Judgment ( 1. ) ASSAIL is to the judgment dated 16. 12. 2004 passed by Special Judge (N. D. P. S.), Rewa in Special Case No. 5/03, whereby the appellant Ganesh Pasi has been convicted under section 8-C/20 (ii) (c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substance Act, 1985 (in short the N. D. P. S. Act) and sentenced to undergo for ten years Rigorous Imprisonment and fined Rs. 1,00,000/- in default two years Rigorous imprisonment. ( 2. ) THE case of the prosecution in short is that on 22. 11. 2003, D. S. P. Surya Kant Sharma (PW-5) went to kotwali, Rewa in connection with direction issued by his higher officer for district externment proceeding. He received information on telephone that the appellant Ganesh Pasi resident of Ghoghar Mohalla is involved in Ganja business. His house was situated behind government press. Panchnama was prepared. C. S. P. was informed accordingly. Panch witness Santosh Kevat (PW-2) and Ramkumar Raikwar (PW-3)were called alongwith police party. Surya Kant Sharma reached at the house of the appellant. The appellant was present in his house. He was informed about the information received by him. After completing legal formalities, house of the appellant was searched by Surya Kant Sharma. In rear room he found Ganja, which was kept in a sack. He also found rs. 560/-in blue polythene. Ghanshyam (PW-1) was called with measure and Ganja was weighed, total weight of Ganja including sack was 28. 500 kgs and that Ganja was mixed. From Ganja, 50 gms Ganja was taken and two samples weighing 25-25 gms were prepared and sealed. On spot, seized Ganja was physically examined. Seizure memo and requisite panchnamas were prepared. Seized Ganja, measure and currency were sealed and Dehatinalishi (Ex. P/16) was recorded. Police party came to Kotwali, Rewa. On the basis of dehatinalishi, FIR (Ex. P/19) was registered. Necessary entries were made in Roznamcha Sanha. Seized Ganja was sent to FSL, Sagar for chemical analysis. As per analyst report (Ex. P/13), seized article was found Ganja. Statement of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. After completion of investigation, the appellant was charge sheeted. ( 3. ) LEARNED trial Court framed charge under Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (ii) (c) of the N. D. P. S. Act against the appellant. The appellant Ganesh Pasi abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence and false implication. P. C. After completion of investigation, the appellant was charge sheeted. ( 3. ) LEARNED trial Court framed charge under Section 8 (c) read with Section 20 (ii) (c) of the N. D. P. S. Act against the appellant. The appellant Ganesh Pasi abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence and false implication. His defence is that rs. 800/- were due on police employees namely Ashwini Singh and Ganga Singh, he demanded money from them but they abused him because of that he is falsely roped by the police. ( 4. ) PROSECUTION examined 8 witnesses. No witness has been examined in defence. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, perusing evidence and material on record, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as hereinabove mentioned. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment the appellant has preferred the appeal. ( 5. ) I have heard learned counsel for both the parties, perused impugned judgment, evidence and material on record. ( 6. ) SHRI Akhil Singh, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that there is no independent corroboration of the statement of Surya Kant Sharma (PW-5), independent witnesses turned hostile and the appellant has been falsely implicated due to enmity, with two police employees namely Ashwini Singh and Ganga Singh. No other argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned trial Court erred in relying upon of sole testimony of surya Kant Sharma, convicting and sentencing the appellant as hereinabove mentioned. Contrary to that, Ku. Vijay bhatnagar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/state supported the impugned judgment and urged that the learned trial Court did err in convicting and sentencing the appellant. ( 7. ) PANCH witness Santosh Kevat (PW-2) and ramkumar Raikwar (PW-3) have been turned hostile and cross-examined by Government Advocate, they are deposing against their previous statements Exs. P. 13 and P14 respectively. Though, their signature on documents Ex. P/3 to ex. P/12 is admitted, but denying the facts mentioned in these documents. Both these witnesses took summersault to their previous statement. Hence, evidence of Santosh Kevat and ramkumar is not wholly reliable and learned trial Court rightly discarded their testimony. ( 8. P. 13 and P14 respectively. Though, their signature on documents Ex. P/3 to ex. P/12 is admitted, but denying the facts mentioned in these documents. Both these witnesses took summersault to their previous statement. Hence, evidence of Santosh Kevat and ramkumar is not wholly reliable and learned trial Court rightly discarded their testimony. ( 8. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant did not challenge the factum of complying mandatory and directory provisions of N. D. P. S. Act, hence I do not think to burden the judgment to examine the fact that whether relevant legal provisions of NDPS Act have been complied with or not by surya Kant Sharma (PW-5 ). The only argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the testimony of Surya Kant sharma has not been corroborated by independent witnesses, hence his evidence cannot be accepted beyond reasonable doubt so only question is to be considered whether testimony of Surya Kant Sharma (PW-5) is reliable or not and learned trial Court committed error or not to rely on the testimony of surya Kant Sharma (PW-5 ). ( 9. ) SURYA Kant Sharma (PW-5) went to Kotwali, Rewa on 22. 11. 2003 to conduct enquiry about district externment proceeding, where he received massage on telephone that the appellant Ganesh Pasi is involved in selling Ganja from his house which is situated behind government press in Ghoghar mohalla, Rewa. Entries were made in Roznamcha Sanahs exs. P/21 (c) and P/22 (c) by Head Constable, Ram Milap Dubey (PW-8 ). But Panch witness Santosh Kevat (PW-2) and Ram kumar Raikwar (PW-3) were called and they left Kotwali, rewa. Entries were made in Roznamcha Sanahs Exs. P/23 (c)and P/24 (c ). C. S. P. Rewa was informed about received information, this part of evidence of Surya Kant Sharma (PW-5) is corroborated by Ram Milap Dubey (PW-8) and aforementioned Roznamcha Sanah entries, hence this part of evidence of Surya Kant Sharma is wholly reliable and there is no reason to disbelieve his aforesaid evidence. ( 10. ) SURYA Kant Sharma (PW-5) deposed that the police party and panch witness reached at the house of the appellant and knocked his door, the appellant came out of the house. Surya Kant Sharma informed about message received by him to the appellant and with the consent of the appellant, the house of the appellant was searched and panchnamas exs. ) SURYA Kant Sharma (PW-5) deposed that the police party and panch witness reached at the house of the appellant and knocked his door, the appellant came out of the house. Surya Kant Sharma informed about message received by him to the appellant and with the consent of the appellant, the house of the appellant was searched and panchnamas exs. P/4 and P/5 were prepared. Thereafter, completing legal formalities and given personal search of raiding party to the appellant, Surya Kant Sharma entered the house of the appellant, he went in a room, situated in rear side of the house of the appellant, there was only one door, in that room, surya Kant Sharma found Ganja in a sack in that room, he also found weights, measure and Rs. 560/-cash in blue polythene. He physically examined articles in sack and satisfied that its a Ganja, then he mixed the whole Ganja. Seized Ganja was weighed and total weight of Ganja inclusive of sack was 28. 500 kgs, and that Ganja was sealed. Surya kant Sharma took 50 gms Ganja and prepared two samples weighing 25 gms each of Ganja and sealed the same. Seized ganja, samples, measure and cash Rs. 560/- were seized as per seizure memo Ex. P/9. As per Surya Kant Sharma, the net weight of Ganja was 27. 100 kgs. Necessary Panchnama exs. P/2 and P/8 were prepared. Spot map Ex. P/11 was also prepared. Dehatinalishi Ex. P/16 recorded by him, FIR was sent for registration of crime to Police, Kotwali Rewa through constable Sani Prasad. He came back alongwith seized articles and arrest accused/appellant Ganesh Pasi to Kotwali rewa, where he deposited seized Ganja, samples of Ganja and other articles in Malkhana, Kotwali Rewa. Necessary entries were made in Roznamcha Sanah Ex. P/29. He took receipt ex. P/31 from Malkhana In-charge. ( 11. ) GHANSHYAM (PW-1) and independent witnesses deposed that alongwith measure, he got weighed the Ganja and Panchnama Ex. P/2 was prepared. No effective cross-examination has been done on Ghanshyam. He remained intact firm and consistent. The later part of evidence of Surya kant Sharma is corroborated by the evidence of Ghanshyam (PW-1) and Panchnama Ex. P/2. Ghanshyam also corroborated the fact that samples were taken from the seized Ganja. V. G. Rawat (PW-6) conducted investigation and sent samples in sealed condition to FSL, Sagar through constable Rajendra no. 16 with covering letter Ex. The later part of evidence of Surya kant Sharma is corroborated by the evidence of Ghanshyam (PW-1) and Panchnama Ex. P/2. Ghanshyam also corroborated the fact that samples were taken from the seized Ganja. V. G. Rawat (PW-6) conducted investigation and sent samples in sealed condition to FSL, Sagar through constable Rajendra no. 16 with covering letter Ex. P/17. He also exhibited report of FSL Ex. P/18 (wrongly mentioned Ex. P/13 ). On the basis of dehatinalishi Ex. P/16, Babulal Dwivedi (PW-7) registered FIR (Ex. P/19 ). ( 12. ) I have gone through the evidence of Surya Kant sharma (PW-5) carefully and cautiously, I am of the considered view that Surya Kant Sharma has no previous enmity with the appellant Ganesh Pasi, he remained firm and consistent in cross-examination, there is no infirmity in the statement of Surya Kant Sharma. Learned counsel for the appellant could not demonstrate that why evidence of Surya kant Sharma be disbelieved of doubted. Evidence of Surya kant Sharma is corroborated by relevant documents as hereinabove mentioned, there is no need to repeat the exhibits to burden the judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Surya Kant Sharma in para 8 of his cross-examination stated that he has not conducted investigation and at the strength of the judgment he further argued that whole evidence of Surya Kant Sharma becomes unreliable, he has not conducted the search, seizure etc. It is legal position that investigation starts after registration of crime. The crime is registered in police Kotwali, Rewa on the basis of Dehatinalishi Ex. P/16. After completion search at the house of the appellant Ganesh Pasi. Seizure of Ganja taking two samples from the Ganja sealing process etc, hence at any stretch of imagination it cannot be accepted that Surya Kant sharma did not conduct raid at the house of the appellant ganesh and did not conduct search seizure of alleged Ganja and other relevant proceedings. Hence, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of merits. ( 13. ) IT is proved from the analyst report Ex. P/18, which is admissible under Section 293 of Cr. P. C. that on physical, chemical and microscopic examination, the seized article was found to be Ganja, hence it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that seized articles was Ganja. ( 14. ( 13. ) IT is proved from the analyst report Ex. P/18, which is admissible under Section 293 of Cr. P. C. that on physical, chemical and microscopic examination, the seized article was found to be Ganja, hence it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that seized articles was Ganja. ( 14. ) AS per above discussion, I am of the view that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Surya Kant sharma (PW-5), his evidence is wholly reliable and learned trial Court did not commit any error in relying upon the testimony of Surya Kanta Sharma, hence it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that total 27. 100 kgs Ganja was seized from the possession of the appellant. Ganja alongwith weights, measure and cash, which shows that the appellant is involved in selling business of Ganja. Learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellant under Section 8 (c)/20 (ii) (c) of NDPS, act. The minimum sentence is prescribed and there is no reason to pass lesser sentence. The sentence awarded by learned trial Court is as per law. Consequently, there is no scope to interfere the conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court against the appellant. ( 15. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is devoid of merits. The appeal deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court is hereby affirmed. The appellant is in jail. Office is directed that copy of the judgment be sent to the appellant Ganesh Prasad is in jail.