PRAKASH Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar in Special Case No.119/2009 dated 27.10.2010, wherein the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 20(a)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as 'the Act' for short) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and shall also pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. Challenging the same appellant accused is before this Court.

(2.) The brief facts of the case of the prosecution in nutshell are that; on 17.5.2008 at about 6.15 a.m. PW1 complainant received a credible information and thereafter he secured his staff and PW5 Dr.Nanjundaswamy and went to the place and raided the residential house of the accused situated at P.G.Palya village and the accused found having grown 12 ganja plants in the backyard of his house without there being any permit or licence and a mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P2, the said articles were seized, by taking the sample they came to the police station and registered a case in Crime No.70/2008 for the offence punishable under Section 20 (A) and (B) of NDPS Act and after investigation charge sheet was laid against the accused. Thereafter, the Special Court took cognizance and after supplying the copies of the charge sheet and other relevant materials accused was heard regarding the charge and the charge was framed, by explaining the charges accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, as such the trial was laid.

(3.) In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P8 and also got marked the MO.1. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded by putting incriminating material as against him. Accused denied the same, thereafter he has not led any defence evidence. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, the impugned judgment came to be passed. Assailing the same, the appellant accused is before this Court.