The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; any reasonable doubt benefits the accused, leading to acquittal.

Judgment :

S.S. Mishra, J.

1. The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellant- Niranjan Basantia under Section 374 of the Cr. P.C., is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.02.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kendrapara in S.T. Case No.405/41 of 1992, whereby the present appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 20 (b) of the N.D.P.S. Act and on that count, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for nine months.

2. Heard Mr. Debi Prasad Pattnaik, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The prosecution case in terse and brief is that on 20.08.1992, when the excise staff were performing patrolling duty at Duhuria bus stand area, the accused-appellant was going with a bag in his hand and the suspicion grew of the S.I. of excise. At that time, a cyclist passing by, was also approached to be a witness to the transaction of seizure. Thereafter, out of suspicion, the accused was detained and the bag was searched in the presence of the witnesses. On being searched, they found 1kg.500 grams of contraband ganja to be inside the bag and seizure of the 1.500 grams of ganja was effected. Thereafter, the Excise Officer took sample of 50 grams of ganja in two packets in presence of the witnesses and 1.400 grams of ganja was deposited in the court. The sample packets were also sent for chemical examination. The accused was arrested on the spot and produced in the Court. After completion of investigation, the Excise Officer submitted the P.R. to stand for trial by the appellant.

4. The prosecution in order to bring home charges examined as many as four witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1 was the Excise Constable, who deposed about the seizure of the ganja from the possession of the appellant. P.W.2 was a cyclist, who said to be an independent witness to the seizure. P.W.3 was the Excise Sub-Inspector, who submitted the prosecution report and P.W.4 was another Sub-Inspector of Excise, who stated to have seized the contraband Ganja from the possession of the appellant. Two witnesses were also examined in support of the defence plea.

5. The learned trial Court by taking into consideration the entire evidence brought on record particularly the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4 and the official witnesses came to the following conclusion:-

“7. P.Ws.1 and 4 have absolutely corroborated each other that the accused was apprehended near the country liquor shop and P.W.2 was going on cycle at the spur of the moment and was requested by P.W.4 to get down to be a witness and accordingly P.W.2 was a witness to the search and seizure, put his signature in the seizure list, in the paper seal affixed on mouth of the bag and that P.W.4 extracted 100 grams of ganja from the original containor to be send as a sample for analysis. Ext.3 and 4 have corroborated that part of the transaction transacted by P.W.4. The only difference available in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.4 is that in the evidence of P.W.1 and 4 Ganja was wrapped in the polythin bag and the ganja containing polythene bag was kept inside a cloth bag. Both have admitted that the seizure list found mention that the ganja was kept in an old cloth bag and ganja containing cloth bag had been kept in a polythin bag. The occurrence is 20.8.92. P.W.1 has been examined on Feb. 1993 and P.W.4 has examined on May, 1993. The human mind is not same to recapitulate all details. The evidence of P.W.1 has not been shaked to disbelieve them that there is shifting stand as regards the place of occurrence. The