In the absence of reliable evidence to establish that the contraband article produced before the Magistrate and the article sent for chemical examination were the articles seized from the possession of the accused, the conviction and sentence for possession of Ganja under Section 20 (b) (i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 cannot be sustained.

C. R. PAL, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant who is convicted and sentenced under Section 20 (b) (i) of the Nareotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the act') has preferred this appeal assailing the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jaypore in Sessions Case No. 327 of 1991.

( 2 ) THE case against the appellant is that on 2-9-1991 at about 12. 30 P. M. while the officer-incharge of Boiperiguda Police Station (P. W. 5) was performing patrol duty along with his staff at Boiperiguda Bus Stand, Bajangowada-Jaypore Bus bearing Registration No. (sic) 4417 reached there and the appellant along with one Suresh Chand Pradhan, the. co-accused alighted from the bus. At that time the appellant was holding a tin box (M. O. 11) and the other co-accused was holding an attache (M. O. 1 ). P. W. 5 suspecting their movement wanted to search the tin box and the attache and asked them to open the same. When they did not open the tin box and the attache, he searched the appellant and his companion and recovered the keys of the tin box and the attache respectively from the pockets of the appellant and his companion. With the help of the keys he opened the tin box and the attache and found that the tin box contained 11 kgs. of Ganja and the attache contained 5 kgs. of Ganja, Neither the appellant nor his companion produced any authority for possessing the said Ganja. So he collected samples from the tin box and the attache separately and kept them in two separate packets and sealed them in presence of the witnesses. He also sealed the tin box and the attache in presence of the witnesses and seized all those articles under the seizure lists, Exts. 1 to 4. Later the appellant and his companion were forwarded to the court subsequent to which the seized articles were also produced before the Court with a prayer to send the samples for chemical examination. The Court forwarded the seized samples vide its forwarding letter, Ext. 6 and also. received the Chemical Examiner's report, Ext. 7 which reveals that the samples were Ganja. On the above allegation the appellant along with his companion were charged for an offence under Section 20 (b) (i) of the Act to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Their case is a complete denial of the allegations levelled against them. According to them, nothing was seized from their possession and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Further case of the appellant is that the police detained the bus at Boipariguda and recovered the unclaimed box and the attache which contained Ganja and took 10 to 12 passengers of the bus to the police station whereafter the appellant and his companion were detained there.

( 3 ) ). To prove its case against the appellant and his companion, the prosecution examined five witnesses out of whom P. W. 1 is the Conductor of the bus in which the appellant and his companion were travelling, P. Ws. 2 and 3 are the two passengers of that bus who witnessed the search and seizure etc. P. W. 4 is a constable and P. W. 5 is the Officer-in-charge who investigated into the case. In course of hearing prosecution also exhibited the seizure lists, Ext. 1 and 2 under which M. Os. I and II were seized, seizure lists Exts. 3 and 4 under which the sample packets ware seized, the plain paper F. I. R. Ext. 5, the office copy of the forwarding letter of the S. D. J. M. , Jaypore, Ext. 6 and the report of the Chemical Examiner, Ext. 7. The trial court believing the evidence adduced by the prosecution convicted and sentenced the appellant and his companion as mentioned earlier.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that in absence of reliable evidence to come to a definite conclusion that the contraband article produced before the learned Magistrate and the article sent for chemical examination were the article seized from the possession of the appellant and his companion, the conviction and sentence is improper