JUDGMENT - S.S. PARKAR, J.:---The appellant convicted under section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to R.I. for nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default R.I. for three months and also convicted under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act without awarding sentence thereunder in Sessions Case No. 247 of 1992 has preferred this appeal impugning the order of conviction and sentence recorded against him by the Sessions Judge, Solapur on 24-11-93. 2. Prosecution case briefly stated is as follows : P.S.I. Bhange, attached to Kurduwadi Police Station in Solapur received information on 25-7-92 that the appellant-accused was possessing and cultivating illicit ganja plants in his land situated at village Laul. He, therefore, called two panchas and P.W. 2 Shri Vairagkar who was serving as Assistant Engineer in the office of P.W.D. and as such holding Gazetted post and told them about the information which he had received. P.S.I. Bhange made entry in the station diary in respect thereof which is produced at Exhibit 17. He took the said Gazetted Officer, two panchas, the police and the instruments of weighing and went to village Laul in the police jeep. The raiding party went to the vasti in the land of the appellant. The appellant was present in his land. He was told about the information and that the police party wanted to have search of his field. The raiding party had offered the appellant to give their own search which the appellant declined. Near the electric poll surrounded by the wire fencing in that land, the raiding party noticed 13 illicit ganja plants of the approximate height of 3 ft. to 6 ft. The ganja plants were removed from the land and a branch from each of those 13 plants was taken for the purpose of sample. All the plants weighed 9 kg. and 500 gms. The weight of the sample branches was 110 gms. The sample was sealed with the paper seal bearing the signatures of the panchas and panchanama of seizure Exhibit 9 was drawn which was signed by P.S.I. Bhange, the panchas and the Gazetted Officer Vairagkar P.W. 2. Thereafter the raiding party returned to the police station along with the appellant. P.W. 1 Head Constable Naikwade a member of the raiding party lodged his complaint Exhibit 7 and the offence came to be registered under Crime No. 65 of 1992. Thereafter the raiding party returned to the police station along with the appellant. P.W. 1 Head Constable Naikwade a member of the raiding party lodged his complaint Exhibit 7 and the offence came to be registered under Crime No. 65 of 1992. P.S.I. then sent report about the said raid to Superintendent of Police, Solapur a copy whereof is at Exhibit 18. P.S.I. took over the investigation, recorded the statements of the witnesses and sealed sample of the attached ganja plants was sent to C.A. Pune on 3-8-92. The C.A. report dated 29-8-92 is at Exhibit 19, according to which ganja was detected on the sample. After completing the investigation charge-sheet was filed. 3. Charge was framed by the Sessions Court against the appellant under section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act and under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act. The appellant-accused pleaded not guilty. At the trial, the defence of the appellant was of total denial. He denied that he was on the land that day. According to him he was taken to the police station from the village by the police. 4. On behalf of the prosecution 7 witnesses were examined; P.W. 1 is Abdul Naikwade the Police Head Constable who filed the complainant and was a member of the raiding party; P.W. 2 is Rajkumar Vairagkar, Asstt. Engineer of the P.W.D. and a Gazetted Officer who had also accompanied the raiding party; P.W. 3 is Baburao Jagtap, panch to the seizure panchanama who was declared hostile as he did not support the prosecution case except admitting that he had signed the panchanama. The prosecution had, therefore, examined another panch witness P.W. 4 Bhimrao Kadam who also did not support the prosecution case except admitting his signature on the seizure panchanama; P.W. 5 is Sadikali who was working as Muddemal Clerk at the police station; P.W. 6 is Subhash Anjikhane, Police Constable who took the sample to the office of the C.A. on 4-8-92. Lastly, the prosecution examined P.W. 7 P.S.I. Bhange who was member of the raiding party and also conducted the investigation. 5. After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge, Solapur by his judgment and order dated 24-11-1993 convicted the appellant and sentenced him as stated above. It is this order of conviction and sentence which is under challenge in this appeal. 6. Mr. 5. After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge, Solapur by his judgment and order dated 24-11-1993 convicted the appellant and sentenced him as stated above. It is this order of conviction and sentence which is under challenge in this appeal. 6. Mr. Mane, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, after taking me through the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the copies of the panchanama, complaint and C.A. report, firstly, contended that the appellant-accused was not shown to be in possession of the land in question or to be the owner of the land. The Investigating Officer P.W. 7 P.S.I. Bhange attached to Kurduwadi Police Station received information about the appellant being possessing and cultivating illicit ganja plants in his land situate at village Laul. Accordingly, the raiding party had gone to the said village and vasti of appellant. The appellant was at that time found in his own land. After the raid P.S.I. Bhange had addressed a letter to the Tahsildar and Talathi for getting the extract of land bearing Gut No. 698/2 of village Laul. He has produced on record the copy of his letter addressed to Tahsildar and Talathi Exhibit 20 and also the 7/12 extract in respect of the land of the appellant in village Laul and also of the neighbouring lands. As per the 7/12 extract, the land bearing Gut No. 698/2 in village Laul stood in the name of the appellant which is not denied by the appellant in his 313 statement. The appellant has only replied to all the prosecution case put to him by stating that it was false. In question No. 14 it was put to the appellant in his examination under section 313 of Cri.P.C. that P.S.I. had sent letter Exhibit 20 to Tahsildar and Talathi and obtained 7/12 extracts of the appellant's land and in respect of the neighbouring land to which also the reply is that it was false. In reply to question No. 17 where the appellant was asked whether he had to say anything else, the only answer given by him is as follows : "I was not in the land on that day and I was taken to the police station from the village by the police". 7. In reply to question No. 17 where the appellant was asked whether he had to say anything else, the only answer given by him is as follows : "I was not in the land on that day and I was taken to the police station from the village by the police". 7. From what is stated above it is clear that it is not the case of the appellant that the land in question from which the ganja plants were seized did not belong to him. He has not specifically denied the ownership of the land from which ganja plants were seized. His only case is that he was not in the land on that day. From the evidence of P.S.I. Bhange P.W. 7, Head Constables Naikwade and an absolutely independent witness Rajkumar Vairagkar P.W. 2 who was holding a Gazetted post then as he was serving as Assistant Engineer in the P.W.D., there is absolutely no scope for doubt about the presence of the appellant on the land in question from where the ganja plants were seized. Under section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act the person, inter alia either producing or possessing ganja in contravention of the provision of the Act or any rule of condition of licence is liable for punishment. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly shows that the appellant was in possession of the ganja plants. He was found physically in the land at the time of raid from where the ganja plants were seized. The prosecution by producing 7/12 extracts of the land in question and the neighbouring land has proved the ownership of the appellant in respect of the said land also. The appellant having not disowned the ownership of the said land or the cultivation of ganja plants in the said land, the prosecution, in my view, has sufficiently proved the production and possession of the ganja plants by the appellant in his land. 8. Mr. Mane secondly argued that though the plants were seized on 25-7-92 and brought to the police station, they were handed over to the Muddemal Clerk P.W. 5 on 1-8-92 along with the sample plants. According to him the prosecution has not shown where the muddemal articles were kept during the period between 25-7-92 to 31-7-92. 8. Mr. Mane secondly argued that though the plants were seized on 25-7-92 and brought to the police station, they were handed over to the Muddemal Clerk P.W. 5 on 1-8-92 along with the sample plants. According to him the prosecution has not shown where the muddemal articles were kept during the period between 25-7-92 to 31-7-92. The prosecution witnesses P.W. 1 complainant, P.W. 7 P.S.I. Bhange and P.W. 2 independent witness Vairagkar who was a Gazetted Officer have deposed that the muddemal articles were taken to the police station on 25-7-92. They were entrusted to Muddemal Clerk only on 1-8-92 that means during the interregnum the muddemal articles were lying in the police station. P.W. 5 Muddemal Clerk does show that he received the muddemal articles and the sample in sealed condition. Sample packet was handed over to P.W. 6 Police Constable Anjikhane on 3-8-92 along with the forwarding letter who in turn deposited the same in the office of the C.A., Pune on 4-8-92. He does state that he received the sealed parcel with seal intact along with the forwarding letter dated 3-8-92. It is not in dispute that the sample was sealed at the time of the seizure. The seal was founded intact by the office of the C.A. also when it was deposited there. In the light of this evidence no doubt arises with regard to the authenticity of the sample which was seized from the muddemal article recovered from the possession of the appellant and submitted to the office of the C.A. for analysis. The argument of Mr. Mane that the evidence of the prosecution should not be accepted as both the panchas had turned hostile is without any substance in view of the more independent and reliable evidence P.W. 2 Vairagkar who had accompanied the raiding party and was holding a Gazetted post. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, the prosecution has no doubt led a reliable evidence in respect of seizure of ganja plants from the farm/land of the appellant and, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order of conviction. The plea of Mr. Mane to reduce the sentence also cannot be countenanced as the maximum sentence that can be awarded under section 20(b) of N.D.P.S. Act is rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and also fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees. The plea of Mr. Mane to reduce the sentence also cannot be countenanced as the maximum sentence that can be awarded under section 20(b) of N.D.P.S. Act is rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and also fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees. As against that a sentence of only nine months R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2000/- was awarded to the appellant. It cannot be forgotten that the appellant was also convicted under section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act under which no separate sentence was awarded. Considering the fact that the appellant was found cultivating and growing crops of ganja plants, the sentence cannot be said to be excessive. 10. In the result the order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant in Sessions Case No. 247 of 1992 by the order of Sessions Judge, Solapur on 24-11-1993 is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall surrender to his bail bonds forthwith. Appeal dismissed. -----