The prosecution must establish the possession of illegal substances beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence provided must meet the required legal standards.

JUDGMENT :

D. Dash, J.

1. The appellant, by filing this appeal, has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.06.1992 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in S.T. Case No. 158 of 1990.

The appellant has been convicted for offence under section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, 'N.D.P.S. Act') for possessing 6 kgs of ganja and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.07.1990 the Sub Inspector of Excise (P.W. 4) and Assistant Sub Inspector of Excise (P.W. 1) were performing patrol duty at Dhutra. It was around 9.30 A.M. to 10.00 A.M. they found accused going over the railway crossing carrying a bag. At the sight of P.W. 1 and 4, when his movement was found to be suspicious, he started running. He was then chased by P.W. 4 and detained. Thereafter in presence of witnesses, P.W. 4 observing legal formalities, searched the bag carried by the accused. On search the bag was found to contain 6 kgs of ganja. Seizure of the ganja and other articles/were made and seizure list was prepared. A copy of the said seizure list was handed over to the accused in presence of witnesses. The accused then being arrested was forwarded in custody to the court of the learned S.D. J.M., Jharsuguda along with seized ganja. On completion of investigation, prosecution report being submitted in the court; the accused faced the trial.

The case of the accused is that of complete denial and false implication.

3. It has been stated by the accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. that he had come to Jharsuguda for purchasing some articles and being called by the Excise officials had gone to the office where he was asked about his brother and then his signature were taken in few papers. It is further stated that the Excise officials having detained him for about two hours, arrested him and forwarded to the court.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant (accused) and learned counsel for the State.

I have perused the judgment of the trial court as also the depositions of all the witnesses. Side-by-side I have gone through the documents exhibited during the trial.

5. In the trial, prosecution has examined four witnesses. As already indicated, P.W. 1 is the A.S.I, of Excise whereas P.W. 4 is the S.I. of Excise then posted at Jharsuguda. P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are the witnesses present at the time of arrest. Besides leading to the oral evidence through the lips of the above witnesses, the prosecution has proved the seizure list.

The trial court, on analysis of evidence and upon their evaluation, has held that the prosecution has proved its case that the accused was in possession of 6 kgs of ganja at the relevant time of detention. Having arrived at that finding, the trial court has convicted the accused for offence under section 20(b) of the Act and he has been sentenced as aforesaid.

6. Considering the submissions made, this Court is called upon to judge the sustainability of the finding of the trial court insofar as the factum of seizure of 6 kgs of ganja from the possession of the accused is concerned. Accepting the prosecution evidence for a moment that the accused was found to be carrying a bag, it is first of all to be seen as to whether the evidence is enough to hold that 6 kgs of ganja has been recovered from that bag. The prosecution has not proved the chemical examination report in the particular case. For the purpose, reliance is placed on the evidence of P.W. 4. He has nowhere stated as to have himself conducted any such test. It is stated that by smell, colour and experience, he could know that the contents of the bag seized from the possession of the accused were nothing but ganja. The witness has been cross-examined on that score. He has not submitted as to how many years departmental experience, he had by that time. It is also