GHUDAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant challenges his conviction under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter the Act) and sentence of five years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5,000.00. In default further R.I. for one year, awarded, vide judgment, dated 15/6/1990, passed by 111rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Special Case No.1 of 1990.

(2.) As per the prosecution, on 5/1/1990 Lalji Pandey (P.W.4), Excise Sub-Inspector, along with the members of his staffreached the Badi of the appellant and seized one green bag form his possession containing 1 kg. and 100 gms. of Ganja, Ranjcct Bhatiya (P.W.3) and Excise Constable Ramcharan (P.W.2) are the witnesses of the said seizure, vide Ex. P- 1. The defence is one of outright denial.

(3.) Section 36-A (1) (a) of the Act runs thus: all offences under this Act shall be triable only by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed or where there are more. Special Courts than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the Government. The submission is that as is clear from the impugned judgment it has been pronounced by Turd Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara. There is nothing in the judgment to show that the said Judge was presiding officer of any special Court constituted u/s 36-A ibid. Therefore, the trial having taken place in a Court which was not empowered under the Act to try the offence, the accused is entitled to acquittal. The learned Govt. Advocate candidly conceded that there is nothing on record to indicate that the offence has been tried by a special Court constituted under the aforesaid provisions of the Act. In view of this, the other points urged by the learned counsel for the appellant, namely, non-proof of the seized article to be Ganja, non-proof of the seizure of the said article from the possession of the appellant, in absence of independent corroboration of the evidence of the departmental witnesses, violation of Section 24(2) of the said Act, need not be discussed.