JUDGMENT Accused-appellant has directed this appeal from jail against the judgment and order of sentence dated 8th February, 1996 rendered by Special Judge and I Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch district Mandsaur passed in Special Cri. Case No. 130/94, thereby convicting the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act') and sentencing to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, and one lakh rupees fine, in default of payment further rigorous imprisonment for two years. The case of the prosecution stated in brief is that on 10th May, 1994 in the morning at about 10.00 ASI, S.B. Singh Choudhari received the information through the informer at Police Chouky Jat that Muni Sohandas residing in a hut near Lalpura Talab has illegally cultivated Cannabis plant and also kept Ganja in his possession for the purpose of sale. The information received by Shri Choudhari was reduced to in writing and the copy of the same was sent to SDO Police, Ratangarh. Thereafter, raid party was constituted and ASI Choudhari alongwith constable Bahadursingh (PW 3) and two independent panch witnesses Mangilal (PW 1) and Prushottam (PW 2) reached at the hut of the appellant situated near Lalpura Tank, the accused-appellant was found sitting in his hut. ASI Choudhari, on interrogation, appraised the accused of his right with regard to formalities pertaining to search for the raid party. Accordingly, on search of his hut and surrounding area, 2 packets were seized from one orange coloured bag containing 230 gms. of ganja. On search of surrounding area, 160 Cannabis plants were also seized from the area occupied by the appellant-accused. The alleged packets of Ganja and the illegally cultivated Cannabis plans were seized and two samples of 15 gms. were prepared and separately sealed from the packets containing alleged ganja and the appellant was arrested. The seized property and the appellant were brought to Police Station Ratangarh. On first information report. Exh. P-10, a crime No. 51/94 was registered at Police Station, against the accused-appellant under section 8/20 of the Act. One sealed packet of the sample and 160 Cannabis plants were sent for chemical examination to the Regional FSL Indore Ex. P-16 is the report while confirmed that seized samples of the article was cannabis and the plants are Cannabis plants having leaves mixed with stalks. One sealed packet of the sample and 160 Cannabis plants were sent for chemical examination to the Regional FSL Indore Ex. P-16 is the report while confirmed that seized samples of the article was cannabis and the plants are Cannabis plants having leaves mixed with stalks. On usual investigations, challan was filed against the appellant-accused. The appellant was charged for the offence punishable under section 8/20 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty. On completion of the trial and evolution of the evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal against the impugned judgment. I have heard Shri Brijesh Pandya learned counsel appointed by the Legal Aid Committee, for the appellant and Shri Abdul Salim, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that from the evidence of the prosecution, seizure of alleged ganja and the cannabis plants from possession for the appellant, is not proved. From the evidence of the prosecution, it emerged that at the time of the incident on arrival of the raid party at the place of the incident, some other persons were also found present in the hut and they ran away from the place of the incident on arrival of the raid party. Learned counsel also submitted that alleged cannabis plants were recovered from the open place which is accessible to general public. In view of the aforesaid facts, the charge levelled against the accused-appellant is not proved beyond doubt and deserves acquittal. In oppugnation, learned Penal Lawyer appearing for the respondent-Stare supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court and submitted that from the evidence of the prosecution it is proved beyond doubt that the place from where alleged packets of ganja and Cannabis plants were seized was in exclusive possession of the appellant and the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence charged against him. I have carefully perused the record and considered the rival submissions as advanced on behalf of the parties. I have carefully perused the record and considered the rival submissions as advanced on behalf of the parties. On perusal of the statement of the independent panch witness, Puroshottam (PW 2) it is found in para 14-15 of the cross-examination, he stated that on reaching the place of incident as soon as the police officer had proceeded for search of the hut at the relevant time, two persons sitting in the hut ran away from the place of the incident. On of the persons who ran away from the place of the incident was identified as cobbler but the witness did not identify the other person, The witness also stated that two-three boys were also present at the spot and they also ran away, on arrival of the police, from the place of incident. In para 15 of his cross-examination, the witness stated that one Sadri also tried to run away from the place of incident and he was caught by the Police. Thereafter, ASI Choudhari also interrogated to one Badri, who wanted to run away from the place of said incident. The other panch witness (PW 1) Mangilal in his cross-examination has also corroborated the statement of Puroshottam on the point of arrival of the raid party at the place of incident, one Badri and two other persons ran away from the place of the incident, out of which Badri was caught by the police. In para 10 of his cross-examination the witness also stated that near Barni Bank, a temple is situated in an area of about 1 bigha land and the appellant Sohandas resides near the temple in a hut. ASI, S.B. Singh Choudhari (PW 4) in his cross-examination in para 15 has stated that the place from where orange colour bag containing two packets of ganja was seized is accessible to other persons. Similarly in para 16 of his cross-examination, he also admitted that Cannabis plants and Dhuni from where alleged Cannabis and Cannabis plants were seized is open place and accessible to general public. In view of the aforesaid evidence on record, it is difficult to hold that the alleged packets of ganja and the Cannabis plaints were seized from the place which is exclusively possessed by the accused-appellant and the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant on the point deserves to be accepted. In view of the aforesaid evidence on record, it is difficult to hold that the alleged packets of ganja and the Cannabis plaints were seized from the place which is exclusively possessed by the accused-appellant and the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant on the point deserves to be accepted. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the appellant is found entitled to get benefit of doubt and deserves acquittal. As a result of the foregoing discussions, this appeal succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The judgment and the order of sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The appellant is in jail, he is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.