JUDGMENT :

The appellant, who is the accused in NDSC.No.4 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under N.D.P.S. Act – cum – I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, was found guilty and was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20(a)(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter be referred to as “the NDPS Act” for brevity) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The findings given and the punishment imposed are assailed by the appellant/accused through this appeal.

2. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, who is representing the respondent, and gave anxious consideration to their versions regarding the factual and legal aspects.

3. The case of the prosecution, if narrated in a narrow compass, as could be culled out through the charge sheet is that on 02.12.2013, basing on the reliable information about the cultivation of Ganja by the appellant/accused, P.Ws.3 to 5 secured P.Ws.1 and 2 as mediators and rushed to the land in Survey No.10/110/A situated at Jaithuguda of Empally Revenue Village, Narnoor Mandal, Adilabad District. As they reached, the appellant/accused was found present at the said field. On interrogation, he disclosed his identity particulars and further stated that he is the owner of the said land. The Prohibition & Excise Officials issued a search memo and on search, they found six Ganja plants. The appellant/accused failed to produce any valid permission or licence for cultivating the Ganja. On further search, the Excise Officials found approximately 54 Kgs of dry Ganja in a white bag and the same was seized in the presence of the mediators under a cover of panchanama after drawing samples as required under law. The six Ganja plants were destroyed by burning and the appellant/accused was arrested. The samples drawn were forwarded to the Chemical Examiner, Nizamabad, and on examination, it was reported as “Ganja Positive”.

4. On filing of charge sheet, the presence of appellant/accused was secured, a charge was framed thereafter and finally subjecting the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, Exs.P.1 to P.8 and M.Os.1 and 2 to scrutiny, the learned Judge of the trial Court came to a conclusion that the prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt for the charge levelled and thereby convicted the appellant/accused. The findings given, as discussed earlier, are in dispute.

5. Having regard to the factual scenario as laid down in the charge sheet and the points raised in this appeal disputing the validity and the legality of the judgment rendered, the points that arise for consideration are :-

1) Whether the respondent/State established beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant/accused committed the offence charged?

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 principles of law to the said facts as contended by the appellant herein, which, in turn, requires the interference of this Court exercising appellate jurisdiction?

6. POINT Nos.1 and 2 :-

Seriously disputing the validity of the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial Court, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that the appellant/accused was not produced before the Gazetted Officer as required under law and he was not appraised of his right of being searched and further, there is a clear discrepancy with regard to the number of bags seized from the possession of the appellant/accused. Learned counsel further points out that in the panchanama, it is mentioned that there were 50 Ganja plants, whereas the witnesses deposed that there were 5 Ganja plants and if at all the Excise Officials, as contended by them, have visited the alleged scene of o