P.D. Rajan, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the conviction and sentence in C.C.No.3 of 2003 of the Special Judge for NDPS Cases, Thodupuzha for offence punishable under Section 20(a) r/w Section 20(b) (i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act, 1985 hereafter referred to as "the Act". The appellant was convicted for the above offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rupees 10,000/- in default of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another three months.

2. The facts necessary for indictment were that on 07.12.2001 at 11.00 am the Sub Inspector, Nedumkandam Police Station got a telephonic information that appellant was cultivating ganja plants behind his residential house. He recorded that information into writing in the General Diary of the Police Station, reported the matter to his official superior, thereafter proceeded to the place of occurrence with the police party and conducted a search in the residential compound of the accused. During inspection, the Sub Inspector found four ganja plants aged five months cultivated behind the residential house of the appellant. The appellant was arrested on the spot itself and seized the ganja plants. Reaching at the police station, he registered Crime No.327/2001. The Circle Inspector of Police, Nedumkandam conducted investigation and laid charge against the accused before trial court.

3. For establishing the penal liability, prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and marked Exts.P.1 to P.17 and admitted MO1 to MO4 in evidence. During cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, three documents were produced by the defence, which were marked as Exts.D1 to D3. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the appellant while questioning him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He was also heard under Section 232 Cr.P.C. and he was asked to tender his defence. He did not adduce any defence evidence. The trial court after sifting and weighing the evidence on record convicted the accused.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that there was no evidence to prove the conscious possession of ganja by the appellant since the property was in possession of his mother. No evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to prove the possession and ownership of the house by the appellant from where the ganja was seized. There was delay in sending the sample to the court and violation of the principles of search. What happened to the seized article was also not explained by the prosecution. When there is no evidence to prove the conscious possession, the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt.

5. In the instant case, the allegation was that, appellant was cultivating the ganja behind his house violating the provisions of the NDPS Act. At this juncture, I have considered what is the evidence with regard to cultivation of ganja. That allegation was put forward by PW1, who deposed that he got reliable information about the cultivation of ganja, proceeded to the place of occurrence after recording the information in the general diary which was marked in the trial court as Ext.P2 and he forward Ext.P1 information to the superior officer. When he arrived at the property, the appellant was plucking coffee beans from the property. PW1 searched the compound and detected the ganga plants. He deposed that the appellant watered the ganja plants with MO1 hose but he has only hearsay information about such watering. He categorically admitted that he has no case that he saw the appellant watering the ganja plants. He has no specific answer to the question, who planted the ganja plants in the property. He uprooted two ganja plants and took it as sample, which was marked as MO2 and MO3 by trial court. He also uprooted the remaining two ganja plants which was produced in the trial court and marked as MO4. Reaching at the police station, he registered a crime and Ext.P5 is the FIR and sent Ext.P6 r