The prosecution's establishment of the accused's possession of the contraband and transportation under Section 20 (b) of the NDPS Act, 1985 was crucial in reaching the decision.

JUDGMENT:

Questioning the validity and the legality of the Judgment that is rendered by the Court of Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, Khammam in SC No. 27 of 2015, dated 12.05.2016, the accused in the said sessions case has preferred the present appeal.

2. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

3. Having found the Appellant (hereinafter be referred as “the accused”) guilty for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter be referred as “the NDPS Act, 1985” for brevity), was convicted and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The accused, raising a plea that he is innocent and was erroneously convicted, filed the present appeal.

4. Thus, in the light of the aforementioned facts, the points that emerge for consideration are;

1. Whether the prosecution established beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused was in conscious possession of 80 Kgs of Ganja and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) r/w Section 20 (b) of NDPS Act, 1985.

2. “Whether there exists any infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court either in appreciating the facts of the case or in applying the established principles of law to the said facts as contended by the accused herein which in turn requires the interference of this court exercising appellate jurisdiction.

5. Point No : 1

The case of the prosecution as could be culled out through charge sheet is that on 12.09.2015 at about 10:00 A.M PW1 who is the Sub Inspector of Police, Khammam Rural Police Station was conducting vehicle checking along with his staff near H.P. petrol pump which is located abutting Yedulapuram X Road of Khammam Rural. During the said course, he tried to stop a Maruthi Suzuki Esteem Car bearing Registration No. MH-04-AW-6189. The driver of the car proceeded without stopping. Immediately PW1 and his party chased and stopped the car. The car was searched and they found 20 Ganja packets concealed in the dickey. On that PW1 issued notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act to the driver of the car for conducting panchanama in the presence of Gazetted Officer. Thereafter he sent a requisition to the Tahsildar, Khammam Rural who is a Gazetted Officer to visit the place, to conduct panchanama and to record the statement of the said driver. The panch witnesses were also secured. On interrogation, the said driver who is none other than the accused, revealed his identity particulars. He further confessed that few days back, he committed theft of the said the car from a car shed at Maharashtra and on 11.09.2015 he purchased dry ganja from unknown persons at Malkangiri of Orissa State at lowest price with an intention to sell the same on a higher rate to the public. PW1 took photographs covering the scene of offence. Confession statement was recorded in the presence of the panch witnesses. The 20 packets of ganja each weighing 4 kgs totaling 80 kgs was seized from the possession of the accused under a cover of panchanama. Samples were drawn. The accused and the car were brought to the police station. On the complaint presented by PW1, a case was registered and the accused was arrested. The Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, who examined the samples, issued report opining that the sample is “Ganja”.

6. Considering the aforementioned allegations that are leveled against the accused, the learned Judge of the Trial Court framed a charge against the accused and conducted trial of the case. Subjecting the evidence of PWs. 1 to 8, Exs.P1 to P8 and MOs 1 and 2 to scrutiny, the learned Judge of the Trial Court came to a conclusion that the prosecution established its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge leveled and thereby convicted the accused.