JUDGMENT

Ram Prasanna Sharma, J. - As both the aforesaid appeals arise out of same incident, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Challenge in both the appeals is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30-6-2015 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act, 1985"), Jagdalpur (CG) in Special Case No. 6 of 2014 wherein the said Court has convicted the appellants for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, "the Act, 1985") and sentenced them to undergo RI for ten years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each with default stipulations for having possession of contraband article Ganja in commercial quantity.

3. As per case of prosecution on 6-2-2014 at 5.15 a.m. Sub Inspector of Police Station Bhanpuri namely B.P. Gupta (PW/14) got tip that three persons travelling in silver colour Skoda car having registration No. DL/04/NA/1833 are carrying Ganja and are coming from Jagdalpur on national highway towards Kondagaon. On the said tip, after preparation of Panchnama and after informing their senior officers, a team went to raid and stopped the said car and carried out investigation. After search, Ganja to the tune of 146 kgs and 527 grams was recovered in the said vehicle. Both appellants and another co-accused namely Rakesh Kumr were found in possession of said contraband. The matter was investigated and the appellants were charge-sheeted. After completion of trial, they were convicted as mentioned above.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submit as under.

I) The contraband article was not found in possession of the appellants.

ii) In the present case, Section 50 of the Act, 1985 has not been complied with because joint notice of Section 50 of the Act, 1985 is issued to all the appellants which is not permissible under the law and same is contradictory to the judgment passed by this court in the matter of Avinash Singh Rajput vs. State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 222 of 2014.

iii) Once the notice under Section 50 of the Act, 1985 is issued for searching of the vehicle and personal search, then mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act, has to be complied with, but in the present case same is not complied with.

iv) Prosecution failed to to prove as to who gave the consent commonly for all the persons found in the vehicle, therefore, it is not a compliance of Section 50(5) (6) of the Act, 1985.

v) In the present case, witnesses of seizure and search have not supported the version of prosecution, therefore, case of the prosecution is doubtful.

vi) The trial court has not evaluated the evidence in its true perspective, therefore, finding of the trial court is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that judgment of the trial Court is strictly in accordance with law and the same is not liable to be interfered while invoking the jurisdiction of the appeal.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the court below in which impugned judgment is passed.

7. Sub Inspector of Police Station, Bhanpuri namely B.P. Gupta (PW/14), deposed before the trial court that after receiving tip on 6-2-2014 at about 5.15 a.m., regarding transport of illegal contraband article Ganja in white colour car bearing registration No. DL 4-C-1833, he recorded information in Rojnamcha Sanha as per Ex.P/44 and two independent witnesses namely Munnalal Chuhan and Bigneshwar Thakur were called by the Constable Prem Prakash Bada (PW/4). He has informed to his superior officer i.e., Sub Divisional Officer (Police) Bhanpuri, Jagdalpur regarding transporting of illegal contraband Ganja vide information as per Ex.P/46 and same was registered in Rojnamcha Sanha vide Ex.P/47. As per version of this witness, he rushed to the gate of the Police Station Bhanpuri with independent witnesses and police personnel and at about 6.15 a.m,., in the morning he stopped Skoda Car bearin