( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16/8/2005 delivered by Srnt. Maitrae Mathur, Special judge, Raipur in Special Criminal Case No. 41/2002 whereby the appellant was convicted u/s. 20 (b) (i) of the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs. 25,000. 00 and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution story is that on 6-4-2002, the Asstt. Sub-Inspector, district Crimes Squad, Dhamtari Shri Ashok dwivedi P. W. 3 received secret information that two persons, in unauthorized possession of ganja were going towards Makeshwar ward. After completion of necessary legal formalities, he reached the Makeshwar Ward along with witnesses Chabila P. W. 1, santosh P. W. 2 and police staff. Near the public utility in Makeshwar Ward, the appellant who was carrying a white plastic bag in his hand was apprehended. After serving the appellant with a notice under Section 50 of the Act, the bag in possession of the appellant was searched. It was found to contain Ganja like substance. Upon weighing, the substance of the bag was found to be 5 kg. and 200 gms. Two samples of 100gms each were taken and were scaled. The bag and the two samples were seized vide Ex. P-5 as also on 6-4-2002, and on the same day were entrusted for safe Custody in the malkhana P. S. City Kotwali, Dhamtari vide ex. P-13 (C ). A specimen impression of the seal used to seal the samples was also entrusted for safe custody. On the same day vide memo Ex. P-15 of the Superintendent of Police, Dhamtari the white plastic bag and the two sample packets were sent for analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory, raipur through Constable Bheesham Singh netam. These articles were ineceived in the f. S. L. Raipur on 8-4-2002. Vide report dated 18-4-2002, the Forensic Science Laboratory opined that all the 3 packets which were sent for chemical analysis contained ganja. After completion of investigation, the appellant was prosecuted under Section 20 (b) (i) of the Act.

( 3 ) THE appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence. The prosecution examined two independent witnesses Chabilal p. W. 1 and Santosh P. W. 2, A. S. I. Ashok dwivedi P. W. 3, Malkhana Moharrir rathram Patel P. W. 4, D. S. P. Ashok Pipare p. W. 5 and Constable Bheesham Singh netam P. W. 6. No. evidence was led by the appellant.

( 4 ) THE prosecution did not tender the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory as evidence under Section 293, Cr. P. C. No mention about the report was to be found in the testimony of either A. S. I. Shri Ashok dwivedi P. W. 3 or Constable Shri Bheesham singh Netam P. W. 6. During examination, under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. also, no question was put to the accused regarding the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. Despite there being any legal proof of the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and also the fact that the independent witnesses had not supported the prosecution story, the learned trial Judge relying upon the testimony of A. S. I. Shri Ashok Dwivedi p. W. 3 convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid in para 1.

( 5 ) SHRI Arun Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there is no legal evidence to show that the substance seized from the appellant was Ganja. He contended that prosecution having failed to tender the report of the Forensic Science laboratory as evidence as required under section 293, Cr. P. C. , the evidence of A. S. I. Ashok Dwivedi (P. W. 3) it could not form the basis for convicting the accused under section 20 (b) (i) of the Act. It was further argued that since no opportunity was given to the appellant to explain the report of the F. S. L. as an evidence appearing against him, the conviction under Section 20 (b) (i) of the act could not be sustained in the eye of law. He also contended that the evidence led by the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document