- (1.)Accused in Sessions Case No. 13/1998 on the file of the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool, filed the present appeal questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment, dated 20.12.1999.
(2.)There is no representation for the accused-appellant. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. On 21.12.1997 P.W. 3-the Sub-Inspector of Police, Owk Police Station, raided the field of the accused and found Ganja being cultivated in the middle of paddy crop. The sample sent for analysis was found to be Cannabis (Ganja). P.W. 3 filed a charge sheet. A charge under Section 20(a)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act was framed. Accused denied his guilt. Prosecution examined three witnesses and marked five documents. The trial court on assessment of the evidence on record found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months by the impugned judgment challenging which the accused filed the present appeal.
(3.)Ex.P5 is the analysis report. It remains unchallenged. Therefore, it can be said that the sample contained Ganja. Now it has to be seen whether the Prosecution has established that the accused raised the plants in question. Admittedly the accused was not arrested at the scene of occurrence. He allegedly ran away on seeing the police. The Ganja Plants were seized under Ex.P1. The plants were seized from survey No. 949 situated y the side of Gundam river which was at a distance of 3 Kms. from Thanda village. There was no direct evidence to show that the accused raised Ganja plants in the middle of paddy crop. Therefore, it was for the Prosecution to prove that the land belonged to the accused. The Prosecution attempted to prove so by examining three witnesses. P.W. 1 is the Veterinary Doctor. He stated that he saw one person running away from the field of the accused. He did not identify that person. He did not know the owner of the field, as admitted by him in his cross-examination. Thus, the evidence of this witness is of no help at all to connect the accused with the crime.