama. He registered the mediators report as a case in PR.No.150/2007-08 under Sec. 8(c. r/w 20(b)(i. of NDPS Act. He forwarded the accused for judicial custody. Samples were sent to analyst and the analyst opined in Rc.No.1920/2007, dtd. 19/12/2007 that the samples are of Ganja. Hence, the charge sheet.

5. The learned Special Judge, Ongole, took cognizance of the case under the above provisions of law. After appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under Sec. 207 of the Cr.P.C. Then, a charge under Sec. 20(b(ii)(B. r/w 8(c. of N.D.P.S Act was framed and explained to the accused, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 and M.O.1 to M.O.3 were marked. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution, for which he denied the same and s