LAWS(MPH)-2007-6-20

SATYABHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On June 29, 2007
SATYABHAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.4.2001 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge, NDPS Act, Shivpuri, in Special Case No. 6/2000, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 8 read with Section 20A(1) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [in short "the NDPS Act, 1985"] and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.1,000 with default stipulation.

(2.) In short, the story of the prosecution is that on 17.9.2000, ASI, Ranvir Singh (PW13), who was posted at P.S. Kotwali, Shivpuri, in the afternoon got information from the informant about the illegal cultivation of Ganja plants at village Chharenta. He went to village Chharenta along with the police party and independent witnesses. Due to want of time search warrant could not be obtained. Notice for search was given to the appellant and in search nearly 45 plants of "Ganja" were seized from the field of the appellant. Seizure memo was prepared at the spot. The relevant documents are Ex.P14, Ex.P15 and Ex.Pl6. Sample was also prepared vide Ex.P19. The appellant was arrested. The arrest memo is Ex.P20. The spot map is Ex.P3l and the Dehati Nalisi was written which is Ex.P32. The intimation of search, seizure and arrest was sent to the Special Judge vide Ex.P8. The samples were deposited in the Malkhana of the police station and also sent for their examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar. The report of FSL, Sagar is Ex.P33 which confirmed that the seized plants were of "Ganja". After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge and the trial Court after completion of the trial convicted the appellant as stated in para one of this judgment.

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt because no independent witnesses have corroborated, the story of the prosecution regarding search, seizure and recovery of plants. Further, it is not established that in the field from which the contraband plants were seized belongs to the appellant. It is also submitted that as per the definition given under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act it is not proved that the seized plains come under the purview of definition of Ganja. It would be fruitful to reproduce the definition as laid down under Section 2(iii)(b)of the NDPS Act. (iii) "cannabis (hemp)" means - (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) ganja, that is, the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated; and (c) xxx xxx xxx (iv) "cannabis plaint" means any plant of the genus cannabis.