Bangalore District Court
Sanjaynagar Ps vs Kumar T on 14 July, 2026
1 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
KABC010208122022
Presented on : 30-07-2022
Registered on : 30-07-2022
Decided on : 14-07-2026
Duration: 03 years, 11 months, 15 days.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, (NDPS), (CCH -35),
BENGALURU.
Present: Sri. Ananda, B.A.L., LL.B., LL.M.
XXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and
Special Judge, (NDPS), Bengaluru.
Dated this the 14th day of July 2026
SPL.C No. 1754/2022
Complainant : State by
Sanjayanagara Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep. By Learned Public Prosecutor)
V/s.
Accused :1 Kumar. T,
S/o. V. Tangaraju,
Aged about 55 years,
R/a.No.15-553/A,
Saravanapuram,
Veluru Road, Chittoor,
Chittoor District,
Andhra Pradesh.
(By Sri. P.K., Advocate)
2 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
::CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS AND CASE PARTICULARS::
1. Date of commission of offence : 07-02-2022
2. Date of Report of occurrence : 07-02-2022
3. Name of the complainant : Sri. Balaraju. G (P.I)
4. Offences Complained of : U/s.20(b) of NDPS Act.
5. Date of arrest of Accused : 08-02-2022
6. Date of release : 04-03-2022
7. Period of custody : Day/s Month/s Year/s
27 00 00
8. Date of commencement of trial : 18-02-2025
9. Date of Closing of trial : 27-04-2026
10.Opinion of the Judge : As per final order.
*****
::J U D G M E N T:
:
The present charge sheet has been filed by PSI of
Sanjayanagara Police Station, Bangalore City against accused for
the offence punishable under Section U/s.20(b) of NDPS Act.
3 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
2. The brief narrative of the prosecution’s case reveals the
following key facts:
On 07.02.2022 at about 3.00 p.m., while C.W.1 was present
in the police station, he received credible information that an
unidentified person was illegally selling ganja near S.L.V. Bakery,
2nd Cross, K.G.E. Layout, New BEL Road, within the limits of
Sanjayanagar Police Station. On receipt of the said information,
C.W.1 secured permission from C.W.11 to conduct a raid.
Thereafter, C.W.1, along with panch witnesses C.W.2 and C.W.3
and police officials C.W.4 to C.W.7, proceeded to the place
mentioned in the information and reached there at about 3.40
p.m.
According to the prosecution, the raiding party noticed the
accused standing near S.L.V. Bakery carrying a blue college bag,
taking out some substance from the bag, handing it over to
customers and collecting money from them. In order to verify the
information, C.W.1 deputed C.W.7 as a decoy customer to
approach the accused and pretend to purchase ganja. After
interacting with the accused, C.W.7 signalled by raising his left
hand, thereby confirming the information received.
4 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
Thereafter, at about 3.50 p.m., C.W.1, in the presence of
panch witnesses C.W.2 and C.W.3 and with the assistance of
C.W.4 to C.W.6, conducted a raid and apprehended the accused.
During enquiry, the accused is alleged to have disclosed that, with
the intention of earning more money, he had purchased 2
kilograms of ganja from one Hari of Andhra Pradesh at the rate of
Rs.10,000/- per kilogram and had come to Bengaluru to sell the
same to college students.
It is further alleged that C.W.11 was secured to the spot, and
on search of the accused, the police seized 1 kilogram and 920
grams of ganja, eight small plastic covers, one blue college bag and
cash of Rs.1,000/- from his possession under a seizure mahazar.
Thereafter, the accused along with the seized articles was brought
to the police station. On the basis of the complaint submitted by
C.W.1, C.W.12 registered the case, entered the seized properties in
Property Register No.14/2022 and forwarded the seized ganja to
the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madivala, for chemical
examination. C.W.9, the Scientific Officer of the Forensic Science
Laboratory, after examination of the seized substance, issued the
report opining that (i) the sample tested positive for Cannabis
5 SPL.C. No.1754/2022(Ganja), and (ii) cannabis contains psychoactive constituents. On
the basis of the investigation and the material collected, the
prosecution has alleged that the accused has committed the
offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
3. Accused was enlarged on bail. After compliance with the
provisions of Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, copies of
the charge sheet and other prosecution papers were furnished to
the accused. Upon hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the
learned counsel for the accused and on perusal of the charge
sheet material, this Court found sufficient grounds to presume
that the accused had committed an offence punishable under
Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985. Accordingly, charge was framed and read over and
explained to the accused in the language known to him. The
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined
four witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.4, got marked sixteen documents as
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 and produced four material objects identified as
M.O.1 to M.O.4.
6 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of
the accused under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code was
recorded. The incriminating circumstances appearing in the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses were put to the accused in
the language known to him. The accused denied all such
incriminating circumstances and did not choose to adduce any
oral or documentary evidence in defence.
6. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned Public
Prosecutor for the prosecution and the learned counsel appearing
for the accused. Perused the oral and documentary evidence
available on record.
7. The learned public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that
the prosecution the prosecution has proved the guilt of the
accused beyond all reasonable doubt through the cogent and
consistent evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4. It is contended that P.W.2 has
spoken in detail regarding the receipt of credible information,
obtaining prior permission from the Assistant Commissioner of
Police, securing panch witnesses, proceeding to the spot, deputing
a decoy customer, apprehending the accused and seizing 1
kilogram 920 grams of ganja from his conscious possession. His
7 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
testimony is fully corroborated by the documentary evidence at
Exs.P.4 to P.8.
8. It is further submitted that P.W.4, the Gazetted Officer, has
independently corroborated the evidence of P.W.2 regarding the
permission granted for the raid, her presence at the spot,
compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, obtaining the written
consent of the accused under Ex.P.16 and the recovery of the
contraband from the possession of the accused. Her evidence
lends complete assurance to the prosecution case.
9. It is further argued that P.W.3 has proved the subsequent
investigation by registering the FIR, producing the seized articles
before the Court, obtaining certification of the inventory,
forwarding the representative samples for chemical examination
and filing the charge sheet. The FSL Report at Ex.P.12 conclusively
establishes that the seized substance is ganja. The defence has
not disputed the genuineness of the FSL Report, which was
marked with consent. The learned Public Prosecutor further
contended that although P.W.1, the panch witness, has turned
hostile, the prosecution case does not fail on that ground alone. It
is argued that conviction can legally be based on the trustworthy
8 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
evidence of official witnesses when their evidence is found to be
reliable and inspires confidence. It is submitted that the evidence
of P.Ws.2 to 4 is natural, consistent and free from material
contradictions and has remained unshaken during cross-
examination.
10. It is further contended that the prosecution has
established due compliance with Sections 42, 50 and 52-A of the
NDPS Act. The Station House Diary entry, prior permission to
conduct the raid, written requisition for personal search, consent
of the accused and certification of the inventory clearly
demonstrate compliance with the statutory safeguards. Therefore,
it is prayed that the accused be convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
11. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the accused has
vehemently argued that the prosecution has utterly failed to
establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is
argued that P.W.1, who is the independent seizure mahazar
witness, has completely disowned the prosecution case by denying
the seizure, the mahazar proceedings and even his presence at the
spot. According to the counsel, the entire case is based only on the
9 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
interested testimony of police officials and, in the absence of
independent corroboration, it would be unsafe to base a conviction
solely on their evidence.
12. It is further contended that no complaint was received
from any member of the public and the prosecution case is stated
to have originated only on the basis of alleged credible
information. The counsel submits that no independent person
from the locality was secured to witness the raid or the seizure,
though the alleged incident took place in a public place during
daytime. The learned counsel further argued that there are
procedural irregularities in the investigation and that the
mandatory safeguards under the NDPS Act have not been strictly
complied with. It is contended that the prosecution has failed to
establish the search and seizure in the manner alleged and that
the accused has been falsely implicated by the police. It is also
argued that the prosecution has failed to prove conscious
possession of the alleged contraband beyond reasonable doubt. It
is further contended that the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 suffers from
material omissions and improvements and that the possibility of
false implication cannot be ruled out. The learned counsel
10 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
submitted that the alleged seizure, investigation and recovery are
doubtful and that the benefit of every reasonable doubt must go to
the accused. On these grounds, it is prayed that the accused be
acquitted from the alleged offence punishable under Section 20(b)
(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
13. The following points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that on 07.02.2022 at about
3.50 p.m., near S.L.V. Bakery, 2nd Cross, New BEL
Road, RMV 2nd Stage, within the limits of
Sanjayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, the
accused was found in conscious and unlawful
possession of 20 grams of ganja each packed in
four plastic covers (totalling 80 grams) and 1
kilogram 840 grams of ganja kept in a plastic cover
inside a bag, aggregating to 1 kilogram 920 grams
of ganja, without any valid licence or authority,
and thereby committed an offence punishable
under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985?
11 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
2. What order?
14. My finding to above points is as under:
Point No.1 :- In the Affirmative,
Point No.2 :- As per final order below, for the following:
::R E A S O N S::
15. Point No.1:- It is the case of prosecution on 07.02.2022 at
about 3.00 p.m., while C.W.1 was present in the police station, he
received credible information that an unidentified person was
illegally selling ganja near S.L.V. Bakery, 2 nd Cross, K.G.E. Layout,
New BEL Road, within the limits of Sanjayanagar Police Station.
On receipt of the said information, C.W.1 secured permission from
C.W.11 to conduct a raid. Thereafter, C.W.1, along with panch
witnesses C.W.2 and C.W.3 and police officials C.W.4 to C.W.7,
proceeded to the place mentioned in the information and reached
there at about 3.40 p.m.
According to the prosecution, the raiding party noticed the
accused standing near S.L.V. Bakery carrying a blue college bag,
taking out some substance from the bag, handing it over to
customers and collecting money from them. In order to verify the
information, C.W.1 deputed C.W.7 as a decoy customer to
12 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
approach the accused and pretend to purchase ganja. After
interacting with the accused, C.W.7 signalled by raising his left
hand, thereby confirming the information received.
Thereafter, at about 3.50 p.m., C.W.1, in the presence of
panch witnesses C.W.2 and C.W.3 and with the assistance of
C.W.4 to C.W.6, conducted a raid and apprehended the accused.
During enquiry, the accused is alleged to have disclosed that, with
the intention of earning more money, he had purchased 2
kilograms of ganja from one Hari of Andhra Pradesh at the rate of
Rs.10,000/- per kilogram and had come to Bengaluru to sell the
same to college students.
It is further alleged that C.W.11 was secured to the spot, and
on search of the accused, the police seized 1 kilogram and 920
grams of ganja, eight small plastic covers, one blue college bag and
cash of Rs.1,000/- from his possession under a seizure mahazar.
Thereafter, the accused along with the seized articles was brought
to the police station. On the basis of the complaint submitted by
C.W.1, C.W.12 registered the case, entered the seized properties in
Property Register No.14/2022 and forwarded the seized ganja to
the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madivala, for chemical
13 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
examination. C.W.9, the Scientific Officer of the Forensic Science
Laboratory, after examination of the seized substance, issued the
report opining that (i) the sample tested positive for Cannabis
(Ganja), and (ii) cannabis contains psychoactive constituents. On
the basis of the investigation and the material collected, the
prosecution has alleged that the accused has committed the
offence punishable under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
16. In order to prove the charges leveled against the accused,
the prosecution in all examined 4 witnesses in this case. They are
P.W’s.1 to 4 and Exhibits P.1 to P.16 admitted in evidence. M.Os.1
to 4 were identified. P.W.1 is the seizure mahazar witness; P.W.2 is
the complainant witness, P.W.3 Investigating Officer and P.W.4 is
the Gazetted Officer who was secured to the spot to witness the
personal search of the accused. Ex.P.1 Notice given to the
panchas, Ex.P.2 is the raid mahazar, Ex.P.3 is the statement of
P.W.1, Ex.P.4 is the request letter seeking permission to raid,
Ex.P.5 is the permission letter, Ex.P.6 is the station house dairy,
Ex.P.7 is the request letter for body search, Ex.P.8 is the complaint
lodged by C.W.1, Ex.P.9 is the copy of FIR in Crime No. 18/2022,
14 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
Ex.P.10 is the property form list, Ex.P.11 is the voluntary
statement of accused, Ex.P.12 is the FSL Report, Ex.P.13 is the
official seal of FSL, Ex.P.14 is the request letter issued by CW.1 to
conduct raid, Ex.P.15 is the success report of raid and Ex.P.16 is
the notice issued to accused for conducting body search.
17. The material objects marked include: M.O.1 – 4 Gaja
packets, M.O.2 – 8 empty packets, M.O.3 – blue colour college bag
and M.O.4 – Rs.1,000/- cash (2 × Rs.500/- currency notes).
18. Before proceeding to appreciate the evidence led by the
prosecution in support of the charges, it is appropriate to first
narrate the role of each prosecution witnesses. The prosecution,
in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, has examined
P.Ws.1 to 4 and has relied upon documentary evidence marked as
Exs.P.1 to P.16 and material objects M.O.1 to M.O.4. The oral and
documentary evidence adduced requires to be considered in detail
to find out whether the prosecution has successfully established
the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence,
at the outset, the evidence of each of the prosecution witnesses is
narrated hereunder.
15 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
19. P.W.1 – Syed Azmal, who is examined as a panch witness
to Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2, has not supported the case of the
prosecution. He has deposed that about three years prior, while he
had been to Sanjayanagar Police Station in connection with his
personal work, the police obtained his signatures on a notice and
a mahazar, which are marked as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 respectively. He
has identified his signatures thereon as Ex.P.1(a) and Ex.P.2(a). He
has further deposed that he had never seen the accused, that no
mahazar was conducted in his presence, that no articles were
seized in his presence, that he has no knowledge of the contents of
Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2, and that he had not given any statement to the
police. Thus, P.W.1 has completely turned hostile to the case of the
prosecution and therefore was treated hostile and cross-examined
by the Learned Public Prosecutor. During the course of cross-
examination, all the suggestions made by the Learned Public
Prosecutor with respect Ex.P.1 and 2 and his statement given
before the police as per Ex.P.3. Nothing worthwhile has been
elicited from his evidence to support the case of the prosecution.
20. P.W.2 – Balaraj, who is examined as complainant witness,
has deposed that on 07.02.2022 at about 3.00 p.m., while he was
16 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
on station duty, he received credible information that ganja was
being sold near S.L.V. Bakery on New BEL Road. He deposed that
after receiving the information, he submitted a written requisition
to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, J.C. Nagar Sub-Division,
seeking permission to conduct a raid. He has identified the
requisition as Ex.P.4 and his signature thereon as Ex.P.4(a). He
has further deposed that the Assistant Commissioner of Police
accorded permission to conduct the raid under Ex.P.5 and that he
made an entry regarding the receipt of the information in the
Station House Diary, the extract of which is marked as Ex.P.6.
21. P.W.2 has further deposed that he secured C.W.2 and
C.W.3 as panch witnesses, informed them about the information
received and issued them notices, which are marked as Ex.P.1.
Thereafter, he, the panch witnesses and the police staff first
subjected themselves to mutual personal search to ensure that
none of them was carrying any narcotic substance. Thereafter, he,
along with C.W.2 to C.W.8, left the police station at about 3.30
p.m. with the investigation kit and reached the spot at about 3.40
p.m. After parking the official vehicle at some distance, they kept
17 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
surveillance and noticed a person selling narcotic substance to
members of the public.
22. He further deposed that, he deputed C.W.7 as a decoy
customer to ascertain whether the said person was selling ganja.
C.W.7 approached the suspect, interacted with him and, after
confirming that he was selling ganja, gave the predetermined
signal. Thereafter, P.W.2 and the police staff surrounded and
apprehended the suspect, who disclosed his name and address.
On enquiry, the accused allegedly stated that the packets in his
possession contained ganja which he had brought from Andhra
Pradesh for sale. P.W.2 has further deposed that he informed the
Assistant Commissioner of Police over the telephone about the
apprehension of the accused and requested him to come to the
spot for conducting the personal search. The Assistant
Commissioner of Police reached the spot at about 4.15 p.m. P.W.2
submitted a written requisition requesting him to conduct the
search, which is marked as Ex.P.7 and bears his signature as
Ex.P.7(a). He has further deposed that the Assistant
Commissioner of Police informed the accused of his legal right to
be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The accused
18 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
expressed his willingness to be searched in the presence of the
Assistant Commissioner of Police himself, who was a Gazetted
Officer, and gave his written consent.
23. P.W.2 has further deposed that on the instructions of the
Assistant Commissioner of Police, he conducted the personal
search of the accused. During the search, four plastic covers
containing ganja were found in the hands of the accused. On
weighing, the contents of the four covers weighed 80 grams in all.
Eight empty plastic covers were also found with the accused. In
addition, one plastic cover kept inside a blue-coloured college bag
was found to contain 1 kilogram and 840 grams of ganja. The
seized ganja, empty plastic covers, blue-coloured college bag and
cash of Rs.1,000/- (two currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination
each) found in the shirt pocket of the accused were separately
packed, sealed with the seal bearing the letters “SJN” and marked
as separate material objects. He has identified the seized articles
before the Court as M.O.1 to M.O.4.
24. P.W.2 has further deposed that the seizure mahazar was
drawn at the spot between 3.30 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. in the
presence of the panch witnesses, and he has identified his
19 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
signature on Ex.P.2 as Ex.P.2(b). Thereafter, he returned to the
police station along with the accused and the seized properties,
produced the accused, the seized articles and the relevant records
before the Station House Officer, and submitted the written
complaint, which is marked as Ex.P.8, bearing his signature as
Ex.P.8(a). He has identified the accused who was present before
the Court.
25. During the cross-examination, P.W.2 admitted that no
complaint had been received from any private individual and that
the case was initiated on the basis of credible information. Except
the said admission, nothing worthwhile was elicited to discredit
his testimony. He denied all the material suggestions put to him
regarding the alleged false implication of the accused, non-
compliance with the mandatory procedure, non-conduct of the
raid and seizure, and false deposition.
26. P.W.3 – Girish Naik, who is the Investigating Officer has
deposed that on 07.02.2022, while he was on station duty, P.W.2
produced the accused before him, the seized properties, the
relevant records and the written report. On the basis of the said
report, he registered Crime No.18/2022 and submitted the First
20 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
Information Report to the jurisdictional Court. He has identified
his signature on Ex.P.8 as Ex.P.8(b) and the First Information
Report as Ex.P.9. P.W.3 has further deposed that he formally
arrested the accused in accordance with law and submitted the
property list before the Court in respect of the seized articles,
which is marked as Ex.P.10, bearing his signature as Ex.P.10(a).
He recorded the statements of C.W.2 to C.W.7 on the same day
and also recorded the statement of C.W.9. He produced the
accused before the Court and obtained police custody.
27. He further deposed that, on 08.02.2022 he recorded the
voluntary statement of the accused, which is marked as Ex.P.11
and bears his signature as Ex.P.11(a). P.W.3 has further deposed
that on 19.02.2022 he submitted an application before the learned
ACMM seeking certification of the inventory of the seized narcotic
substance. On 21.02.2022, the inventory was certified by the
learned Magistrate, and representative samples were drawn in the
presence of the Court and forwarded for chemical examination. On
16.06.2022, he received the Forensic Science Laboratory report,
which is marked as Ex.P.12, and the specimen seal is marked as
Ex.P.13. He has further deposed that he obtained and verified
21 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
Ex.P.6 the Station House Diary extract dated 07.02.2022. He has
identified the requisition seeking permission to conduct the raid
as Ex.P.14 and the raid report submitted thereafter as Ex.P.15. He
has identified the accused who was present before the Court and
has also identified M.O.1 to M.O.4 as the properties seized in the
case. P.W.3 has further deposed that after completion of the
investigation, he filed the charge sheet before the Court on
16.07.2022. During the cross-examination, P.W.3 admitted that
P.W.2 was his superior officer. He denied all the material
suggestions challenging the investigation, the registration of the
case, the seizure of the contraband, the recording of the witnesses’
statements, the voluntary statement of the accused, the
certification of the inventory, the FSL report, and the filing of the
charge sheet.
28. P.W.4 – Reena Suvarna, who is the Gazetted Officer, has
deposed that on 07.02.2022 at about 3.10 p.m., P.W.2 sought his
permission to conduct a raid on the basis of credible information
that a person was selling ganja near S.L.V. Bakery on New BEL
Road. After considering the requisition, she accorded permission
for the raid. She has identified the requisition submitted by P.W.2
22 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
as Ex.P.4, her signature thereon as Ex.P.4(b), the order granting
permission as Ex.P.5 and her signature thereon as Ex.P.5(a). P.W.4
has further deposed that on the same day at about 3.55 p.m.,
P.W.2 informed her over the telephone that a person had been
apprehended along with a narcotic substance and requested her to
come to the spot for conducting the personal search. Thereafter,
P.W.2 also submitted a written requisition, which is marked as
Ex.P.7, and she has identified her signature thereon as Ex.P.7(b).
29. She further deposed that, she reached the spot at about
4.15 p.m., where she found P.W.2, the panch witnesses, police
staff and the apprehended person. She introduced herself to the
accused and informed him of his legal right to be searched before
a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The accused expressed his
willingness to be searched before a Gazetted Officer. P.W.4
informed the accused that she herself was a Gazetted Officer and
enquired whether the accused was willing to be searched in her
presence. The accused consented to the same and signed the
written consent form, which has been marked as Ex.P.16. P.W.4
has identified her signature thereon as Ex.P.16(a).
23 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
30. P.W.4 has further deposed that, after P.W.2, the police
staff and the panch witnesses subjected themselves to mutual
personal search and confirmed that none of them was carrying
any narcotic substance, P.W.2 conducted the personal search of
the accused in her presence. During the search, four small
packets containing ganja consisting of leaves, flowering tops, seeds
and stalks were recovered from the accused. Each packet weighed
20 grams, totalling 80 grams and the same is identified as M.O.1.
The said packets were packed, sealed and the same is identified as
M.O.2. A blue-coloured college bag containing 1 kilogram and 840
grams of ganja was also seized and identified as M.O3. Further,
cash of Rs.1,000/- (two currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination
each), alleged to be the sale proceeds of ganja, was recovered from
the accused, sealed separately and identified as M.O.4. P.W.4 has
deposed that the seizure mahazar was drawn at the spot between
3.50 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. She has identified her signature on
Ex.P.2 as Ex.P.2(c). She has also identified M.O.1 to M.O.4 before
the Court as the seized articles.
31. During cross-examination, P.W.4 denied all the material
suggestions that no permission had been sought for the raid, that
24 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
he had granted permission without verifying the records, that he
had not visited the spot, that the personal search was not
conducted in his presence, that Ex.P.16 had been fabricated, that
no contraband had been seized from the accused, that no
mahazar had been drawn in his presence, and that he was falsely
supporting a fabricated case registered by the police by using
properties seized in some other case.
32. One of the contentions urged during the course of
arguments is with regard to the compliance of the mandatory
provisions of the NDPS Act. Therefore, before appreciating the
evidence on record, it is necessary to examine whether the present
case is governed by Section 42 or Section 43 of the NDPS Act.
According to the prosecution, the accused was apprehended near
S.L.V. Bakery, 2nd Cross, New BEL Road, RMV II Stage, Bengaluru,
while he was allegedly selling ganja to the public. The place of
occurrence, as spoken to by P.W.2 and P.W.4 and reflected in
Ex.P.2, is admittedly an open place accessible to the public. The
prosecution case is not that the contraband was recovered from
any building, conveyance or enclosed place.
25 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
33. It is pertinent to note that, Section 42 of the NDPS Act
applies where the search is to be conducted in any building,
conveyance or enclosed place on the basis of prior information. On
the other hand, Section 43 of the NDPS Act governs seizure and
arrest effected in a public place. Since the alleged seizure in the
present case was effected in a public place, the provisions of
Section 43 of the NDPS Act would govern the search and seizure.
Therefore, strict compliance with Section 42 is not attracted to the
facts of the present case.
34. However, the evidence of P.W.2 – Balaraj discloses that
immediately after receipt of credible information, he reduced the
information into writing, submitted Ex.P.4 seeking permission to
conduct the raid, obtained permission under Ex.P.5 and also
made an entry in the Station House Diary as per Ex.P.6 before
proceeding to the spot. Thus, even though Section 42 of the NDPS
Act is not applicable in the present case, the prosecution has
produced records to demonstrate that the information was
properly recorded prior to the raid. Hence, the procedure adopted
by P.W.2 lends support to the proper compliance to strengthen the
case of the prosecution.
26 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
35. The next question is whether the prosecution has
established due compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act
insofar as the personal search of the accused is concerned. P.W.2 –
Balaraj, in his evidence, has categorically deposed that after
apprehending the accused, he informed P.W.4, the Gazetted
Officer, and requested her to come to the spot. P.W.4 has
corroborated the said version by stating that she reached the spot
at about 4.15 p.m., introduced herself to the accused and
informed him of his legal right to be searched before a Magistrate
or a Gazetted Officer. She has further deposed that the accused
expressed his willingness to be searched before her, she being a
Gazetted Officer, and accordingly obtained the written consent of
the accused under Ex.P.16.
36. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4 is reliable on this
material aspect. Ex.P.16, which contains the written consent of
the accused, also corroborates their oral testimony. Nothing has
been elicited in the cross-examination of either witness to
probabilise that the accused was denied his valuable right under
Section 50 of the NDPS Act or that Ex.P.16 was fabricated. Though
P.W.1 – Syed Azmal has not supported the case of the prosecution,
27 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
his hostility by itself is insufficient to discard the otherwise
consistent testimony of P.Ws.2 and 4. Consequently, this Court is
satisfied that the prosecution has established substantial
compliance with the requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
37. Now, before appreciating the evidence on recovery, it
would be appropriate to examine whether the prosecution has
established the conscious possession of the contraband by the
accused. Under the scheme of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, the prosecution is initially required
to prove the foundational fact that the accused was in conscious
and exclusive possession of the contraband. Once such
foundational fact is established through reliable evidence, the
statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act
come into operation and thereafter, the burden shifts to the
accused to satisfactorily account for such possession or to rebut
the presumptions on the touchstone of preponderance of
probabilities. Therefore, it is necessary to examine whether the
oral and documentary evidence placed on record establishes that
the accused was found in conscious possession of the seized ganja
at the relevant time and place.
28 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
38. Pertinently, P.W.2 – Balaraj and P.W.4 – Reena Suvarna
have consistently deposed that four packets containing 20 grams
of ganja each, totalling 80 grams, were recovered from the
possession of the accused and that a further quantity of 1
kilogram and 840 grams of ganja was recovered from the blue-
coloured college bag carried by him. The said seizure is reflected
in Ex.P.2 and the seized articles have been identified before the
Court as M.O.1 to M.O.4. The accused has not offered any
explanation regarding his possession of the contraband either
during his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal
Procedure Code or by leading defence evidence. Once the
prosecution establishes the foundational fact of possession, the
presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act come
into operation. In the present case, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4,
coupled with the seizure mahazar and the material objects,
satisfactorily establishes that the accused was in conscious
possession of the seized ganja.
39. Before relying upon the alleged recovery, it is mandatory
on the prosecution to establish that the contraband seized from
the possession of the accused remained intact and untampered
29 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
with from the time of its seizure till it reached the Forensic
Science Laboratory for chemical examination. The prosecution
must prove an unbroken chain of custody so as to rule out the
possibility of tampering, substitution or contamination of the
seized substance. Once the integrity of the seized material is
established and the chemical examination confirms that the
sample tested is a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, such
scientific evidence lends assurance to the prosecution case
regarding the identity and nature of the contraband. It is,
therefore, necessary to examine whether the prosecution has
satisfactorily established the safe custody of the seized articles
and whether the Forensic Science Laboratory report conclusively
proves that the substance seized from the accused was ganja.
40. The prosecution has also established the safe custody and
movement of the seized contraband. P.W.2 – Balaraj has spoken
regarding the seizure and sealing of the contraband at the spot.
P.W.3 – Girish Naik has deposed regarding production of the
seized properties before the Court, certification of the inventory,
forwarding of the representative samples for chemical examination
and receipt of the FSL report. Ex.P.12, the FSL Report, has been
30 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
marked with the consent of the learned counsel for the accused.
The defence has neither disputed the contents of the report nor
sought examination of the Scientific Officer. Ex.P.12 clearly
establishes that the sample tested positive for Cannabis (Ganja).
Thus, there is no dispute regarding the identity and nature of the
seized contraband.
41. However, during the course of cross-examination of P.W.2,
a suggestion was made that no application had been filed before
the Magistrate for certification of the inventory. The said
suggestion does not have any merit. P.W.2 was merely the
complainant and the raiding officer. After seizure, the investigation
was taken over by P.W.3, who has categorically deposed that he
submitted an application before the jurisdictional Magistrate on
19.02.2022 for certification of the inventory and that the inventory
was certified on 21.02.2022 and thereafter, representative samples
were drawn and forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The
defence has not elicited any material in the cross-examination of
P.W.3 to discredit this aspect. Further, the FSL report (Ex.P.12)
was admitted in evidence without objection from the accused.
Hence, the suggestion put to P.W.2 does not create any doubt
31 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
regarding compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act or the
integrity of the chain of custody.
42. Having considered the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses, the documentary evidence and the material objects,
and having examined the compliance with the mandatory
provisions of the NDPS Act relating to search, seizure and
investigation, it now remains to be determined whether the
prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. It is a cardinal principle of criminal
jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove its case beyond all
reasonable doubt by leading cogent, convincing and reliable
evidence. In a prosecution under the NDPS Act, although the
statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 become
available once the foundational facts are established, the initial
burden rests upon the prosecution to prove the search, seizure
and conscious possession of the contraband in accordance with
law. It is only upon the successful discharge of such burden that
the statutory presumptions operate against the accused.
Therefore, the cumulative effect of the entire oral and
documentary evidence requires to be examined to ascertain
32 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
whether the prosecution has proved the charge against the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.
43. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the prosecution
mainly relies upon the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4, who are the official
witnesses involved in the raid, seizure and investigation of the
case. P.W.1 is the independent panch witness to the seizure
mahazar. Apart from the oral evidence of these witnesses, the
prosecution has also produced several documents, namely, the
requisition seeking permission to conduct the raid, the permission
granted by the Gazetted Officer, the Station House Diary extract,
the seizure mahazar, the complaint, the First Information Report,
the property form, the voluntary statement of the accused, the
Forensic Science Laboratory report and the notice issued under
Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the oral evidence of the
witnesses has to be appreciated along with the documentary
evidence and the material objects produced before the Court to
determine whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt.
44. P.W.1 – Syed Azmal, who is examined by the prosecution
as the seizure mahazar witness, has completely resiled from his
33 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
earlier statement. He has denied the seizure, the mahazar
proceedings and even his presence at the spot. Consequently, he
was treated hostile by the prosecution. However, the mere hostility
of an independent witness is not by itself fatal to the prosecution
case. In Ajmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 3 SCC 746,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that although it is desirable to
associate independent witnesses in cases under the NDPS Act, it
is not an inviolable rule. The obligation to secure public witnesses
is not absolute. If reasonable efforts have been made to associate
independent witnesses and they do not support the prosecution or
are unavailable, the search and recovery do not become illegal on
that ground alone. The Court is required to independently assess
whether the evidence of the official witnesses is cogent, reliable
and trustworthy. If such evidence inspires confidence, conviction
can safely be based thereon notwithstanding the absence of
corroboration from independent witnesses.
45. In the present case, though P.W.1 has resiled from his
earlier statement and has not supported the prosecution, the
evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 is consistent on all material particulars
relating to the receipt of credible information, compliance with the
34 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
statutory requirements, conduct of the raid, seizure of the
contraband, preparation of the seizure mahazar and the
subsequent investigation. Their testimony has remained unshaken
in the cross-examination except for bald suggestions, which have
been denied. No material contradiction or omission has been
elicited to discredit their version. Therefore, merely because P.W.1
has turned hostile, this Court finds no legal impediment in relying
upon the otherwise trustworthy and reliable evidence of P.Ws.2 to
4.
46. In the present case, the prosecution mainly relies upon
the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 4. Therefore, it is necessary to
examine whether their evidence is cogent, consistent and inspires
confidence of this court. P.W.2 – Balaraj, the complainant and
raiding officer, has deposed that on 07.02.2022 at about 3.00
p.m., while he was on station duty, he received credible
information that an unidentified person was selling ganja near
S.L.V. Bakery on New BEL Road. He has further deposed that he
immediately submitted a written requisition to the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, J.C. Nagar Sub-Division, seeking
permission to conduct a raid, which is marked as Ex.P.4, and that
35 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
permission was accorded by P.W.4 under Ex.P.5. He has also
deposed that he recorded the receipt of the information in the
Station House Diary, the extract of which is produced at Ex.P.6.
Thereafter, he secured panch witnesses by issuing notices under
Ex.P.1, proceeded to the spot along with the police staff and
deputed C.W.7 as a decoy customer to verify the information.
According to P.W.2, after receiving the predetermined signal from
the decoy customer confirming the sale of ganja, the raiding party
apprehended the accused. He has further deposed that he
requested P.W.4 – Reena Suvarna, Assistant Commissioner of
Police, JC Nagar Sub-Division, who is the Gazetted Officer, to
come to the spot for conducting the personal search by submitting
a requisition under Ex.P.7. After informing the accused of his legal
right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and obtaining his consent,
the personal search was conducted, during which four packets
containing 80 grams of ganja, one plastic cover containing 1
kilogram 840 grams of ganja, eight empty plastic covers, a blue-
coloured college bag and cash of Rs.1,000/- were seized. He has
further deposed that the seizure mahazar/raid mahazar was
drawn at the spot under Ex.P.2, the seized articles were sealed
36 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
and marked as M.Os.1 to 4, and thereafter he produced the
accused and the seized properties before the Station House Officer
and lodged the written complaint, which is marked as Ex.P.8.
Thus, the evidence of P.W.2 regarding the receipt of information,
conduct of the raid, seizure of the contraband and registration of
the case finds substantial corroboration from the relevant
documents, namely Exs.P.4 to P.8.
47. P.W.3 – Girish Naik, the Investigating Officer, has deposed
that on 07.02.2022, while he was on station duty, P.W.2 produced
the accused, the seized properties, the relevant records and the
written complaint before him. Based on the complaint, he
registered Crime No.18/2022 and submitted the First Information
Report to the jurisdictional Court. He has identified his signature
on the complaint as Ex.P.8(b) and the First Information Report as
Ex.P.9. He has further deposed that he formally arrested the
accused in accordance with law and produced the property form
before the Court in respect of the seized articles, which is marked
as Ex.P.10. He has also deposed that he recorded the statements
of the material witnesses, secured the police custody of the
37 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
accused and on 08.02.2022, recorded the voluntary statement of
the accused, which is marked as Ex.P.11.
48. P.W.3 has further deposed that on 19.02.2022, he
submitted an application before the jurisdictional Magistrate
seeking certification of the inventory of the seized contraband and
that on 21.02.2022, the inventory was certified by the learned
Magistrate. Thereafter, representative samples were drawn in the
presence of the Court and forwarded to the Forensic Science
Laboratory for chemical examination. He has further deposed that
on 16.06.2022, he received the Forensic Science Laboratory
Report, which is marked as Ex.P.12, and identified the specimen
seal as Ex.P.13. He has also identified the Station House Diary
extract as Ex.P.6, the requisition seeking permission to conduct
the raid as Ex.P.14, and the raid completion report as Ex.P.15.
According to him, after completion of the investigation, he filed the
charge sheet against the accused. Thus, the evidence of P.W.3
establishes the subsequent investigation carried out after the
seizure, including the registration of the FIR, preservation and
production of the seized property before the Court, compliance
with the procedure relating to inventory and forwarding of samples
38 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
for chemical examination, which significantly corroborates the
evidence of P.W.2 regarding the investigation conducted after the
seizure.
49. P.W.4 – Reena Suvarna, the then Assistant Commissioner
of Police, J.C Nagar Sub Division and Gazetted Officer, has
deposed that on 07.02.2022 at about 3.10 p.m., P.W.2 submitted a
written requisition seeking permission to conduct a raid on the
basis of credible information regarding the sale of ganja near
S.L.V. Bakery. She has identified the requisition as Ex.P.4 and her
signature thereon as Ex.P.4(b). She has further deposed that,
upon being satisfied with the requisition, she accorded permission
to conduct the raid under Ex.P.5, bearing her signature as
Ex.P.5(a). She has further deposed that at about 3.55 p.m., P.W.2
informed her over the telephone that one person had been
apprehended along with a narcotic substance and requested her to
come to the spot for conducting the personal search. Pursuant to
the same, P.W.2 also submitted a written requisition, which is
marked as Ex.P.7, and she has identified her signature thereon as
Ex.P.7(b).
39 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
50. P.W.4 has further deposed that she reached the spot at
about 4.15 p.m., where she found the accused in the custody of
the raiding party. She introduced herself to the accused and
informed him of his legal right to be searched either before a
Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. According to her, the accused
expressed his willingness to be searched in the presence of a
Gazetted Officer and consented to be searched before her. She
accordingly obtained the written consent of the accused under
Ex.P.16, bearing her signature as Ex.P.16(a). Thereafter, in her
presence, P.W.2 conducted the personal search of the accused,
during which four packets containing 20 grams of ganja each,
totalling 80 grams, one blue-coloured college bag containing 1
kilogram and 840 grams of ganja, and cash of Rs.1,000/- were
recovered and seized under the seizure mahazar Ex.P.2, on which
she has identified her signature as Ex.P.2(c). She has also
identified the seized articles before the Court as M.Os.1 to 4.
51. The evidence of P.W.4 clearly corroborates the testimony
of P.W.2 regarding the permission granted to conduct the raid, her
presence at the spot, compliance with the mandatory
requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the recovery and
40 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
seizure of the contraband from the possession of the accused.
P.W.4 was, at the relevant point of time, serving as the Assistant
Commissioner of Police and was a Gazetted Officer. She was
secured to the spot only in discharge of her official duties for the
purpose of ensuring compliance with the mandate of Section 50 of
the NDPS Act. There is absolutely no material brought on record
in the cross-examination to indicate that she had any previous
acquaintance with the accused, any personal animosity against
him or any motive whatsoever to falsely implicate him in a serious
offence under the NDPS Act. In the absence of any such
circumstance, there is no reason for the Court to presume that a
responsible Gazetted Officer would jeopardize her official position
and career by fabricating a false case against an unknown person.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the
evidence of official witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the
ground that they are police officials, and if their evidence is
otherwise reliable, trustworthy and inspires confidence, the same
can safely form the basis of conviction. It has further been held
that, in the absence of proof of enmity or ulterior motive, there is
41 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
no reason to presume that responsible public servants would
falsely implicate an accused.
52. It is the contention of the counsel for the accused that, in
the absence of support from the independent panch witness, the
evidence of the official witnesses cannot be safely relied upon.
However, the said contention cannot be accepted. It is now well
settled that there is no rule of law requiring the testimony of police
officials to be corroborated by independent witnesses in every case
under the NDPS Act. Merely because an independent witness has
turned hostile, the prosecution case does not automatically fail if
the evidence of the official witnesses is otherwise cogent,
consistent and trustworthy. In Jarnail Singh Vs. State of
Punjab, (2011) 3 SCC 521, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that the non-examination or hostility of an independent witness
does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the accused has
been falsely implicated and that the evidence of official witnesses
cannot be discarded merely because of their official status. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has further relied upon the principle laid
down in State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Vs. Sunil & Another,
(2001) 1 SCC 652, wherein it was held that it is an archaic notion
42 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
to approach every action of a police officer with initial distrust and
that the Court cannot proceed on the presumption that police
records are inherently untrustworthy. On the contrary, by virtue
of Section 114 Illustration (e) of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (corresponding to Section 119(e) of the Bharathiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), there is a statutory presumption
that official acts have been regularly performed, unless the
contrary is established.
53. Therefore, while appreciating the evidence of police
officials, the Court is not required to view their testimony with
suspicion merely because they belong to the police force. What is
required is careful scrutiny of their evidence. If, upon such
scrutiny, the testimony of the official witnesses is found to be
natural, consistent and inspires confidence, there is no legal
impediment in basing a conviction upon such evidence even in the
absence of corroboration by an independent witness. In the
present case, the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 has been carefully
scrutinised. Their testimony is consistent on all material
particulars relating to the receipt of credible information,
obtaining prior permission to conduct the raid, compliance with
43 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
the statutory safeguards, seizure of the contraband, preparation of
the seizure mahazar, preservation of the seized property and the
subsequent investigation. Their evidence finds substantial
corroboration from the relevant documentary evidence at Exs.P.4
to P.16 and the material objects M.Os.1 to 4. Except making bald
suggestions of false implication, no material contradiction,
omission or circumstance has been elicited in the cross-
examination to discredit their testimony or to rebut the statutory
presumption attached to official acts. Hence, this Court finds no
reason to discard their evidence merely because they are official
witnesses, and their testimony can safely be acted upon.
54. Upon an overall appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has
succeeded in establishing all the foundational facts necessary to
bring home the guilt of the accused. The evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 is
cogent, consistent and inspires confidence. Their testimony is duly
corroborated by the relevant documentary evidence at Exs.P.4 to
P.16 and the material objects M.Os.1 to 4. The hostile testimony of
P.W.1 does not affect the prosecution case in view of the reliable
and trustworthy evidence of the official witnesses, which has
44 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
withstood the test of cross-examination. The prosecution has also
satisfactorily established compliance with the mandatory
requirements of the NDPS Act relating to search and seizure. The
chain of custody of the seized contraband has remained intact and
the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, marked as Ex.P.12
without objection from the defence, conclusively establishes that
the seized substance was ganja. The evidence on record further
proves that the accused was in conscious and exclusive
possession of the contraband. Accordingly, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has proved beyond all
reasonable doubt that the accused was found in conscious
possession of 1 kilogram 920 grams of ganja, thereby committing
the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.
55. Before concluding, this Court considers it necessary to
observe that offences under the NDPS Act are serious offences
against society. Illegal possession, sale and trafficking of narcotic
drugs not only violate the law but also destroy the lives of
individuals, particularly the younger generation, who are the
future of this country. Drug abuse adversely affects families,
public health, law and order and ultimately the progress and well-
45 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
being of the nation. The Legislature has enacted stringent
provisions under the NDPS Act prescribing severe punishments by
recognising the grave consequences of such offences. At the same
time, it has provided procedural safeguards to ensure a fair trial.
56. The Court is duty-bound to ensure that every accused
receives a fair trial and that all the statutory safeguards under the
NDPS Act are strictly complied with. However, once the
prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt by producing
reliable, cogent and legally admissible evidence, the Court cannot
discard such evidence on mere technicalities or adopt an approach
of inappropriate sympathy. The growing menace of narcotic drugs
is a matter of serious concern, and if such offences are not dealt
with firmly in accordance with law, they have the potential to ruin
the lives of countless young people and adversely affect society as
a whole.
57. In the present case, this Court is satisfied that the
prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 is
trustworthy and is duly corroborated by the documentary
evidence and the material objects produced before the Court. The
46 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
defence has failed to create any reasonable doubt regarding the
prosecution case. Accordingly, this Court holds that the
prosecution has proved that the accused was in conscious
possession of 1 kilogram 920 grams of ganja and has thereby
committed the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Consequently, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
58. Point No.2:- In the light of the above discussed facts and
circumstances of the case, I proceed to pass the following:-
::O R D E R::
Acting under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the accused namely., Kumar. T S/o V.
Thangaraju, is hereby convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
In view of the conviction recorded, Accused is taken
into custody. The Accused shall be produced before this
court for hearing on sentence on the next date.
47 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
As contemplated under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., the
Accused shall be heard on the question of sentence on
16.07.2026.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-1 directly on the computer,
typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open Court,
on this the 14th day of July, 2026)
(Sri. Ananda)
XXXIV Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
& Special Judge, (NDPS), Bengaluru.
16.07.2026
::ORDER ON SENTENCE::
Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned counsel for
the accused and the accused, who is personally present before the
Court, on the question of sentence as contemplated under Section
235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the
accused has no criminal antecedents and is an auto-rickshaw
driver by profession. It is contended that he is the sole
breadwinner of his family, consisting of his wife and two
unmarried daughters, and that the entire responsibility of
maintaining the family rests upon him. It is further submitted
48 SPL.C. No.1754/2022that the accused has recently lost his mother and is facing
financial as well as emotional hardship. The learned counsel
further prayed that, considering the family circumstances and the
fact that the quantity involved is not a commercial quantity, this
Court may take a lenient view and award the minimum sentence
prescribed under law.
The accused, who was also heard personally, reiterated the
submissions made by his learned counsel. He submitted that he is
innocent, has been falsely implicated in the case, and prayed that
this Court may show leniency while imposing sentence.
Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
offence committed by the accused is not merely against an
individual but against society at large. It is argued that narcotic
drugs have become a serious social menace, particularly affecting
the younger generation and that persons indulging in the sale of
such contraband cannot claim undue sympathy. Therefore, it is
prayed that the accused be awarded an appropriate sentence
commensurate with the gravity of the offence.
This Court has given careful consideration to the rival
submissions.
49 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
The accused has been found guilty of the offence punishable
under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985, for being in conscious possession of 1
kilogram and 920 grams of ganja, which falls within the category
of quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than
small quantity. The offence carries a maximum punishment of
rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine up to Rupees One
Lakh.
While determining the appropriate sentence, this Court has
taken into consideration the mitigating circumstances put forth by
the accused, namely that he is an auto-rickshaw driver, the sole
breadwinner of his family, has two unmarried daughters and has
recently lost his mother. At the same time, this Court cannot lose
sight of the gravity of the offence. Illicit possession and sale of
narcotic drugs have a serious adverse impact on society,
particularly on the youth and such offences require an appropriate
deterrent response.
Balancing the aggravating circumstances with the mitigating
factors placed by the accused, this Court is of the considered
opinion that imposing rigorous imprisonment for a period of two
50 SPL.C. No.1754/2022(2) years and a fine of Rs.20,000/- would meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
::ORDER::
The accused Kumar. T, S/o V. Thangaraju, is sentenced to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two (2) Years and
to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) for
the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
In default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo
Simple Imprisonment for a period of Three (3) Months.
The accused shall be entitled to the benefit of set-off under
Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the period of
detention already undergone during investigation and trial, if any.
The material objects, namely M.O.1 – sample Ganja, shall be
returned to Sanjayanagar Police Station, to produce before the
Drug Disposal Committee for disposal in accordance with law,
after expiry of the appeal period.
M.O.2 – empty plastic covers and M.O.3 – Blue colour college
bag, are being worthless, ordered to be destroyed after the appeal
is over.
51 SPL.C. No.1754/2022
M.O.4 – cash of Rs.1,000/- (500 X 2 notes) shall be
confiscated to the State.
Supply a free copy of the judgment and this order on sentence
to the accused forthwith.
(Sri. Ananda)
XXXIV Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
& Special Judge, (NDPS), Bengaluru.::A N N E X U R E::
(As Per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
in Criminal Appeal No.2973/203, the standardized chart of
annexure is set out hereunder)
1. NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Prosecution
witness No. Name of Witness DescriptionP.W-1 Syed Ajmal Mahazar Witness
P.W-2 Balaraju Complainant
P.W-3 Girish Nayak. S IO Witness
P.W-4 Smt. Reena Suvarna Gazetted Officer
2. NO. OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Exhibit No. Description of the Proved by/Attested
Exhibit by1 Notice to Panchas P.W-1
52 SPL.C. No.1754/20221(a) Signature of PW-1 P.W-1
1(b) Signature of PW-2 P.W-2
2 Mahazar P.W-1
P2(a) Signature of PW-1 P.W-1
2(b) Signature of PW-2 P.W-2
2(c) Signature of PW-4 P.W-4
3 Statement of PW-1 P.W-1
4 Permission Request P.W-2
Letter for Raid
4(a) Signature of PW-2 P.W-2
4(b) Signature of PW-4 P.W-4
P5 Permission Letter for P.W-2
Raid
5(a) Signature of PW-4 P.W-4
6 Station House Diary P.W-2
7 Request Letter for P.W-2
Body Search
7(a) Signature of PW-2 P.W-2
7(b) Signature of PW-4 P.W-4
8 Complaint P.W-2
8(a) Signature of PW-2 P.W-2
8(b) Signature of PW-3 P.W-3
9 F.I.R P.W-3
10 PF.No.14/2022 P.W-3
10(a) Signature of PW-3 P.W-3
11 Accused Statement P.W-3
11(a) Statement of PW-3 P.W-3
12 F.S.L. Report P.W-3
13 Sample Seal P.W-3
53 SPL.C. No.1754/202214 Request for P.W-3
Permission to Raid
15 Raid Successful P.W-3
Report
16 Body Search
Questionnaires
16(a) Signature of PW-4 P.W-4
3. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:
-NIL-
4. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE DEFENCE:
-NIL-
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:
Material Object No. Description of the Proved by/Attested
Exhibit by
1. 2 Ganja Packets P.W-1
2. 8 Plastic Covers P.W-1
3. Blue Colour College P.W-1
Bag
4. Cash of Rs.1,000/- P.W-1
(500X2)
Digitally signed
by ANANDA
ANANDA Date: 2026.07.17
17:24:20 +0530
(Sri. Ananda)
XXXIV Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
& Special Judge, (NDPS), Bengaluru.
