SANGADAN SUBRAHMANYAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment inflicted upon the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with S. 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry in NDPS SC No. 7 of 1995 on 28-9-1995.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief is as under : A-1, A-2 and A-3 are close associates involved in Ganja business. On 1-9-1994 at about 4-00 p.m. the SI of Police (P.W. 4) along with his staff and mediators, P.W. 1 and another, while proceeding on bye-pass road at Tuni noticed the accused, who are in possession of two suit-cases and a hand bag, standing near Sri Lakshmi Hotel of R. Bangara Babu (P.W. 3). On seeing the police party, the accused tried to escape from that place along with their belongings. P.W. 4 with the help of his staff arrested them on suspicion and brought them to the Hotel and found one cement colour suit-case in the possession of A-1; one challenger suit-case in the possession of A-2 and one sky-blue colour hand bag in possession of A-3. A-1 voluntarily informed that Ganja is there in the suit-cases and the hand bag. The said quantity of ganja was recovered from the possession of the accused and got weighed. On weighment, the first suit-case was found containing 8.500 grams, the second suit-case was containing 7 Kgs., and the hand bag was found containing 2 Kgs. of Ganja respectively. P.W. 4 then drawn 100 grams of ganja from each suit-case and the bag separately for the purpose of chemical analysis and informed about the registration of the case to the concerned Senior Officers. The Chemical Examiner, who conducted analysis of the sample opined that the samples contained Ganja, which is a narcotic substance. Accordingly a charge-sheet was filed under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity 'the Act').

(3.) In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 5, got marked Exs. P-1 to P-6 and MOs. 1 to 6.