IMPORTANT POINT
Complainant himself proceeded with investigation, but that itself will not disentitle him to proceed with investigation, unless it shown that accused prejudiced by such act.

JUDGMENT

Budihal R.B., J.—Since these two appeals are arising out of the common judgment passed by the trial Court and since common questions of fact and law are involved in these two appeals, they have been taken together to dispose of them by a common judgment.

2. Criminal Appeal No.718/2013 is preferred by Accused No.1 and Crl.A.No.728/2013 is preferred by accused No.2.

3. The appellants-accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred these appeals being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 11.7.2013 passed by the Principal Sessions and Special Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore in Spl.Case No.8/2009 holding appellants guilty of the offences punishable under Section 8(c) r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 and the order of sentence dated 12.7.2013 imposing rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh each and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. They have challenged the validity and correctness of the order of trial Court on the grounds mentioned in their respective appeal memorandums.

4. The case of the prosecution in brief before the trial Court is that the Inspector of Police, Narcotic Drugs Cell, COD., Bangalore has lodged the complaint dated 6.8.2008 addressing to the Police Sub-inspector, Venoor police station, Belthangady Taluk stating that on 5.8.2008 at 16.00 hours when he was in the COD office, his informant informed that on 6.8.2008 one Lakshman Poojary of Mudukodi village will be earring ganja illegally in his Maruti van for the purpose of sale and if complainant comes, he would show the same. Immediately, he informed the same to his higher officers and after obtaining their permission during night on the same day he left Bangalore to Mangalore along with Head constable Devaraju and went to COD Office at Mangalore and with the staff therein they proceeded in the jeep bearing No.KA01-G-4241 and came to Mudukodi village and were waiting. At that time, informant took the complainant, his staff and also the panchas to the mud road situate on the eastern side of the tar road of Venoor towards Mudukodi and shown them one white colour maruti van and told that it contains ganja bags and the said van belongs to Laxman Poojary and to help Lakshman Poojary one Dinesh @ Harish is also with him in his motorcycle. Immediately the complainant with his staff in the presence of panch witnesses surrounded the said van. Two persons were sitting in the van and after seeing the complainant and his staff, those two persons jumped and ran away. Though the complainant made an effort to chase them he did not succeed. In the van there were 18 polythene bags and when weighed 17 bags contained 10 kgs each of ganja and one bag contained 5 kgs. of ganja The value of the ganja was Rs.21 lakhs and the maruti van bearing No.KA-19-M-4775 was worth Rs.1,50,000/- and the motorcycle bearing No.KA-19-H-3703 was worth Rs.30,000/- and in total all the materials were worth Rs.22,80,000/-. They were seized in the presence of panch witnesses under seizure mahazar conducted from 15 to 18 hours and on the basis of same, case came to be registered under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act and further investigation was entrusted to COD. Panchanama was also conducted. Although efforts were made to search the absconding accused persons, they were not traced. On the basis of the said complaint, case was registered in Venoor police station Crime No.52/2008 for the alleged offences under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act against accused Nos.1 and 2. The trial Court, after conclusion of trial and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, has ultimately convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences under Section 8(c) r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court and also challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment, appellants-accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred the above appeals.

5. Heard the