IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA th ON THE 26 OF JULY, 2024 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 12523 of 2023 SAMYALAL SINGH GOND AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri R. P. Yadav - Advocate for the appellants.

Ms. Ranjana Agnihotri - Deputy Government Advocate for the State.

Reserved on : 05.07.2024 Pronounced on: 26.07.2024 JUDGMENT This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed on

25.9.2023 by Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (for short, “the Act”) Shahdol, in Special Case No.23/2020 whereby both the appellants (hereinafter referred to as “accused persons”) were convicted of the offence of Section 8(b) read with Section 20(a) of the Act and were sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.35,000/- with a default clause to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment of one year for non-payment of fine.

2. Facts relevant for the decision of this criminal appeal are that a mukhbir soochna was received by Sub-Inspector Umashankar Chaturvedi that the accused persons, who are real brothers, were cultivating cannabis plants in their land; panchnama thereof was prepared and acting upon this information, independent witnesses were summoned and a report for not seeking the search warrant was prepared and sent to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shahdol, along with a copy of the mukhbir soochna panchnama; entry was made in rojnamcha and the police party then raided the spot along with the witnesses; both the accused persons were present on the scene; they were informed about the mukhbir soochna and the land of their possession was searched where 32 cannabis plants were found which were around six feet tall; all these plants were de-rooted and weighed; all the plants were seized and samples were taken; the accused persons were arrested; on returning the police station, accused persons were sent to custody, the FIR was registered at Crime No.294/2020 and the seized cannabis plants were also handed over to the concerned; after investigation in the registered crime and completing the proceedings of Section 52A of the Act, the charge-sheet was filed. Both the accused persons were tried for the offence of Section 8(b) read with Section 20(a) of the Act and were held convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. 3. The grounds raised in this criminal appeal are that the judgment passed by the court below is contrary to evidence available on record and is absolutely perverse as the court below failed to appreciate the evidence which was full of material contradictions, improvements and omissions creating reasonable doubt on its story; only interested witnesses were examined and they too failed to support the prosecution case; no “Ganja” was seized from the exclusive possession of appellants and only on the basis of fabricated evidence, the conviction was handed out; compliance of mandatory provisions of the Act, namely Sections 42 and 57, were not ensured. It is, therefore, prayed that the appeal should be allowed and the accused persons should be acquitted.

4. State has opposed the appeal claiming that the conviction and sentence passed by the Special Court deserves no interference.

5. Both the parties have been heard and the record has been perused.

6. It is a case of cultivation of cannabis plants and according to prosecution 32 such plants were found having been cultivated in the land belonging to the joint possession of accused persons, who are the real brothers. For this, prosecution has relied upon the testimony of Sub-Inspector Shri Umashankar Chaturvedi (P.W.7), who received the mukhbir soochna and conducted the search and seizure proceedings; Constable Rakesh Shukla (P.W.14), who took the mukhbir soochna to the Office of Deputy Superintendent of Police along with a memo prepared for not seeking the search warrant; Reader Buddhu Singh Uike (P.W.8), who received these documents in the Office of Deputy Superintende