The appellants were convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) r/w 29 of the NDPS Act for possessing 3 kgs of ganja. They challenged the judgment, arguing that the prosecution's case was flawed due to inconsistencies in the evidence. The court considered the contentions and found that the evidence of PW5 and PW6 was consistent and reliable. The court also considered the weight difference in samples and the impact of Section 35 of the NDPS Act. The appellants' conviction was upheld.