JUDGMENT Accused 1 and 2 are convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The facts of the prosecution disclose that P.W. 5 along with his staff on credible information of transportation of the ganja came to the bus stand at Ramdurg at 12-2-1997 at 1 p.m. accused 1 was apprehended. From his possession 1 kg of ganja was seized. Accused 1 informs P.W. 8 that he purchased ganja from accused 2 for the purpose of sale. P.W. 8 along with panchas and staff proceeded to the shop of accused 2. 7 Kgs. of ganja was seized from the shop. Mahazars were prepared at the spot regarding the seizure of ganja from accused 1 and 2 duly witnessed by the independent panchas. 3. The facts stated in the charge-sheet disclose that the possession of ganja by accused 1 and 2 are different and distinct offences with no inter se relationship to constitute same transaction. The investigation agency has imprudently filed a common final report in respect of accused 1 and 2 and joint trial is held in violation of provisions of Section 219 of the Cr. P.C. It is a case where two separate charge-sheets should have been filed against each of the accused. The joint trial may be bad in law but there is no material on record to show that the accused are prejudiced by such joint trial resulting in any miscarriage of justice. Therefore under Section 465 of the Cr. P.C. the error if any is merely a condonable irregularity. The Trial Judges should however be more careful while framing charge to avoid an illegal joint trial. 4. P.W. 5-the panch witness supports the seizure of ganja from accused 1. P.W. 3 is the Medical Officer accompanies the raid party and testifies to the fact of seizure of ganja from accused 1 and as well from the shop of accused 2. In view of the above material the conviction of accused 1 and 2 is sound and proper for an offence under Section 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act. 5. The quantity seized from accused 1 is a small quantity (about one kg). The maximum punishment prescribed is only six months under the amended provision. Therefore, taking a lenient view in the matter, accused 1 is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. 7. 5. The quantity seized from accused 1 is a small quantity (about one kg). The maximum punishment prescribed is only six months under the amended provision. Therefore, taking a lenient view in the matter, accused 1 is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. 7. The sentence imposed on accused 2 is confirmed. 7. Accused 1 and 2 are entitled to set off under Section 428 of the Cr. P.C. 8. The registry is directed to send the copy of the judgment to the concerned Trial Judge for future guidance.