- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23901 CRL.A No. 1013 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1013 OF 2012 (C) BETWEEN: MR. ABDUL SAMAD @ PLASTIC, S/O LATE. ABDUL KHUDDUS, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, NO.8, 9TH CROSS, SULTHAN STREET, GHOUSIA NAGAR, MYSORE, (NOW IN PRISON) …APPELLANT (BY SMT. K.M. ARCHANA, ADVOCATE (V/O DT.09.06.2025 IS APPOINTED AS AMICUS CURIAE)) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NARASIMHARAJA POLICE STATION, MYSORE. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL.SPP) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 28.12.2011 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSORE IN SPL.CASE NO.82/2010 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 20(B)(1I)(B) OF THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCE ACT. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 5 YEARS AND TO PAY FINE OF RS.25,000/- (RUPEES TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND ONLY), IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER R.I. FOR 1 YEAR FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 20(B)(1I)(B) OF THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCE ACT. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE ACQUITTED. Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23901 CRL.A No. 1013 of 2012 THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT Appellant – accused No.1 in Special Case No.82/2010 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysore, is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.12.2011 convicting him for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ‘the NDPS Act’) and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and a fine of Rs.25,000/-, with default sentence. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that, accused No.1 was found in possession of 9 ½ kgs of Ganja illegally, without any license and thereby, he has committed the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. Initially, Section 34 of NDPS Act, was also invoked to contend that accused No.2 was possessing 2 ½ kgs of ganja and he abetted accused No.1 by giving illegal aid by supplying ganja and thereby, the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 29 of the NDPS Act R/w Section 34 of IPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23901 CRL.A No. 1013 of 2012 3. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet came to be filed against both the accused. The Trial Court after taking cognizance of the offence, summoned the accused. Both accused Nos.1 and 2 have appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11, got marked Exs.P1 to 13 and identified Mos.1 to 7 in support of its contention. Accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record, but have not chosen to lead any evidence in support their defence. However, Exs.D1 and 2 are got marked during cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt of accused No.2 and accordingly, acquitted him. However, it held that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of accused No.1/appellant herein, for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23901 CRL.A No. 1013 of 2012 4. Heard Smt. K.M.Archana, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned ASPP for the respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the appellant-accused No.1 has made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court? My answer to the above point is 'negative' for the following: REASONS 6. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that on the date of incident i.e., on 22.08.2010, at about 4.15 pm., PWs.6 and 8 were proceeding in the police jeep near Varuna Channel, on the ring road, RS Naidunagar. Accused No.1, who was driving TATA Indica car sped away on seeing the police Jeep to avoid them. Noticing the suspicious conduct of accused No.1, PWs.6 and 8 have chased him in their jeep and waylaid - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23901 CRL.A No. 1013 of 2012 the car. Accused No.1, who was in the car stopped the same. On enquiry revealed that a bag containing ganja was inside the car. Immediately, the panchas were summoned to the place, mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P8, seized the Ganja, which was in the bag weighing 9½ kgs and samples were drawn. Accused No.1 was not having any license or permit to be in possession of the contraband and therefore, he was taken to the custody. FIR came to be registered and further investigation was undertaken. 7. Even though, it is the contention of the prosecution that accused No.1 led to identify accused No.2, which resulted in recovery of 2½ kgs of Ganja kept in the bag, the Trial Court has already acquitted accused No.2 for the said offence holding that the prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt against him. Admittedly, the State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of accused No.2. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to discuss about those facts in this appeal. 8. It is the contention of the prosecution that the sample collected from the seized contra band were sent to FSL, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23901 CRL.A No. 1013 of 2012 which was tested positive for the presence of cannabis. Therefore, it is the contention of the prosecution that accused No.1 has committed the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. 9. PW5 is the material witness, who was the owner of TATA Indica Car, in which, accused No.1 was found in possession of Ganja. The witness stated that he had purchased it from PW3, but it was not transferred in his name. He also states that he had appointed accused No.1, as his driver and accused No.1 used to park the car near his house. Strangely, there was absolutely no cross-examination of PW5. Thereby, accused No.1 admitting that he was the driver under PW5 and was driving the car on the date of incident. 10. Even though, this witness has deviated from his earlier statement and was treated partially hostile during cross- examination, the witness stated that he had not stated before the police that accused No.1 had taken the family members of the witness to the shopping on the date of incident. Strangely, there is no cross-examination to this witness by the learned counsel for the appellant. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23901 CRL.A No. 1013 of 2012 11. PW6 is the police constable, who accompanied PW8 on the date of incident and narrates the conduct of accused No.1, chasing him, seizing the ganja weighing about 9kgs and drawing of samples under the mahazar. He identified MOs.4 to 7. Even though this witness was subjected to cross- examination at length by the learned counsel for accused No.1, nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve his version. No ill will or motive is suggested against the witness. 12. PW7 is the independent pancha to Ex.P8 - recovery mahazar and he fully supported the case of the prosecution. During cross-examination, nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve his version. 13. PW8 is the Police Inspector, who held the raid and seized ganja from the custody of accused No.1, which was kept in the TATA Indica car, identified as MO4. This witness as well supported the case of the prosecution and spoke in detail about the procedure conducted and apprehension of the accused. Nothing is elicited from this witness during cross-examination to disbelieve his version. Therefore, PWs.6 to 8 have consistently deposed regarding the conduct of accused No.1 on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23901 CRL.A No. 1013 of 2012 seeing the police jeep, trying to flew away, PWs.6 and 8 waylaying his car and drawing the mahazar as per Ex.P8 in the presence of PW7, seizing the ganja weighing 9.5 kgs, under the mahzar Ex.P8 and drawing up of samples. PWs.9 and 10 are the chemical examiners, who have subjected the contraband seized from the custody of the accused and issued the report as per Exs.P12 and 13. According to both these reports, the samples examined tested positive for the presence of cannabis. 14. When such positive evidence is led by the prosecution, the appellant/accused No.1 in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC., simply denied the incriminating materials available on record and stated that he was taken by the police from his house and falsely implicated in the case. In the light of evidence of PWs.6 to 8, 9 and 10, such bald defence pleaded by accused No.1, in his statement recorded under 313 of Cr.PC cannot be accepted. From these materials available on record, I am satisfied that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant is liable for conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23901 CRL.A No. 1013 of 2012 15. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has taken into consideration all the materials on record in a proper perspective and arrived at a right conclusion. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 16. Before parting with the matter, I place on record the able assistance given by young advocate Smt.K.M.Archana, who argued the appeal. 17. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment to secure the presence of the accused and to issue conviction warrant, if not issued earlier. The fee of Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs.10,000/-. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH: CT:VS : List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21