2016 (6) TMI 501 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking release from the sentence order and fine imposed - Seizure of 91 bags of Ganja weighing 990 Kg - Contradicting statements of witnesses - Held that - it is found that apart from PW 1 and PW 4 none of the witnesses have stated about the manner in which sample was drawn. Whereas PW 1 says that samples were drawn from the two packets i.e. top and bottom one, PW 4 generally says that samples were drawn from 3-4 packets. The fact remains that only one sample was sent for testing which tested positive. PW 1 deposed that all the bags were of different sizes and only one sample was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, it would be difficult to conclude that the Appellants were in possession of commercial quantity of Ganja and liable for conviction under Section 20-C of the NDPS Act, when in the circumstances of the case, there is no conclusive material that all the bags which had been recovered contained Ganja and nothing else. Therefore, the conviction of Appellants can only be maintained under Section 20 (ii) B of the NDPS Act for which sentence of eight years which has already been undergone by them would be sufficient enough. The fine of ₹ 1,00,000/- (One lac) imposed upon the Appellants by the impugned judgment is waived. - Appeals dismissed with modification

Summary

Issues: Conviction under Section 20-C of the NDPS Act, sufficiency of evidence for possession of commercial quantity of Ganja, modification of conviction and sentence

Analysis:

Issue 1: Conviction under Section 20-C of the NDPS Act
The appellants were convicted under Section 20-C of the NDPS Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for twelve years with a fine. The judgment highlighted the conviction and the sentence imposed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, NDPS Act. However, upon review of the evidence and arguments, the High Court found that the conviction under Section 20-C could not be sustained.

Issue 2: Sufficiency of evidence for possession of commercial quantity of Ganja
The case revolved around the recovery of Ganja from a truck based on secret information received by the Inspector of Customs. The prosecution presented eight witnesses, including members of the raiding team and the informant. The testimonies of the witnesses varied in terms of the manner in which samples were drawn for testing. While some witnesses mentioned specific details, others provided general statements. The High Court observed discrepancies in the evidence regarding the sampling process, leading to doubts about the conclusive proof of possession of a commercial quantity of Ganja by the appellants.

Issue 3: Modification of conviction and sentence
After a thorough examination of the evidence and testimonies, the High Court concluded that the conviction of the appellants could only be maintained under Section 20 (ii) B of the NDPS Act. The Court decided that a sentence of eight years, which had already been served by the appellants, would be sufficient. Additionally, the fine imposed on the appellants was waived. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed with modifications in the conviction and sentence as specified by the Court.

Overall, the judgment delved into the intricacies of the evidence presented during the trial, emphasizing the importance of establishing conclusive proof beyond reasonable doubt in cases involving drug offenses. The Court's decision to modify the conviction and sentence reflected a nuanced approach to the application of relevant legal provisions in light of the evidence presented before it.