Convicted accused is in appeal against the judgment dated 6-11-2003 in Spl. Case No.8 of 1998, on the file of learned District and Sessions Judge, Uttar Kannada, Karwar, convicting the appellants for offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPA Act) and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, as also under Sections 147, 447, 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The factual matrix of the prosecution case on the basis of which the appellants were tried and ultimately found guilty are:

On 4-3-1997 at 1600 hours, the forest officials inspected the land in Sy. No. 75 of Uttarakoppa Village, Bhatkal Taluk and found the accused 1 to 7 forming an unlawful assembly to trespass upon the said land for removal of 7 forest trees./ They had in furtherance of their common object, cut and removed 7 trees from two plots of land measuring 15 guntas and 20 guntas respectively, without permission or sanction from the Competent Authority. The forest officials found the appellants had thereby committed theft of the forest produce and natural wealth of the State. When the officials further inspected the place they also detected cultivation of Ganja on the said land. When they tried to apprehend the appellants, they tried to make good their escape but on further investigation, they found from the residence of the accused harvested Ganja weighing 10 kgs. In two bags. A mahazar was drawn seizing the said contraband and further investigation was taken up.

4. To initiate prosecution A.C.F., Bhatkal and RFO, Manki with their staff conducted raid at the place of offence and report was lodged at the jurisdictional police station. In the report, it was alleged that though there were 7 persons only petitioners 1, 2 and 3 could be apprehended. The cut trees were seized and the Ganja plants cultivated on the land were destroyed. The complainant also recorded that on search he has found 800 ganja plants on two plots, which were removed and destroyed. As the seizure was also effected during the said raid, it was registered at the jurisdictional police and FIR in Crime No. 23 of 1997 and on further investigation they seized from possession of the accused a S.B.P.L. Gun and that was also recorded in the mahazar.

Later RTC extracts were collected to ascertain ownership of the land. Being armed with the FSL report that the forest produce seized from the possession of the accused was in fact Ganja, charge was laid for offence punishable under Section 20(a), (b) of NDPS Act. The accused put up a defence of denial simplicitor but did not lead evidence in their defence.

5. To sustain the charge, prosecution examined 11 witnesses and relied upon 10 documents and produced 10 material objects.

6. The learned Trial Judge considering the ocular testimony of Nagappa Chennayya Nail, Ganesh Shantaram Naik, Nagappa Ganapayya Gonda, John Pedru Fernandes and Manohar Nagu Netrekar, examined P.Ws.1 to 5, held that the charge was proved and convicted them. Against the said order, they are in this appeal.

7. The learned Counsel for appellants seriously disputes seizure of alleged 10 kgs of Ganjas from the possession of appellants. He also disputes that accused had grown Ganja in the land bearing No. 75 or had cut forest produce. He submits that prosecution itself is vitiated as the provisions of NDFS Act are violated.

8. Per contra, learned Government Pleader has supported the impugned judgment.

9. Keeping in mind what is urged by both sides, I have examined the LCR. But before we advert to the evidence to find out whether it inculcates appellants for the charge leveled against them, certain legal aspects need to be noticed are:

i. Which Court had jurisdiction to try the offence charged?

ii. What was the actual produce seized and what was its quantity?

iii. What constitutes Ganja?

10. In the first instance, we have to go on the premise that prosecut