JUDGMENT: Questioning the validity and the legality of the Judgment that is rendered by the Court of Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, Khammam in SC No. 27 of 2015, dated 12.05.2016, the accused in the said sessions case has preferred the present appeal. 2. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 3. Having found the Appellant (hereinafter be referred as “the accused”) guilty for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter be referred as “the NDPS Act, 1985” for brevity), was convicted and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The accused, raising a plea that he is innocent and was erroneously convicted, filed the present appeal. 4. Thus, in the light of the aforementioned facts, the points that emerge for consideration are; 1. Whether the prosecution established beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused was in conscious possession of 80 Kgs of Ganja and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) r/w Section 20 (b) of NDPS Act, 1985. 2. “Whether there exists any infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court either in appreciating the facts of the case or in applying the established principles of law to the said facts as contended by the accused herein which in turn requires the interference of this court exercising appellate jurisdiction. 5. Point No : 1 The case of the prosecution as could be culled out through charge sheet is that on 12.09.2015 at about 10:00 A.M PW1 who is the Sub Inspector of Police, Khammam Rural Police Station was conducting vehicle checking along with his staff near H.P. petrol pump which is located abutting Yedulapuram X Road of Khammam Rural. During the said course, he tried to stop a Maruthi Suzuki Esteem Car bearing Registration No. MH-04-AW-6189. The driver of the car proceeded without stopping. Immediately PW1 and his party chased and stopped the car. The car was searched and they found 20 Ganja packets concealed in the dickey. On that PW1 issued notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act to the driver of the car for conducting panchanama in the presence of Gazetted Officer. The driver of the car proceeded without stopping. Immediately PW1 and his party chased and stopped the car. The car was searched and they found 20 Ganja packets concealed in the dickey. On that PW1 issued notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act to the driver of the car for conducting panchanama in the presence of Gazetted Officer. Thereafter he sent a requisition to the Tahsildar, Khammam Rural who is a Gazetted Officer to visit the place, to conduct panchanama and to record the statement of the said driver. The panch witnesses were also secured. On interrogation, the said driver who is none other than the accused, revealed his identity particulars. He further confessed that few days back, he committed theft of the said the car from a car shed at Maharashtra and on 11.09.2015 he purchased dry ganja from unknown persons at Malkangiri of Orissa State at lowest price with an intention to sell the same on a higher rate to the public. PW1 took photographs covering the scene of offence. Confession statement was recorded in the presence of the panch witnesses. The 20 packets of ganja each weighing 4 kgs totaling 80 kgs was seized from the possession of the accused under a cover of panchanama. Samples were drawn. The accused and the car were brought to the police station. On the complaint presented by PW1, a case was registered and the accused was arrested. The Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, who examined the samples, issued report opining that the sample is “Ganja”. 6. Considering the aforementioned allegations that are leveled against the accused, the learned Judge of the Trial Court framed a charge against the accused and conducted trial of the case. Subjecting the evidence of PWs. 1 to 8, Exs.P1 to P8 and MOs 1 and 2 to scrutiny, the learned Judge of the Trial Court came to a conclusion that the prosecution established its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge leveled and thereby convicted the accused. 7. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the accused (Appellant) argued at length that the trial court erred in convicting the accused as the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) of NDPS Act, 1985 were not proved by the prosecution by any legal and reliable evidence. 7. Before this Court, the learned counsel for the accused (Appellant) argued at length that the trial court erred in convicting the accused as the ingredients to constitute the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) of NDPS Act, 1985 were not proved by the prosecution by any legal and reliable evidence. The learned counsel submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the motive, preparation, intention and commission of the offence by the accused and therefore, convicting the accused is unjustifiable. The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court regarding the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 and contended that they are chance witnesses. The learned counsel further submitted that when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused clearly submitted to the learned Judge of the Trial Court that he came from the State of Orissa to eak out his livelihood, but he was falsely implicated in the case. But the said statement was not taken into consideration by the Trial Court at all. 8. A perusal of record goes to show that all the witnesses that are examined by the prosecution supported the case of the prosecution and spoke in clear terms their participation to the extent as indicated in the charge sheet. PW1 who gave complaint to police, gave evidence with regard to the task taken up by him on the date of incident ie., checking of vehicle, noticing the car moving ahead without stopping though asked to stop, himself and others stopping the car, finding 20 packets in the dickey of the car containing ganja, securing Gazetted Officer, examining the accused who was driving the car at that time, carrying out of proceedings in the presence of the panch witnesses, drafting of Ex.P1 panchanama, presentation of Ex.P3 complaint to police etc,. The panch witnesses i.e., PWs. 2 and 3 also supported the case of the prosecution. 9. The learned counsel for the accused stating that PW2 and other witnesses are chance and planted witnesses, has brought to the notice of this court the discrepancy in the evidence of PW2 and PW4 with regard to their testimony regarding the colour of the car. As rightly submitted, PW2 stated that the car was gold in colour. PW4 who is also a panch witness, deposed that the said car is cream in colour. As rightly submitted, PW2 stated that the car was gold in colour. PW4 who is also a panch witness, deposed that the said car is cream in colour. Only because both stated different colours of the car, it cannot be held that their evidence has to be discarded in toto. They narrated the other facts including noticing the presence of the accused in the car and seizing of the 20 packets containing ganja by police from the said car. Therefore, this Court unhesitatingly holds that the said discrepancy is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. 10. Contending that police even did not take steps to book the owner of the car, the learned counsel for the accused contended that the said lacuna is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 11. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that despite all of the efforts made, the owner of the car could not be traced and the same is evident through the evidence of PW8. PW8 who was the Inspector of Police, Khammam Rural Police Station at the relevant time and who investigated the case, during the course of cross examination, stated that the car owner could not be traced despite his best efforts. He volunteered that the vehicle does not belong either to the State of Telangana or the State of Andhra Pradesh and they were unable to find out to whom it belongs to. He admitted that with the registration number, one could trace the name of the owner. He volunteered that they tried to do so, but they could not trace since the registration number available on car is incorrect. The learned counsel for the petitioner produced before this court the copy of the vehicle owner details and contended that through the said details which were obtained with the aid of Internet portal, he could secure the name of the owner within 5 minutes, but police could not do so. 12. The learned counsel for the accused requested this Court to consider the said details form submitted. Admittedly, a procedure is laid down for receiving additional evidence at Appellate stage either in Civil or Criminal cases. Courts are not expected to receive each and every document produced without following the said procedure as established by law. Furthermore, what prevented the accused from producing those details before the trial court, is not stated. Admittedly, a procedure is laid down for receiving additional evidence at Appellate stage either in Civil or Criminal cases. Courts are not expected to receive each and every document produced without following the said procedure as established by law. Furthermore, what prevented the accused from producing those details before the trial court, is not stated. Also, producing the details of the owner of the car which is marked as MO2 does not absolve the liability of the accused. The accused in whose possession the contraband was found and was seized, is liable for prosecution as per the law laid down in NDPS Act, 1985. Section 8 of the NDPS Act, 1985 prohibits certain operations and the said provision reads as follows :- “8. Prohibition of certain operations.— No person shall— (a) cultivate any coca plant or gather any portion of coca plant; or (b) cultivate the opium poppy or any cannabis plant; or (c) produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder and in a case where any such provision, imposes any requirement by way of licence, permit or authorisation also in accordance with the terms and conditions of such licence, permit or authorisation: Provided that, and subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the prohibition against the cultivation of the cannabis plant for the production of ganja or the production, possession, use, consumption, purchase, sale, transport, warehousing, import inter-State and export inter-State of ganja for any purpose other than medical and scientific purpose shall take effect only from the date which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf: 1[Provided further that nothing in this section shall apply to the export of poppy straw for decorative purposes”. 13. Thus, as per Section 8 (c), production, manufacturing, possessing, selling, purchasing, transporting, warehousing, using, consuming, importing inter-state, exporting inter-state, importing into India, exporting from India or transship of any Narcotic Drug or Psychotropic Substance by any person except under the circumstances mentioned in the said provision, are prohibited. 14. 13. Thus, as per Section 8 (c), production, manufacturing, possessing, selling, purchasing, transporting, warehousing, using, consuming, importing inter-state, exporting inter-state, importing into India, exporting from India or transship of any Narcotic Drug or Psychotropic Substance by any person except under the circumstances mentioned in the said provision, are prohibited. 14. In the case on hand, the prosecution has clearly established before the trial court that the accused was in possession of the said contraband ie., ganja and was found transporting the same. It is not in dispute that the ganja found in the possession of the accused involves the commercial quantity. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prosecution by all the evidence it has produced before the trial court, has established beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence charged. 15. Point No. 2 A perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court reveals that the learned Judge of the Trial Court has well appreciated the facts of the case and applied the principles of law that are applicable and thereby came to a just conclusion. This court does not find any infirmity in the judgment of the Trial Court either regarding the appreciation of the facts of the case or in respect of the principles of law that are applicable therein. 16. Therefore, this Court holds that there are no reasons whatsoever to interfere with the said well reasoned judgment. 17. Resultantly, the Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. (I Addl. Sessions Judge) at Khammam in SC No. 27 of 2015, dated 12-05-2016. 18. As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.