Judgment :- For cultivation of Ganja in half acre of Reserved Forest Range, Appellants / Accused 1 and 2 have been convicted under Sec.20(a)(i) N.D.P.S.Act in C.C.No.260 of 1995. By the Judgment dated 25.07.1997 the Special Judge, E.C and N.D.P.S.Act, Coimbatore has sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and also imposing fine of Rs.1000/-. 2. Case of prosecution could briefly be stated thus: On 19.11.1994, on receipt of reliable information that Ganja Plants were planted at Kudhini Forest Range, P.W.4-Inspector of Police, Kothagiri Circle proceeded along with the Police Party and accompanied by Independent Witness-P.W.1-Kulandaivelu and another Witness by name Raju. In the Reserved Forest Range at Kudhini, P.W.4-Inspector of Police, Police Party and the Witnesses have seen the cultivation of Ganja plants in half acre of land and the Accused 1 and 2 being present thereon. The First Accused was caught red-handed by P.W.4. The Second Accused – Ganesan has managed to escape and sped away from the scene of occurrence. 3. The First Accused was arrested at about 10.00 a.m on 19.11.1994. On being interrogated, A-1 admitted cultivation of Ganja Plantation in Reserved Forest Range. P.W.4 seized 5 Kgs of green Ganja leaves in the presence of P.W.1 and another Witness Raju under Ex.P.1-Seizure Mahazar. Remaining Ganja Plants cultivated in half acre of land were destroyed in the presence of Witnesses under Ex.P.2-Destruction Mahazar. 4. Registration of case and Investigation:- The First Accused and the Contraband were brought to Kothagiri Police Station. P.W.4 registered the case in Crime No.535 of 1994 under Sec.20(a)(i) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act”)under Ex.P.6-F.I.R. The First Accused was remanded to judicial custody; Seized 5 Kg. sample Ganja was also sent to the Court. P.W.4 examined P.W.1-Kulandaivelu and another Witness by name Raju and recorded their Statements. On 19.11.1994, P.W.4 sent Ex.P.4-Requisition for sending the Sample material for Chemical Analysis. In Ex.P.5-Chemical Examiner’s Report, it is observed that the Contraband was Cannabis / Ganja. 5. P.W.2-Village Administrative Officer issued Ex.P.3-Certificate stating that the place of occurrence comes under the Reserved Forest Range. P.W.3-Lingan-Forester was also examined. On examination of other witnesses and on completion of Investigation, P.W.4 filed the Charge Sheet against the Accused on 24.02.1995 under Sec.20(a)(1) NDPS Act. 6. To substantiate the charge against the Accused, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined. Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked. P.W.3-Lingan-Forester was also examined. On examination of other witnesses and on completion of Investigation, P.W.4 filed the Charge Sheet against the Accused on 24.02.1995 under Sec.20(a)(1) NDPS Act. 6. To substantiate the charge against the Accused, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined. Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked. M.O.1-5 Kgs. of Ganja was produced to the Court. The Accused were questioned under Sec.313 Crl.P.C about the incriminating evidence and circumstances against them. The Accused denied all of them and stated that a false case has been foisted against them. 7. In consideration of the evidence adduced by the Prosecution, learned Special Judge found that by the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 strengthened by contemporaneous documents Exs.P.1 and P.2, the Accused are proved to have raised Ganja Plants. Learned Special judge pointed out that the occurrence being a case of cultivation, the procedural defects pointed out in packing, weighing and sealing would not affect the Prosecution case. Finding that the sample has been proved to be Ganja, learned Special Judge convicted the Appellants as aforesaid in para (1). 8. Onbehalf of the Accused, it is contended that when the Lower Court has accepted that there had been no proper identification of the First Accused, the benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the Accused. It is further pointed out that the contradictions and the evidence of P.W.1 whether the Forest Officer accompanied them or not was not properly appreciated by the Trial Court. It is further submitted that non-compliance of Sec.55 NDPS Act vitally affects the Prosecution case and the conviction is liable to be set aside. 9. Countering the arguments, learned Government Advocate Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan has submitted that on the evidence of P.W.4 corroborated by Independent Witness P.W.1, the learned Special Judge rightly found the cultivation of Ganja Plants by the Accused has been proved by the Prosecution. It is further submitted that the destruction, seizure and taking of Sample are well proved by the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 and the sample has been proved to be Ganja by Ex.P.5-Chemical Analysis Report. The Accused are rightly found guilty of the offence. Learned Government Advocate has submitted that the Conviction is well balanced and that there is no reason warranting interference. 10. The Accused are rightly found guilty of the offence. Learned Government Advocate has submitted that the Conviction is well balanced and that there is no reason warranting interference. 10. In the light of the contentious points urged by the Appellants, whether the Conviction of the Appellants under Sec.20(a)(1)NDPS Act is liable to be set aside is the only point that arises for consideration in this Appeal. 11. As per Ex.P.3-Certificate issued by P.W.2-Village Administrative Officer, Survey No.2 Kodanadu – an extent of 429.75 acres is Reserved Forest. The specific area of cultivation is named as Kudhini area. On 19.11.1994, on receipt of reliable information, P.W.4-Inspector of Police, Kothagiri accompanied by Independent Witness – P.W.1-Kulandaivelu, one Raju and Police party went to Kudhini Forest Range and had noted the raising of cultivation of Ganja Plants, wherein Appellants / Accused 1 and 2 were present. P.Ws.1 and 4 have consistently spoken about the visit to Kudhini Forest Range and cultivation of Ganja Plants in half acre of land and the presence of A-1 and A-2. On seeing the Police Party, A-2-Ganesan sped away. On the allegation of Plantation of Ganja by A-1 to an extent of half acre by him and A-2, A-1 was arrested. P.W.1 has spoken about the arrest of A-1 and cultivation of Ganja. He has also spoken about the arrest of A-1, Seizure of Sample of 5 Kgs of Ganja and destruction of the remaining quantity of Ganja. During Chemical Analysis, the sample was proved to be Cannabis Ganja Plants. Inference of guilt is to be drawn by the very presence of A-1 and A-2 in the midst of Ganja Plantation and A-2 fleeing from the scene of occurrence. The Cultivation of Ganja Plants by the Accused is amply strengthened by the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4, contemporaneous Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.1 and Destruction Mahazar – Ex.P.2 signed by the Independent Witnesses. On such evidence, learned Special Judge has rightly held that the Prosecution has convincingly established the guilty mind of A-1 and A-2 in cultivating the Ganja Plants. 12. The Conviction of the Appellants is assailed contending that mere presence of the Accused in the midst of Ganja Plantation would not lead to the presumption of their cultivation. It is submitted that the Prosecution has not adduced evidence proving the various process of cultivation. 12. The Conviction of the Appellants is assailed contending that mere presence of the Accused in the midst of Ganja Plantation would not lead to the presumption of their cultivation. It is submitted that the Prosecution has not adduced evidence proving the various process of cultivation. It is contended that Cultivation means that there should be continuous process of conduct like tendering the Plants, Watering them, weeding them and energising them and that no independent Witness has been adduced by the Prosecution to show that the Accused had actually raised the Cultivation in half acre. Considering the scene of occurrence, this contention has no merits. The Appellants have raised Ganja Plantation in half acre of Reserved Forest Range. When Cultivation was secret, no evidence of watering and tendering could be collected particularly from independent source. In fact, only on reliable information, P.W.4-Inspector of Police has gone to Kudhini Forest Range and noted the Cultivation where the Accused 1 and 2 were present in the vicinity. It is relevant to note that the Accused has also not explained their presence in the area of Cultivation. The presence of the Accused in the area of Cultivation is strong proof that the Accused have raised the cultivation. 13. In his evidence, P.W.1 has named A-1 as Rangappan instead of Petharan. Despite mentioning A-1 by the wrong name, P.W.1 has correctly identified A-1. Of course, he has not correctly mentioned the name of A-1. Recalling of the names of a person depends of the memory of an individual. Even for persons with good memory, it is difficult to recall the names of another individual whom they have known. P.W.1 being a Coolie and simple rustic, who has deposed in the Court nearly three years after the occurrence quite naturally had the difficulty in recalling the name of A-1. Wrong mention of A-1’s name in the Court does not affect the Prosecution case. 14. P.W.3-Forester of Kattapetu Range has not accompanied the Police Party on 19.11.1994. But, in his evidence, P.W.1 has stated that Forester had also accompanied the Police Party to the place of occurrence. P.W.1 has further stated in his cross-examination that he did not know who the Forester was. Police Personnel and the Forester Personnel would look similar in appearance in their uniform. Hence, the incorrect statement of P.W.1 that P.W.3-Forester has also accompanied them has no significance. P.W.1 has further stated in his cross-examination that he did not know who the Forester was. Police Personnel and the Forester Personnel would look similar in appearance in their uniform. Hence, the incorrect statement of P.W.1 that P.W.3-Forester has also accompanied them has no significance. In his evidence, P.W.1 has stated that he went along with Police Officers and other Witness Raju to the place of Occurrence – Kudhini Forest Range by Jeep from Kothagiri Police Station. On the other hand, P.W.4-Inspector of Police has stated that they went to the place of Cultivation – Kudhini Forest Range by walk from Kothagiri Police Station. This contradiction is urged contending that there is glaring contradiction throwing doubts on the Prosecution case. As rightly pointed out by the learned Special Judge, the witnesses have entered into the Witness Box three years after the occurrence. So fallible is human memory to recall the minor things like mode of transport etc., after three years. The trivial contradiction with respect to the mode of transport undertaken by the Police Party to the place of occurrence is only minor in nature does not in any way affect the Prosecution case. Learned Special Judge rightly held that “..such contradiction are quite natural on account of passage of time...”. The fact remains that the Police Party had caught red-handed the First Accused and on such minor contradiction, case of Prosecution cannot be doubted. 15. In his evidence, P.W.4 has stated about the Seizure of sample of 5 Kgs of Ganja under Ex.P.1. The seized contraband was sent to the Court on 29.11.1994. In his evidence, P.W.4 has not stated regarding packing, sealing of Sample Ganja Plantations. Onbehalf of the Accused, it is contended that the Sample contemplated under Sec.50 NDPS Act was not valid and non-compliance of mandatory provision is fatal to the prosecution case. Sec.55 NDPS Act deals with safe custody of all the articles seized under the Act and the officers are to take samples from them and to seal the samples taken thereon with a seal of the Officer Incharge of the Police Station. Sample was seized under Ex.P.2 Seizure Mahazar. It might be a mistake / omission on the part of P.W.4 in not speaking about the packing, sealing and fixing affixure of seal. Sample was seized under Ex.P.2 Seizure Mahazar. It might be a mistake / omission on the part of P.W.4 in not speaking about the packing, sealing and fixing affixure of seal. Ex.P.5 is the Chemical Analysis Report, according to which, the sample was received properly packed and sealed as is clear from the following:- It is not the case of small quantity of Contraband – Ganja/other Narcotic drug to adopt strict produce for seizure and sealing of the sample. It was a case of cultivation in extensive area of half acre. Before destruction of Ganja Plants, P.W.4 seized 5 Kgs of Ganja. Omission of P.W.4 to state about the packing, sealing of the sample would not affect the Prosecution case. 16. The defence of the Accused that a false case has been foisted against them is not strengthened by any other substantive evidence. The responsible officer like P.W.4 had no reason to foist a false case against the Appellants / Accused. 17. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 and other contemporaneous documents, inspection of Kudhini Forest Range on 19.11.1994, Cultivation of Ganja Plants and Arrest of the Accused are well proved. The seized Sample has been proved to be Ganja as per Ex.P.5-Chemical Analysis Report. The Trial Court accepted the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 and based the Conviction. No substantial grounds are made out warranting interference in the Conviction. 18. Learned counsel for the Appellants/Accused has pleaded for reduction of sentence of Imprisonment of one year. Sec.20 NDPS Act deals with Punishment for contravention in relation to Cannabis Plant and Cannabis. Under Sec.20(a)(i) NDPS Act where such contravention relates to Ganja or the cultivation of Cannabis Plant, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees. Learned Special Judge has shown extreme leniency to the Appellants in awarding sentence of only Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and imposed minimum fine of Rs.1000/- as against Rs.50,000/- contemplated. The period of sentence of one year and the fine imposed upon the Appellants / Accused is no way unreasonable warranting interference. This Appeal is bereft of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 19. C.A.No.602 of 1997:- For the reasons stated above, this Appeal is dismissed. 20. The period of sentence of one year and the fine imposed upon the Appellants / Accused is no way unreasonable warranting interference. This Appeal is bereft of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 19. C.A.No.602 of 1997:- For the reasons stated above, this Appeal is dismissed. 20. The Trial Court is directed to take immediate steps for securing the Appellants / Accused to commit them to prison for serving the remaining period of sentence. The Trial Court is also directed to comply with the above direction within three months and the compliance of the above direction may be intimated to this Court at once within the time stipulated.