Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 16533
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M G UMA, J
SRI RAMACHANDRAPPA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 888 OF 2013 (C)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT. ARCHANA K.M.
For the Respondents: SMT. RASHMI JADHAV
Conviction upheld for growing ganja plants; prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt despite witness inconsistencies.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 8(b) and Section 20(a)(i) - Conviction for growing ganja plants - The appellant was found in possession of 70 kgs of ganja, leading to conviction and sentencing to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of ₹40,000 - Prosecution met the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt despite some witnesses not supporting the case, and compliance with procedural requirements of NDPS Act was validated by the court. (Paras 1-17)
(B) Prosecution evidence - Witnesses corroborated the seizure of ganja plants and established the accused's presence at the site of occurrence, with valid documentation supporting the accusation. (Paras 3-16)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of growing ganja plants without necessary permits, and a raid conducted by police led to the seizure of 70 kgs of ganja. The trial court found the prosecution's evidence reliable to uphold conviction despite witnesses' inconsistencies.
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court’s judgment was found to appreciate the evidence correctly, leading to justified conviction. The appeal was dismissed upon reviewing the record.
Issues: The key issue was whether the prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt, considering procedural compliance under NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution successfully proved the case against the accused, affirming the trial court's findings and dismissing the appeal.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's conviction for growing ganja confirmed. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding procedural errors in evidence handling are invalid. (Para 4 , 6 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. examination of evidence supports prosecution's case. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. conviction upheld due to failure of appellant to demonstrate grounds for interference. (Para 16) |
| 5. final verdict affirms trial court's decision. (Para 17) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant being the accused in Special Case No. 336 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge (Special Judge) at Tumkur, is impugning the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.08.2013, for contravention of Section 8 (b) punishable under Section 20 (a)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 (for short, 'the N.D.P.S. Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay fine of ₹40,000/- for the above said offence, with default sentence.
2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution is that, on 22.07.2011, on receipt of credible information that deceased had grown ganja plants in his land, PW7-the Dy.S.P of Madhugiri proceeded to the spot along with the photographer-PW3, and two independent panchas-PWs.1 and 2. They found some ganja plants grown in the agricultural land besides the flowering plants referred to as button flowers. The accused was at the spot and in his presence, the ganja plants were removed from the earth and seized under the seizure mahazar in the presence of PWs.1 to 3. It is stated that the plants were weighing about 70 kgs, and since the accused was not having any licence or permit to grow the ganja plants, he said to have contravened Section 8 (b), punishable under Section 20 (a)(1) of the N.D.P.S Act. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed.
3. The Special Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 10, got marked Exhibits P1 to P15 and identified MOs.1 to 7 in support of its contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but has not led any evidence in support of his defence. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration all these materials on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and accordingly proceeded to pass the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as state above. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court.
4. Heard Smt.Archana K.M., learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional S.P.P. for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record including the Trial Court records.
5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is as under:
"Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?"
My answer to the above point in the negative for the following:
REASONS
6. As narrated above, it is the contention of the prosecution that the accused had grown ganja plants in his land besides flower plants. On credible information, PW.7-the Dy.S.P proceeded to the spot and found the ganja plants. Said plants were removed from the earth and seized in the presence of the accused, independent witnesses-PWs.1 and 2 and the photographer-PW.3 under the seizure mahazar as per Ex.P1. The seized ganja plants were weighing about 70 kgs. The sample was drawn and sent for examination. The FSL report is as per Ex.P14 confirming that the seized substance was ganja. Therefore, charge sheet came to be filed for the above said offence.
7. To prove its contention, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 and 2-the independent pancha wit
