SANTOSH Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1-8-2005 delivered by Smt. Maitriae Mathur, Special Judge, Raipur in Special Case No. 3/2002 whereby the Appellant was convicted under Section 20(b)(ii) read with Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default of the same, to undergo additional R.I. for six months.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that upon receiving secret information on 28-12-2001 about the possession of ganja by the Appellant, Bharati Sori, P.S.I. P.S. Arjuni searched the Appellant near bus-stand Dhamtari. The Appellant was holding an air-bag. After completion of necessary legal formalities, the air-bag was searched. It was found to contain ganja like substance which upon weighment was found to be 4 kgs. Out of this two samples of 100 grams were prepared and sealed. The remaining 3 k.g. 800 g.m. ganja was also sealed. The bag along with two sample packets were entrusted to Head Constable Jeevanlal Ratre PW-6 for safe custody and were sent on 31-12-2001 vide memo of Superintendent of Police, Dhamtari to Forensic Science Laboratory through Constable Vitthal Ram. The F.S.L. after examining the contents opined that the bag as well as the sample packets contained ganja. After completion of investigation, the Appellant was prosecuted under Section 20(b) of the Act. The accused was charged under Section 20(b)(i) read with Section 8 of the Act [Clause (i) relates to contravention relating to cultivating any cannabis plant.]

(3.) SHRI Shailendra Dubey, learned Counsel for the Appellant has assailed the impugned judgment only on the ground that in the absence of proof of the report of F.S.L., the evidence led by the prosecution did not establish that the substance seized from the Appellant, if any, was ganja. On this ground alone, he argued that the Appellant was entitled to be acquitted. On the other hand, SHRI Ashish Shukla, learned Government Advocate has argued in support of the impugned judgment, though formally.