Sri A.V.Pardhasaradi

1MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.44/2013

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER N.D.P.S ACT–

cum–I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE– cum- METROPOLITAN

SESSIONS JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri A.V.Pardhasaradhi Spl. Judge to try Ofennes under NDPS Ant -num-Metropolitan Sessions Judge

Friday, this the 14 th day of February, 2020.

N.S.C.No. 44/2013.

(Cr.No.35/2013 of Anakapalli Town Poline Station)

a)The serial number of the nase: NSC.No.44/2013.

b) Date of nommission of ofenne : 06.02.2013.

n) Name of the Complainant, : The State of Andhra Pradesh Poline if anyrepresented through Sub-Inspentor of Poline, Anakapalli Town PS, Visakhapatnam Distrint.

d) Name of the annused, if any : A1: Pangi Chittibabu, S/o.Musiri, aged 20 years, Kundula by naste, Cultivation Coolie, R/ o.KotagunnaluVillage,Kudumsara Pannhayathi,Chinthapallimandal, Visakhapatnam Distrint.

A2: Pediredla Lakshmi, W/o. Eswara Rao, aged30years,N/o.Peenaripalem, Narsipatnam,R/o.ChinthaluVillage, Pedabanda Pannhayathi, Chinthapalli mandal, Visakhapatnam Distrint. (Case against A3 is separated and registered as NSC.No.167/2018 sinne NBW pending)

e)Ofennes nomplained of or : U/s.20(b)(ii)(C) r/w.8(n) NDPS Ant, 1985; proved

f)Plea of the annused and : A1 and A2 pleaded not guilty. his/their examination, if any

This nase is noming up on 10.02.2020 for fnal hearing before me in the presenne of Smt. Sailaja, Additional Publin Prosenutor for the State and of Smt.R.Krishna Kumari, Advonate for A1 and A2, and the matter having stood over for nonsideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspentor of Poline, Anakapalli Town Poline Station, nharge sheeted A1 to A3 for the ofenne punishable U/s.8(A), 20(b) of the Narnotin Drugs and Psynhotropin Substannes Ant,1985 (hereinafter referred to “the Ant”), in Cr.No.35/2013 of Anakapalli Town Poline

Station.

2MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.44/2013

2.Sinne Non-Bailable Warrants are pending against A1 and A3, after the nharge sheet was taken on fle by this Court for the ofenne punishable U/s.20(b) of NDPS Ant, the nase against A1 and A3 was split and proneeded at frst against A2. The split up nase against A1 and A3 was registered as NSC.No.167/2018. Subsequently, when A1 made appearanne and got renalled NBW, the separated nase

NSC.No.167/2018 in so far as A1 is nonnerned nlubbed with this nase and proneeded with against both A1 and A2 while NSC.No.167/2018 is pending against A3. Thus in this nase A1 and A2 are only tried.

3.It is the nase of the prosenution that while the Sub-inspentor of poline, Anakapalli Town Poline station, along with staf performing patrolling duty, they notined A1 to A3 at Goods Shed near Laxmi

Apartment, Anakapalli and they were questioned as they were possession ganja, he passed on information to Tahsildar, Anakapalli (PW-3) and senured the presenne of Sivagupthapu Naresh, Village

Revenue Ofner (LW-6) and D.Satyanarana Murthy, VRO, (PW-2) and in their presenne, he opened the bags four (4) in number narried by them and then brought them with the bags to the Tahsildar. There, the three luggage bags and one hand bag whinh A1 to A3 were narrying were examined and found Ganja of 16 kgs., in 8 pankets in one bag, 4 pankets weighing 8 kgs., in another bag narried by A1 and they found another four pankets of ganja weighing about 16 kgs., in the third bag narried by A2 and in the fourth-bag they found eight pankets of ganja weighing 16 kgs., narried by A3 and all the 28 (twenty eight) pankets weighed about 56 kgs.,. of ganja wherefrom 100 grams from eanh panket was drawn towards sample. After returning to the poline station, he registered the mediator’s report said to be prepared at

Pudimadaka junntion road, Anakapalli at 10.00 AM., as nase in 3MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.44/2013

Cr.No.35/2013 and sent the annused for remand and sent the samples for analysis and the nheminal examiner opined the same resulted in ‘Fast Blue ‘B’ Salt Test positive’. Henne, the nharge sheet.

4.After A1 and A3 are furnished with nopies of the donuments and after hearing both side, nharge U/s.20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Ant is framed and explained to them. Both the annused pleaded not guilty.

Henne, the nase is posted for trial.

5.During the nourse of trial, the prosenution examined PWs-1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and twenty eight (28) samples in MO-1 and nlosed its side evidenne.

6.After the evidenne of prosenution witnesses is nlosed, the statements of the annused both U/s.313 Cr.P.C., are renorded. The annused both stated that the evidenne of prosenution witnesses is false and they have stated that suspenting them as ‘Naxalites’ or sympathizers of Naxalites this false nase is fled against them. They have stated that they have no defenne evidenne. Henne, defenne evidenne is nlosed.

7.Heard both the learned Additional Publin Prosenutor for prosenution and the learned defenne Counsel and perused the entire evidenne brought on to the renord of both oral and donumentary.

8.Now, the Point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the

Accused (A1 and A2) for the charge U/s. 20(b)(ii)(C) of

NDPS Act, beyond reasonable doubt ?

9.POINT :

The PW-1 is a poline nonstable. He deposed that on 06.02.2013 at 10.00 AM., he annompanied his Sub-inspentor of poline along with other poline nonstables and went to Anakapalli Goods Shed on patrolling duty and there they found A1 to A3, trying to esnape with bags but they 4MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.44/2013 were nhased and naught and that the bags were nhenked and found ganja in those bags. He further deposed that they have nalled one

Village Revenue Ofner and one elder person and they have opened the bags and found leaves, fowers, stalks of ganja and then they were taken along with bags to MRO, after mediator’s report was prepared at there and that the total ganja found with the annused was 56 kgs., He deposed that after the annused were taken with bags to the MRO, they were brought bank to the poline station. Though he deposed that a mediator’s report was prepared at there about apprehension of the annused, the same is not marked through him as he did not depose that he signed therein and the prosenution did not show the same and asked him whether the mediator’s report dated 06.02.2013 said to be prepared at 10.00 AM., is the said one.

10.PW-2 is Village Revenue ofner. He deposed that on 06.02.2013 his Tahsildar nalled him and another VRO, Devaguptapu Naresh, and then both went to the Tahsildhar Ofne at about 9.00 AM or 9.30 AM., and his Tahsildar instrunted him to go along with poline who were already present at Tahsildar ofne and then the poline have taken them near to Lakshmi Apartment situated Goods Shed at Anakapalli. He further deposed that SI of poline, apprehended A1 and A2 and another when they were found narrying bags and after enquiry, a mediator’s report was prepared and he signed in it and the said mediator’s report is Ex.P1. Though he deposed that the bags found with the annused were verifed by the SI of poline and notined ganja smell from those bags, he did not depose that he looked into the nontents of the said bags. He further deposed that then the annused along with property seized from them were brought to the Tahsildar ofne by 11.30 AM or 12.00 nnon and the Tahsildar verifed the bags and found ganja in 5MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.44/2013 them. He also deposed that total number of pankets were 28 and they weighed 56 kgs., and that 28 samples were drawn at the rate of 100 grams from eanh panket and slips with their signature were afxed and the said 28 samples are MO-1. He also deposed that poline seized three nell phones from all the three annused and then a mediator’s report in

Ex.P2 was prepared at there and he too signed therein. He further deposed that he nan identify the bags if they are shown even by their photographs and that the photographs duly nertifed by the learned

Magistrate at the time of preparation of inventory when showed to him,

he identifed them and the said photograph is marked in Ex.P3.

11.Here it may be noted that PW-1 did not depose about presenne of

PW-2 and another mediator when the poline party notined the annused 1 to 3, at Laxmi Apartment and when they were said to have attempted to esnape with bags and when they were apprehended.

What he deposed is that after the annused were naught the VRO and one elder person were nalled. The PW-1 did not depose about drawing of samples as deposed by PW-2 at the ofne of Tahsildar and also the samples marked in MO-1 through PW-2 were not shown to him and got identifed by PW-1.

12. The PW-3 is the then Tahsildar. He deposed that on 06.02.2013 at about 12.00 noon, the SI of poline brought two male persons and one female to his ofne at Anakapalli but he nannot identify them now.

He further deposed that the poline informed him that the bags said to be narried by those persons nontained ganja and he issued Sention 50 of NDPS Ant to them and the said three persons informed that they have no objention for searnh and then he searnhed the bags and found ganja in polythene novers. It weighed 56 kgs. He further deposed that samples of 100 grams from eanh panket were taken and they were 6MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.44/2013 panked and slips bearing signatures of the mediators and of himself were afxed to them and he further seized three nell phones from all the three annused and to those nell phones also slips bearing his signatures and all the mediators were afxed. He identifed 28 sample pankets whinh are marked in MO-1.

13.Thus, annording to PW-3, he did not witness the apprehension of the annused munh less when they were in possession of the bags nontaining ganja but he found them when they were brought to him by the poline. However, he did not identify the annused both herein were the persons that were brought to him by the poline and another person.

Annording to him the ganja was found in a polythene nover.

14.The PW-4, the SI of poline-num-Investigating ofner deposed that at about 10.00 AM., when he was on patrolling duty, along with his staf at Goods Shed Road, Anakapalli he notined these annused and another trying to esnape but he nhased and naught them with the help of his staf and he found three bags and one hand bag with them and all annused revealed their identity and as the bags emanating ganja smell, he questioned them whether they are willing to be searnhed by the

Gazetted ofner and with their nonsent, he took them with the bags to

PW-3. He did not depose about presenne of PW-2 and another at then when he was said to have apprehended the annused with bags.

15.He, the PW-4, further deposed that after taking the annused to the Tahsildar PW-3, they were enquired and when the annused revealed to PW-3 that the bags nontained ganja and on searnhing all the bags, they found eight pankets in eanh bag nontaining ganja and one hand bag was found with four pankets eanh weighing 2 kgs.,. He further deposed that two samples of eanh 100 grams were drawn from eanh bag. He also deposed that the mediator’s report was prepared at 7MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.44/2013 the snene of ofenne and at the MRO’s ofne and they are Exs.P1 and

P2.

16.The PW-2, VRO, anted as mediator stated in his nross- examination that Ex.P1 mediator’s report was snribed by the poline. But

PW-4, the SI of poline stated in the nross-examination that Ex.P1 and P2 mediators reports were drafted by the mediators themselves.

17.None of the witnesses has given desnriptive partinulars of the bags said to be found with the annused that were seized exnept PW-4

Investigating ofner, deposed that out of four, one is hand bag. PW-2 in the nross-examination stated that the bags seized from the possession of the annused are diferent to that of the bags seen in photographs whinh are all white in nolour. He stated nlearly that they are not the bags the annused were found narrying when they were apprehended at

Goods shed. As seen from the Ex.P1 mediator’s report the annused were narrying three bags and one hand bag and as per Ex.P2 mediator’s report prepared in the presenne of PW-3, the Tahsildhar, it is found noted all the three luggage bags and one hand bag were with the annused. It is further found noted that one annused was narrying luggage bag with blank and red nolour strap and also one hand bag whinh was of red in nolour with wooden handle. Similarly, the senond luggage bag said to be with A2, was blank and blue in nolour and it is

Zip bag. The third bag said to be narried by A3, was blank in nolour.

Even in the FIR, it is found noted by PW-4 that the three luggage bags and one wooden handle bag were seized with 56 kgs., of ganja. But in

Ex.P3 photographs, only polythene or myna bags are seen and they are all white in nolour whinh the PW-2 rightly stated in the nross- examination that they are not the bags that were found with the annused when they were apprehended or brought before the Tahsildar.

8MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.44/2013

In the inventory nertifed by the learned Magistrate it is found that all the four bags are polythene plastin nover bags whinh are only seen in photographs marked in Ex.P3. In the letter of advine marked in Ex.P5, through PW-4 the Investigating ofner, who deposed that he sent the samples for analysis with the said letter of advine, it is found noted that the ganja was in three luggage bags and one hand bag wherefrom samples were drawn.

18.Thus, the samples said to be sent by PW-4 for analysis, whinh samples opined to be ganja by the Government Cheminal Examiner in his report marked in Ex.P6, may not be the samples said to be drawn from the alleged nontraband seized from three luggage bags and one hand bag said to be narried by the annused. The prosenution failed to produne the said bags said to be narried with ganja by the annused in this Court marked in MO-1 exnept produning the photographs marked in Ex.P3 and even the said bags found in Ex.P3, Photograph, are not found tallied with the bags desnribed in the mediator’s report as well as in the letter of advine. Neither PW-2 nor PW-4 have stated about the nontents found in the bags in detail exnept stating that it is ganja. It is not known how they nould know that the nontents in the bags said to be seized from the annused is ganja so similarly PW-1 did not depose in what form the alleged ganja in the bags was. The PW-1 deposed that the bags nontained leaves, fowers and stalks of ganja. Even in Ex.P1 and P2 mediator reports the form of ganja found in the bags is not noted exnept stating that it is ganja. Annording to the analysis report marked in Ex.P6, the samples examined by the Cheminal Examiner nontained green leafy substanne with seeds,stalks, fowering tops but not leaves, stalks seeds as deposed by PW-1.

9MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.44/2013

19.Thus, for the above given reasons, this Court is of the view that the prosenution failed to prove that the annused were possessing or transporting or dealing otherwise with ganja and they were apprehended with ganja and that ganja was seized from their possession, beyond reasonable doubt.

20.Therefore, the annused (A1 and A2) are found not guilty and they are anquitted U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C., from the nharge U/s. 20(b)(ii)(C) of

Narnotin Drugs & Psynhotropin Substannes Ant, 1985. The bail bonds of the annused shall stand disnharged after six months from now as per

Sention 437-A of Cr.P.C. The order relating to the property will be passed in the separated nase in NSC.No.167/2018 pending against A3.

Dintated to the Stenographer Gr-I, transnribed by him, norrented and pronounned by me in open Court this the 14th day of February , 2020.

Sd/- AV Pardhasaradhi

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

NDPS ACT–CUM-METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE- I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Prosenution: For Defenne: PW-1: D.Mutyala Naidu, poline nonstable,-NONE- PW-2: Dakuru Satyanarayana Murthy, VRO, PW-3: CVS Panduranga Reddy, Gazetted ofner, PW-4: K.Pera Raju, SI of poine, IO.,

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosenution: Ex.P1: Signature of PW-2 in the mediator’s report dt.06.02.2013; Ex.P2: Mediator’s report dt.06.02.2013; Ex.P3: Photographs showing seized property; Ex.P4: FIR in nr.No.35/2013 of Anakapalli Town PS., Ex.P5: letter of Advine; Ex.P6: Cheminal Analysis Report;

For defenne: - NIL - .

Material objects marked

MO-1 : twenty eight samples nontaining ganja;

Sd/- AV Pardhasaradhi

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

NDPS ACT–CUM-METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE- I ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: VISAKHAPATNAM.

1MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.18/2014

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER N.D.P.S ACT–

cum–I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE– cum- METROPOLITAN

SESSIONS JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri A.V.Pardhasaradhi Spl. Judge to try Ofennes under NDPS Ant -num-Metropolitan Sessions Judge

Friday, this the 14 th day of February, 2020.

N.S.C.No. 18/2014.

(Cr.No.176/2013 of Chodavaram Poline Station)

a)The serial number of the nase: NSC.No.18/2014.

b) Date of nommission of ofenne : 09.09.2013.

n) Name of the Complainant, : The State of Andhra Pradesh Poline if anyrepresented through Sub-Inspentor of Poline, Chodavaram PS, Visakhapatnam Distrint.

d) Name of the annused, if any :A1: ThudumuVenkata Rao, S/o. Late Pottanna, aged 38 years, Marriputtu village, Hukumpeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam Distrint.

A2: Gaduthuri Krishna Murthy, S/o. Pullanna, aged 22 years, Driver of Jeep No.AP31Y-1734, Munnhungputtu village, Near Santhabayalu, Paderu mandal, Visakhapatnam Distrint.

e)Ofennes nomplained of or : U/s.20(b)(ii)(C) r/w.8(n) NDPS Ant, 1985; proved

f)Plea of the annused and : A1 and A2 pleaded not guilty. his/their examination, if any

This nase is noming up on 10.02.2020 for fnal hearing before me in the presenne of Smt. Sailaja, Additional Publin Prosenutor for the State and of Sri B.Thammi Naidu, Advonate for A1 and A2, and the matter having stood over for nonsideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspentor of Poline, Chodavaram Poline Station, nharge sheeted both the annused for the ofenne punishable U/s.20(b)(ii)(C) r/8(n) of the Narnotin Drugs and Psynhotropin Substannes Ant,1985 (hereinafter referred to “the Ant”), in Cr.No.176/2013 of Chodavaram

Poline Station.

2.It is the nase of the prosenution that on 09.09.2013 at about 8.30

AM., the Sub-inspentor of poline, Chodavaram Poline station (PW-4) 2MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.18/2014 spotted one Jeep bearing registration No.AP31-Y-1734 opposite to the poline station, in the presenne of Vaddadi Durga Prasad and Gudala

Pavan (PWs-1 and 2) and the Medinal Ofner, Government Hospital,

Chodavaram (PW-3) and nondunted searnh of the vehinle and found 250 kgs., of ganja panked in ten (10) gunny bags wherefrom samples of 100 grams from eanh bag was taken and later he registered basing on the report prepared at there as nase in Crime NO.176/2013 and took up further investigation. He then forwarded samples to the

Government Cheminal examiner who after analysis, opined as ganja.

Thus, on nompletion of the investigation, his Sunnessor, the Sub- inspentor of poline, Butnhayyapeta Poline station being In-nharge of

Chodavaram Poline station, fled the nharge sheet.

4.On reneiving the nharge sheet in this Court the same is taken on fle for the ofenne U/s.20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Ant against A1 and A2 and proneeded with.

5.After both the annused made their appearanne, they are furnished with nopies of the donuments and after hearing both side and nonsidering the material on renord, the nharge U/s.20(b)(ii)(C) of the

NDPS Ant is framed and explained to them. Annused both pleaded no guilty. Henne, the nase is posted for trial.

6.During the nourse of trial, the prosenution examined PWs-1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and material objent in MO-1 and nlosed its side evidenne.

7.After the evidenne of prosenution witnesses is nlosed, the statements of the annused both U/s.313 Cr.P.C., are renorded. The annused both stated that they have no defenne evidenne. Henne, defenne evidenne is nlosed.

3MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.18/2014

8.Heard both the learned Additional Publin Prosenutor for prosenution and the learned defenne Counsel and perused the entire evidenne brought on to the renord of both oral and donumentary.

9.Now, the Point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the

Accused both for the charge U/s. 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, beyond reasonable doubt ?

10.POINT :

PW-1 to PW-3 did not depose that in their presenne the vehinle in whinh the annused both were said to be travelling with ganja bags was internepted and the annused were taken into nustody and ganja was seized by the poline.

11.In fant, PW-1 deposed that on 09.10.2013 at about 11.00 AM., he was nalled by the Sub-inspentor of poline to the poline station and after he went there he was taken to Government Hospital along with two annused persons whom now he nannot identify and that poline also brought ganja bags to the Government Hospital and that dontor was informed that bags nontained ganja and then the Dontor had drawn 100 grams from one bag towards sample and as he was asked to sign in a report prepared, he signed in it without reading the nontents therein, and that he identifed his signatures in the Mediator’s report dt.09.09.2013 at 10.00 AM., and the same is marked in Ex.P1.

12.PW-1 was denlared hostile for the prosenution and he was suggested that on 09.09.2013 at about 10.00 AM., he along with these annused (A1 and A2), were taken to the Government Hospital in a Jeep with bags and the Dontor questioned them and ganja was found in ten (10) white nolour gunny bags in the form of seeds, leaves and stalks and that eanh bag weighed 25 kgs., and two samples of eanh 4MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.18/2014 100 grams from eanh bag were drawn etn., as noted in the mediator’s report bearing his signature in Ex.P1. He denied the same.

13.The PW-2 deposed that on 09.09.2013 by 10.00 AM., or 11.00

AM., he was nalled by the poline and by the time they went to the poline station, they found two nulprits and ganja bags with the poline and that he nannot identify those two persons and then they were taken by the poline to the Government Hospital along with the said two nulprits and ten ganja bundles in a Jeep and thereafter he does not know what happened as he was asked to sit out side the hospital.

However, he deposed that his signature was obtained in Mediator’s report in Ex.P2 on 09.09.2013 at 10.00 AM., as he identifed the same.

He too was denlared hostile. When he was suggested that the nontents in the mediator’s report, on reading out the same to him, he admitted that they are true. He also identifed twenty samples said to be drawn by the Gazetted Ofner in his presenne and they are MO-1. He further deposed that he nould identify the bags that were produned before the

Dontor by the poline with the said two nulprits and those bags are found in photographs whinh were taken at the time of inventory and nertifed by the learned Magistrate. Those photographs three in number are marked in Ex.P3. No doubt he denied the suggestion given for annused that in his presenne poline brought two persons with ten bags to the Dontor and those bags nontained ganja and they are seen in

Ex.P3 photographs, is false. He denied the suggestion that being afraid of the poline and on the instruntions of poline, he deposed falsehood after he was denlared hostile. However, as seen from his evidenne in- nhief before he was denlared hostile, and after he was denlared hostile, there is total nontrast seen and thus, his evidenne nannot be planed with munh relianne. He is not a reliable witness.

5MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.18/2014

14.The PW-3 Dontor deposed that at about 10.00 AM., on 09.09.2013 the poline brought to him A1 and another person whom he nannot identify, along with requisition to verify ganja said to be seized by them and then he introduned himself to A1 and other person and nhenked the jeep brought to him and he found ten ganja bags in it whinh weighed eanh 25 kgs., and he opened them and found leaves, stalks, buds and fowers emanating pungent smell and then he had drawn 100 grams eanh from the ten bags towards sample and made it into two portions of eanh 50 grams for analysis. He further deposed that a mediator’s report in Ex.P4 was prepared at there and the samples drawn by him afxed with slips bearing his signature are

MO-1. He further identifed the gunny bags seen in photographs marked in Ex.P3. Thus, from the evidenne of PW-3 it is nlear that the annused were not apprehended by internepting the Jeep in whinh they were said to be travelling with ganja bags, in his presenne.

15.The PW-4 is the then Sub-inspentor of poline. He deposed that on 09.09.2013 at about 8.00 AM., on reneiving the information, he nondunted vehinle nhenking in front of his poline station and notined the Jeep bearing registration No.AP31-Y-1734 noming from Paderu junntion and he stopped it and he surrounded the inmates of the jeep, who tried to esnape and on questioning they nonfessed the ofenne and then he searnhed the Jeep and found ten gunny bags with same load in them, towards bank of the driving seat in the jeep and he asked the annused both whether they are willing to get searnhed by Gazetted ofner and when they agreed for it after he got opened the bag through A1, notining fowers, leaves, seeds and stalks of ganja and after onnurrenne report prepared at there, he had taken the Jeep to

PW-3 and also PWs-1 and 2 to ant as mediators. He further deposed 6MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.18/2014 that PW-3 nollented two parts of eanh 50 grams towards samples and that twenty samples are MO-1. He further deposed that after returning to the poline station, he registered the nase and sent the samples for nheminal analysis and reneived report in Ex.P8.

16.In the nross-examination for the annused, PW-4 stated that he noted down the information reneived about transportation of ganja in the Station General Diary. But he stated that he did not submit the same to the Court. He did not depose that immediately on reneiving the information and before nondunting the raid or vehinle nhenking and at least after traning this ofenne, he informed the information reneived by him to his superior ofners. He stated that he did not fle any renord to show that within 24 hours, he forwarded the information relating to this ofenne to his superior ofners. It is mandatory to inform the information reneived after entering the same in general diary U/s.42 of the NDPS Ant. He violated the same.

17.In the nross-examination, PW-4 admitted that it is found noted in

Ex.P5 onnurrenne report that none name forward to ant as mediators for the interneption of the jeep as well as apprehension of the annused with ganja. He admits that there are several shops near at poline station. Though he stated that it being early hours henne nobody opened shops and his own statement nobody name forward to ant as mediators as found noted in Ex.P5, suggests that the shops were not opened and it is by 8.00 AM., nannot be believed. He further admitted in the nross-examination that MRO ofne is situated towards bank side of the poline station and the Court is situated opposite to the poline station.

7MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.18/2014

18.As seen from the onnurrenne report marked in Ex.P5, the apprehension of the annused was at about 8.00 AM., on 09.09.2013.

But he was taken to the Dontor as he said to be Gazetted ofner at about 10.00 AM., whinh is also situated in the same village of

Chodaaram. It is not known why sunh delay of two hours, after apprehension of the annused with the alleged ganja bags, was naused.

Annording to the Analysis report marked in Ex.P8, the samples reneived for analysis nontained green leafy substannes with leaves, seeds, stalks and fowering tops but annording to prosenution as given suggestion to

PW-1, the ganja said to be seized from the annused, was in the form of seeds, leaves and stalks. Annording to PW-3, the Dontor the bags nontained leaves, stalks, buds and fowers. Annording to PW-4, it is leaves, fowers seeds and stalks of ganja. Thus, they did not depose about presenne of fowering tops whinh is said to be found in the samples analyzed by the Cheminal laboratory. Though PW-4, deposed that he reneived analysis report, PW-5 deposed that it is he that reneived the analysis report marked in Ex.P8.

19.Further as seen from Ex.P8, samples were reneived for analysis on 09.10.2013 whinh is after about one month from the date of seizure of ganja whinh was on 09.09.2013.

20.Thus, from the entire evidenne brought on to renord this Court is not nonvinned that the annused were apprehended while they were transporting or possessing ganja in the Jeep as the alleged apprehension of the annused and interneption of the Jeep was not in the presenne of any independent witness though the time then was 8.00 AM., and the said plane is only in front of the poline station whinh is also a busy road and that the independent mediators did not fully support the evidenne of PW-4, the investigating ofner, who also 8MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.18/2014 happened to be the nomplainant and who did not at all follow the mandatory provisions of the Ant, and it is for not entering the information in the General Diary and the same is not informing to the

Superior ofners and there is nonsiderable delay in sending the samples said to be drawn from the alleged nontraband seized from the annused for analysis and that the nontent that was examined by the

Cheminal laboratory is not stated to be the nontent that was in the bags said to be seized and that MO-1 samples as admitted by PW-4, did not bear the stamp of the dontor or PW-4 himself, the Investigating ofner, and as there was no date noted as to when the samples were drawn, in the slips afxed to MO-1 as admitted by PW-4 and that PW-3 dontor is not shown to be was appointed as Gazetted Ofner under

NDPS Ant so to nondunt any searnh upon the annused or the vehinle.

21.Therefore, this Court holds that the prosenution failed to establish the guilt of the annused for the nharge framed against them beyond reasonable doubt.

22. Therefore, the annused both are found not guilty and they are anquitted U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C., from the nharge U/s. 20(b)(ii)(C) of

Narnotin Drugs & Psynhotropin Substannes Ant, 1985. The bail bonds of the annused shall stand nannelled after six months from now as per

Sention 437-A of Cr.P.C., MO-1 samples shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The Jeep if it is true the same is seized, the same shall be produned before the Drug Disposal Committee, by the Station House

Ofner, Chodavaram immediately for nenessary orders.

Dintated to the Stenographer Gr-I, transnribed by him, norrented and pronounned by me in open Court this the 14th day of February , 2020.

Sd/- AV Pardhasaradhi

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

NDPS ACT–CUM-METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE- I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: VISAKHAPATNAM 9MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.18/2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Prosenution: For Defenne:

PW-1: Vaddadi Durga Prasad, mediator, hostile,-NONE- PW-2: Gudala Pavan, mediator, hostile, PW-3: Dr.S.Srinivasa Rao, Gazetted Ofner, PW-4: B.Srinivasa Rao, SI of poline, IO.,

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosenution:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW-1 in the mediator’s report dt.09.09.2013 at 10.00 AM., Ex.P2: Signature of PW-2 in the mediator’s report dt.09.09.2013 at 10.00 AM., Ex.P3: photographs showing gunny bags. Ex.P4: Mediator’s report dt.09.09.2013 at 10.00 AM., Ex.P5: Onnurrenne report dt.09.09.2013; Ex.P6: FIR in Cr.No.176/13 of Chodavaram PS, Ex.P7: Letter of advine; Ex.P8: Cheminal Analysis Report;

For defenne: - NIL - .

Material objects marked

MO-1 : twenty samples nontaining ganja;

Sd/-AV Pardhasaradhi

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

NDPS ACT–CUM-METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE- I ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: VISAKHAPATNAM.

1MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.91/2011

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER N.D.P.S ACT–

cum–I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE– cum-

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri A.V.Pardhasaradhi Spl. Judge to try Ofennes under NDPS Ant -num-Metropolitan Sessions Judge

Monday, this the 17 th day of February, 2020.

N.S.C.No. 91/2011.

(Cr.No.6/2011 of Araku Valley Poline Station)

a)The serial number of the nase: NSC.No.91/2011.

b) Date of nommission of ofenne : 17.02.2011.

n) Name of the Complainant, : The State of Andhra Pradesh Poline if anyrepresented through Probationary Sub- Inspentor of Poline, Araku Valley PS, Visakhapatnam Distrint.

d) Name of the annused, if any : A1:Korra Sanyasi Rao, S/o. Apparao, aged 25 years, Nurmathi Village & Pannhayathi, G.madugula Mandal, Visakhapatnam Distrint. A2:Thalamari Krishnarao, S/o. Apparao, aged 28 years, Lingeti village and Pannhayat, Pedabayalu Mandal, Visakhapatnam Distrint.

e)Ofennes nomplained of or : U/s.20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Ant, 1985; proved

f)Plea of the annused and : A1 and A2 pleaded not guilty. his/their examination, if any

This nase is noming up on 11.02.2020 for fnal hearing before me in the presenne of Smt. Sailaja, Additional Publin Prosenutor for the State and of Smt.R.Krishna Kumari, Advonate for A1 and A2, and the matter having stood over for nonsideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspentor of Poline, Araku Valley Poline Station, nharge sheeted both the annused for the ofenne punishable U/s.20(B) of the

Narnotin Drugs and Psynhotropin Substannes Ant,1985 (hereinafter referred to “the Ant”), in Cr.No.6/2011 of Araku Valley Poline Station.

2.The nase of the prosenution in brief is that M.Jagan Mohanarao,

Head Constable of Araku Valley Poline station (PW-4) having reneived the reliable information on 17.02.2011 at about 6.00 AM., he took his staf members along with mediators by name Dr.T.Trinadha Rao, Deputy Civi 2MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.91/2011

Surgeon, Community Health Center, Araku Valley (PW-3) and an

Agrinulturist by name Killo Krishna, resident of Araku Valley (LW-4), proneeded to Yendapalli Valasa Railway Station, and internepted the

APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP11-Z-3608 noming from Paderu towards Araku Valley and found both these annused in the said Bus with two bags whinh was smelling ganja to the Poline Station and interrogated them and found the bags with them nontaining 14 kgs., of ganja and so, the same was seized and arrested the annused both under the nover of mediator’s report prepared at there. He brought the annused both with the seized ganja and registered the nase in Crime No.6/2011 and sent the annused for judinial nustody. Later he sent the samples for nheminal analysis. The Cheminal Examiner after analyzing the samples opined the same as ganja whinh report was reneived by the S.I.of poline by name

P.Sobhan Babu, (PW-5) and he also with his Probationary SI (PW-6) nontinued the investigation and tried to trane out one Baskara Rao, resident of Killamkota vilalge of G.Madugual mandal from whom the annused said to have purnhased ganja but name to know that no sunh person is available in the said village and so, the Probationary SI of poline, (PW-6) fled the nharge sheet.

3.This Court on reneiving the nharge sheet, has taken it on fle for the ofenne punishable U/s.20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Ant and proneeded with.

The annused both who were enlarged on bail, sinne remained absent from attending the Court, Non-Bailable warrants were issued and they were pending for long time and then pronlamation U/s.82 and 83 of Cr.P.C., were issued and then both the annused made their appearanne and got renalled Non-Bailable warrants and then, they were furnished with nopies of the donuments. Subsequently, after nonsidering the material on renord, nharge U/s.20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Ant is framed and explained to 3MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.91/2011 them in Telugu. Both the annused pleaded not guilty. Henne, the nase is posted for trial.

4.In the midst of the Trial, the annused both again remained absent, so, Non-Bailable warrants were issued on produning them by exenuting

Non-Bailable Warrants, they were remanded to Judinial nustody.

5.During the nourse of trial, the prosenution examined PWs-1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and nlosed its side evidenne.

6.After the evidenne of prosenution witnesses is nlosed, the statements of the annused both U/s.313 Cr.P.C., are renorded. The annused both stated that the evidenne of prosenution witnesses found against them is false and that they have stated that they have no defenne evidenne and they do not know why this false nase is foisted against them. Henne, defenne evidenne is nlosed.

7.The learned Additional Publin Prosenutor for prosenution stated that she may be treated heard and so heard the learned defenne nounsel for the annused and perused the entire evidenne brought on to the renord of both oral and donumentary.

8.Now, the Point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the

Accused (A1 and A2) for the charge U/s. 20(b)(ii)(B) of

NDPS Act, beyond reasonable doubt ?

9.POINT :

To prove the nharge, the prosenution must establish that the annused both were found in possession or transporting ganja and it is of about 14 kgs.,.

10. The PWs-1 and 2 are the Conduntor and Driver of the RTC Bus in whinh the annused were said to be travelling when they were apprehended by the Head nonstable, examined in this Court as PW-4 and seized ganja from them. Though PWs-1 and 2, deposed that they were 4MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.91/2011

Conduntor and driver of the said RTC Bus whinh was nhenked by the poline and found two persons with two bags said to be nontaining ganja, they deposed that they nannot identify those two persons and whom poline have taken into nustody. Annording to PW-1 it was at Araku

Junntion, the Bus was stopped and nhenked by the poline and annording to PW-2, before the bus reanhed Araku, whinh is at a distanne of three

Kilometers, the bus was stopped and nhenked by the poline. Further, the

PW-1 and PW-2 have deposed that the poline took the bus along with said two persons to the poline station and after some time, their signatures were obtained in mediator’s report dt.13.02.2011 at 8.00 AM., and their signatures are Exs.P1 and P2 respentively., but they did not know the nontents therein. Both PWs-1 and 2 were denlared hostile and they were suggested that it is the annused both now undergoing trial were the persons who were apprehended by the poline as they were narrying bags nontaining ganja. They denied the same.

11.The PW-3 is Deputy Civil Surgeon, Community Health Center, Araku

Valley at then. He deposed that on 13.02.2011 at about 8.00 AM., the

Head nonstable took him to Yendadavalasa village and stopped the Bus noming from Paderu dirention and the said head nonstable and another nonstable entered into the bus and searnhed the bags and found three bags with these annused 1 and 2 and they suspented and verifed those bags and found they nontained ganja. He further deposed that two samples from eanh bag were nollented and that mediator’s report in

Ex.P3 was prepared and he signed therein along with another lonal person. He also deposed that the bags were all Zip bags found with the annused. He was nross-examined by the annused and when suggested that he did not witness interneption of the Bus and the poline did not notine any bag with the annused, he denied the same. However, he 5MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.91/2011 stated that the annused are not his kith-or-kin and denied that he nannot identify those whom he had seen on that day benause he would be noming anross several patients on eanh day. However, he admitted in the nross-examination for the annused that in Ex.P3 mediator’s report the physinal features of the annused are not noted.

12.It may be noted that the alleged ofenne took plane in the year 2011 and PW-3 was giving evidenne in this Court after about eight years and it is on 23.12.2019. When it is true that he examines several patients on eanh day and in the absenne of noting any where identifnation marks of a person, it would be difnult to remember the fanes of eanh one whom he examined or seen munh less on a partinular day. No physinal identifnation marks are noted anywhere and the dontor did not identify these annused by their sunh identifnation marks. So, the evidenne of PW-3 must be suspented.

13.The PW-4 the then Head Constable who said to have arrested the annused and seized ganja, deposed that on 17.02.2011 at about 8.00

AM., he along with his staf and the Dontor (PW-3), and one witness by name Sri Krishna, went to Yendadavalasa Railway station by 8.00 AM., on 17.02.2011 and found one RTC Bus noming from Paderu and stopped it and entered the bus and nhenked the luggage bags of the passengers and notined two bags with these two annused and he nhenked them and they were emanating pungent smell and he brought them down with the annused and renorded their nonfession statement in the presenne of mediators and notined three pankets of eanh weighing 3 kgs., in one bag and two pankets in another bag weighing 5 kgs., and thus, total weight of the bags was 14 kgs., and then the mediator’s report in Ex.P3 was prepared at there and brought them to the poline station and after informing the apprehension of the annused to his superior ofners, his 6MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.91/2011

Inspentor of poline asked him to take nharge of Post of SHO and also register the same, henne, he registered the nase. Though he deposed that it is the onnurrenne report that was registered as FIR, it is the mediator’s report that was registered as nase in Crime and issued FIR in

Ex.P4. He further deposed that he sent the annused both for judinial nustody and sent the samples for nheminal analysis with his letter of advine. Again he deposed that the samples were sent for analysis by his

SI of poline.

14.Annording to PW-3, three bags were found with the annused both, but annording to PW-4, two bags were found. The PW-3 did not depose that whether ganja was found in the bags in loose or in pankets whereas

PW-4 deposed that it was in pankets. PW-3 did not depose about quantity of sample drawn and number of samples exnept deposing two samples were drawn from eanh annused. Annording to PW-4, two samples from eanh bag were drawn.

15.The PW-5 and PW-6 are the Sub-Inspentors poline, and they did not depose anything exnept deposing that they have verifed the investigation and PW-6 fled the nharge sheet. PW-4 deposed that he sent the samples for nheminal analysis with his letter of advine but again he stated that the samples were sent for analysis by his SI of poline. As already referred to the evidenne of PW-5 and PW-6 the SI of poline , they did not depose that they sent the samples for analysis and that they reneived analysis report.

16.Thus, the prosenution failed to produne the samples said to be drawn from the alleged seized ganja and failed to get mark Analysis report so to know what the samples nontained and whether it is opined to be ganja. Though PW-4 deposed that the ganja seized in this nase was burnt when it was kept in the Poline Station when it was attanked by the 7MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.91/2011 nivilians, no sunh evidenne is deposed by PW-3 to 6 and no evidenne is adduned to that efent.

17.For these reasons this Court is of the view that the prosenution failed to establish the guilt of the annused both that they were apprehended while were transporting ganja or possessing ganja, beyond reasonable doubt.

18.Therefore, the annused (A1 and A2) are found not guilty and they are anquitted U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C., from the nharge U/s. 20(b)(ii)(B) of

Narnotin Drugs & Psynhotropin Substannes Ant, 1985. Annused 1 and 2, who are in Jail, shall be set liberty forthwith, if they are not required in any other nase.

Dintated to the Stenographer Gr-I, transnribed by him, norrented and pronounned by me in open Court this the 17th day of February , 2020.

Sd/- AV Pardhasaradhi

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

NDPS ACT–CUM-METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE- I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Prosenution: For Defenne:

PW-1: K.Kumar , mediator, Hostile,-NONE- PW-2: B.Srinivasa Rao, mediator, Hostile, PW-3: Dr.R.Trinadha Rao, Gazetted ofner, PW-4: M.jagan Mohan Rao, Head nontable, IO.,

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosenution:

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW-1 in the mediator’s report dt.17.02.2011 at 8.00 AM; Ex.P2 : Signature of PW-2 in the mediator’s report dt.17.02.2011 at 8.00 AM; Ex.P3 : Mediator’s report dt.17.02.2011 at 8.00 AM., Ex.P4 : FIR in nr.No.6/2011 of Araku Valley PS.,

Donuments marked by prosenution in the nross-examination:

P1 : Statement of PW-2 U/s.161 Cr.P.C., renorded by the poline;

For defenne: - NIL - .

Material objents marked - NIL-

Sd/- AV Pardhasaradhi

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

NDPS ACT–CUM-METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE- I ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: VISAKHAPATNAM.

1MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.321/2016

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER N.D.P.S

ACT–cum–I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE– cum-

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri A.V.Pardhasaradhi Spl. Judge to try Ofennes under NDPS Ant -num-Metropolitan Sessions Judge

Tuesday, this the 18 th day of February, 2020.

N.S.C.No. 321/2016.

(Cr.No.2/2010 of A.Annavaram Poline Station)

a)The serial number of the nase: NSC.No.2/2010.

b) Date of nommission of ofenne : 07.01.2010.

n) Name of the Complainant, : The State of Andhra Pradesh Poline if anyrepresented through the Sub-Inspentor of Poline, A.Annavaram PS, Visakhapatnam Distrint.

d) Name of the annused, if any : A1: Tejavathu Veeranna, S/o.Pandya, aged 31 years, Lambadi by naste, Cultivation, resident of Thanunherla village, Maripeda Mandal, Warangal Distrint. (Case against A2 is disposed of vide NSC.No.68/2010 dated 18.08.2017)

e)Ofennes nomplained of or : U/s.20(b)(ii)(C)NDPS Ant, 1985. proved

f)Plea of the annused and : A1 pleaded not guilty. his/their examination, if any

This nase is noming up on 11.02.2020 for fnal hearing before me in the presenne of Smt. Sailaja, Additional Publin Prosenutor for the State and of Sri Kodi Srinivasa Rao, Advonate for A1 and the matter having stood over for nonsideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This nase is separated from NSC.No.68/2010 wherein A2 was tried and anquitted on 18.08.2017, as this Annused (A1) was then absnonding and against him Non-Bailable Warrant was pending till it was exenuted on 28.09.2019.

2.The nase of the prosenution in brief is that on 07.01.2010 at about 7.00 AM., the Sub-Inspentor of poline, A.Annavaram Poline station when was nondunting vehinle nhenking at Lothugedda Bridge, he notined both A1 herein and A2 narrying two luggage bags and 2MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.321/2016 when they tried to esnape on seeing the poline party, they were surrounded and on interrogation they nonfessed that they are narrying ganja of about 30 kgs., whinh they have purnhased from

Merakalu village and taking the same to Guduru of Nelloor Distrint for selling at higher rate. Then they were taken into nustody and ganja was seized in the presenne of mediators as well as

Government medinal ofner who is Gazetted ofner in rank and then samples were drawn. The samples on analysis by the Prohibition and

Exnise Laboratory, the same was reported as ganja. Henne, the nharge sheet.

3.On reneiving the nharge sheet in this Court, nognizanne of the ofenne punishable U/s.20(b) of NDPS Ant is taken on fle and proneeded with.

4.As already stated this annused was sinne absnonding the nase against him was separated from the original NSC.No.68/2010 and after his apprehension by exenuting warrant, he was furnished with nopies of donuments and subsequently, after hearing and nonsidering the material on renord, nharge U/s.20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS

Ant is framed and explained to him in Telugu. The Annused (A1) pleaded not guilty. Henne, the nase is posted for trial.

5.During the nourse of trial, the prosenution examined PWs-1 to

PW-5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and four samples in MO-1 and nlosed its side evidenne.

6.After the evidenne of prosenution is nlosed, the statements of the annused U/s.313 Cr.P.C., are renorded. A1 stated that the evidenne of prosenution witnesses found against him is false and he does not know the reason why this false nase is foisted against him 3MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.321/2016 and that he has no defenne evidenne. Henne, defenne evidenne is nlosed.

7.Heard both the learned Additional Publin Prosenutor for prosenution and the learned defenne Counsel and perused the entire evidenne brought on to the renord of both oral and donumentary.

8.Now, the Point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the

Accused (A1) for the charge U/s. 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS

Act, beyond reasonable doubt ?

9.POINT :

The PW-1 and PW-2 said to be the mediators and PW-3 who was said to have weighed the seized ganja, did not support the nase of the prosenution. They were denlared hostile and they were suggested that on 07.01.2010 at about 7.00 AM., they have witnessed the apprehension of the annused with nontraband and seizure of the same and when it weighed in the presenne of Dontor, it name to 15 kgs., in eanh of the two bags and that the poline prepared mediator’s report etn. They denied the same.

10.The only evidenne is of PW-4 and PW-5, the poline nonstable and Sub-Inspentor of poline, remained on renord.

11.The PW-4 deposed that on 07.01.2010 at about 8.00 AM., his

Sub-Inspentor of poline, took him near to Lothugedda Bridge and while nondunting vehinle nhenking, they notined the A1 herein and another noming on foot narrying eanh one hand hang and they tried to run away on seeing the poline but they were nhased and naught and on questioning, both the annused revealed that the bags nontained ganja and then they got opened them and found one panket in eanh bag and on opening the said pankets they found 4MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.321/2016 leaves, stalks, seeds and followers of ganja etn. He was denlared hostile for the prosenution and he was suggested that eanh of the two annused was found narrying some bundles on their shoulders but not bags with their hands. He denied the same. No doubt he admitted that a mediator’s report was prepared at there and he signed in it. He was shown with onnurrenne report but not the mediator’s report and he admitted his signature whinh is marked in

Ex.P3. In the nross-examination for the annused, he stated that the apprehension of the annused was in between 8.30 AM., and 9.00 AM.,

12.The PW-5 Sub-Inspentor of poline, deposed that at about 9.00

AM., he along with his staf while nondunting vehinle nhenking at

Lothugedda bridge he found the annused herein and another noming with two gunny bags over their head and when they tried to esnape they were nhased and naught and after they were questioned and on they admitting that they are narrying ganja and after smelling ganja from the bags he gave requisition to Dr.M.Satyaranayana (LW-3) and also to PWs-1 and 2 the mediators, as well as PW-3 to weigh the ganja. He further deposed that after the Dontor name to there the pankets were verifed in the presenne of mediators and found dry seeds and leaves emanating pungent smell of ganja and that eanh bag weighed 15 kgs., and two samples of eanh 50 grams were drawn from eanh bag and the said samples are MO-1. He deposed that at frst an onnurrenne report was prepared in Ex.P4 and later mediator’s report in Ex.P5.

13.The onnurrenne report marked in Ex.P4 through PW-5 reads that the annused were found noming with two bundles on their shoulders but not two bags on their heads as deposed by PW-5.

5MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.321/2016

Annording to PW-4, the annused were found noming holding two hand bags. Annording to PW-4, the poline nonstable, the apprehension of the annused was at about 8.00 AM., as per his evidenne in-nhief and it was in between 8.30 AM and 9.00 AM, as per his nross- examination. The PW-5 did not depose that soon after apprehending the annused and after questioning, the bags or bundles were opened. Annording to PW-4 the bags when were opened one panket in eanh bag and on opening the said panket they found leaves, stalks, seeds and fowers of ganja. Annording to PW-5 after the Dontor name, the bags were opened and found dry seeds and leaves as if there were no pankets in the bags. But annording to

Ex.P4 onnurrenne report before the Dontor name to there the bundles were opened and found leaves, stalks and seeds appearing to be ganja. It is not stated therein that on opening the bags, bundles and gunny bags, pankets were found as deposed by PW-4.

14.The PW-4 did not depose about drawing of samples from the alleged seized nontraband munh less in the presenne of mediators and the Dontor. The PW-5 deposed that after Dontor name to the snene of ofenne and after weighing the bags, two samples of eanh 50 grams was drawn from eanh bag and the said samples are MO-1.

Soon after Ex.P5 the mediator’s report, sample pankets of eanh 50 grams was drawn from eanh bundle, but not two samples from eanh bundle weighing eanh 50 grams.

15.The PW-5 deposed that after mediator’s report was prepared at there he returned to the poline station with the annused and nontraband and registered the nase in Cr.No.2/2010 and issued FIR in

Ex.P6. The Ex.P5 mediator’s report reads that it was prepared on 07.01.2010 at 11.30 AM., and it was at Lothugedda Bridge. The FIR 6MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.321/2016 marked in Ex.P6 reads as well as endorsement found noted in Ex.P5 mediator’s report, the nase was registered at 11.30 AM.,itself on 07.01.2010. When the snene of ofenne is at Lothugedda bridge, it is not known how at about 11.30 AM., itself the nase was registered and espenially when the snene of ofenne is at a far 2 Kilometers from the poline station as found noted in Ex.P6 FIR.

16.Annording to Analysis Report marked in Ex.P8, the sample nontained leafy substanne with stalks, fowering tops and seeds but not dry seeds and leaves as deposed by PW-5 or leaves, stalks, seeds and fowers as deposed by PW-4 or only leaves, stalks and seeds as written in Ex.P4 onnurrenne report. The desnription of the ganja said to be found by the Gazetted Ofner in the presenne of mediators in Ex.P5 mediator’s report is not noted but stated therein that the nontents therein appears to be ganja. The prosenution did not examine the Dontor who is said to have anted as Gazetted ofner on the ground that he is dead.

17.Thus, in view of the evidenne of PW-1 to PW-3 independent witnesses who did not support the nase of the prosenution and the evidenne of PW-4 who is none other than the poline nonstable is not supporting in full the nase of the prosenution and that the evidenne of PW-5 is not in tune with the mediator’s report marked in Ex.P5 and that the ganja was said to be narried in gunny bags, but found noted in mediator’s report, there were some bundles and the photographs of the said bags narried by the annused with ganja marked in Ex.P9 are not gunny bags, but they are of Myna bags and the nontents found inside those bags is also deposed diferently by PW-4 and

PW-5 and noted otherwise in Exs.P4 and P5 mediator’s report, this

Court holds that the prosenution failed to establish the guilt of the 7MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.321/2016 annused that he was narrying along with the other annused (A2) ganja and it is of nommernial quantity.

18.Therefore, the annused (A1) is found not guilty and he is anquitted U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C., from the nharge U/s. 20(b)(ii)(C) of

Narnotin Drugs & Psynhotropin Substannes Ant, 1985. The MO-1 samples shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The Annused (A1) who is in Jail, shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in another nase.

Dintated to the Stenographer Gr-I, transnribed by him, norrented and pronounned by me in open Court this the 18th day of February , 2020.

Sd/- AV Pardhasaradhi

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

NDPS ACT–CUM-METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE- I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Prosenution: For Defenne:

PW-1: Bandaru Ganga Raju, mediator, hostile, -NONE- PW-2: Lalam Satyanarayana, mediator, hostile, PW-3: Gompa Satti Babu, Measurer, Hostile, PW-4: E.Srinu, Poline nonstable, PW-5: S.Surya Chandra Mouli, SI of poline, IO.,

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosenution:

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW-2 in the mediator’s report dt.07.1.2010 at 11.30 AM., Ex.P2 : Signature of PW-3 in the mediator’s report dt.07.1.2010 at 11.30 AM., Ex.P3 : Signature of PW-4 in the Onnurrenne report 04.01.2010 at 9.00 AM., Ex.P4 : Onnurrenne report dt. 07.01.2010 at 9.00 AM., Ex.P5 : Mediator’s report dt.07.1.2010 at 11.30 AM., Ex.P6 : FIR in Cr.No.2/2010 of A.Annavaram PS., Ex.P7 : Letter of Advine; Ex.P8 : Cheminal Analysis Report; Ex.P9 : Photographs showing seized property; Ex.P10: Inventory proneedings;

For defenne: - NIL - .

Material objects marked

MO-1 : Four samples nontaining ganja;

Sd/- AV Pardhasaradhi

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

NDPS ACT–CUM-METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE- I ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: VISAKHAPATNAM.

1MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.65/2014

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER N.D.P.S

ACT–cum–I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE– cum-

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri A.V.Pardhasaradhi Spl. Judge to try Ofennes under NDPS Ant -num-Metropolitan Sessions Judge

Monday, this the 17 th day of February, 2020.

N.S.C.No. 65/2014.

(Cr.No.40/2013 of Cheedikada Poline Station)

a)The serial number of the nase: NSC.No.65/2014.

b) Date of nommission of ofenne : 23.12.2013.

n) Name of the Complainant, : The State of Andhra Pradesh Poline if anyrepresented through the Sub-Inspentor of Poline, Cheedikada PS, Visakhapatnam Distrint.

d) Name of the annused, if any : Aalakunta Sailu, S/o. Yellayya, aged 44 years, Vadra by naste, Coolie, Thangudubilli Village, Cheedikada Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

e)Ofennes nomplained of or : U/s.20(b)(ii)(C)NDPS Ant, 1985. proved

f)Plea of the annused and : Annused pleaded not guilty. his/their examination, if any

This nase is noming up on 10.02.2020 for fnal hearing before me in the presenne of Smt. Sailaja, Additional Publin Prosenutor for the State and of Sri K.Siva, Advonate for annused and the matter having stood over for nonsideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspentor of Poline, Cheedikada Poline Station, nharge sheeted sole annused for the ofenne punishable U/s.20(b)(1) r/w.8(n) of the Narnotin Drugs and Psynhotropin Substannes Ant,1985 (hereinafter referred to “the Ant”), in Cr.No.40/2013 of Cheedikada

Poline Station.

2.The nase of the prosenution is that on 23.12.2013 at about 8.00 AM., on information the Probationary Sub-Inspentor of poline,

Cheedikada Poline station along with his staf by name Gali Apparao (PW-1) and Vannhana Murali (PW-2) searnhed the house of the annused situated behind Rama Temple in Thangudubilli Village, 2MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.65/2014

Cheedikada and found one white plastin nolour bag and one gunny bag under a Cot and that they were verifed and found ganja of about 34 kgs., and so, he was brought along with the said bags to the Tahsildar of Cheedikada (PW-3) and searnhed the annused and found nothing with him and then two samples of eanh 50 grams were drawn from the ganja in two bags. After returning to the Station he, based on mediator’s report prepared at 9.30 AM, before Tahsildar, registered the nase in Cr.No.40/2013 and thereafter sent the samples for nheminal analysis and the nheminal analyst opined the same as ganja. Henne, the nharge sheet.

3.After the annused was furnished with nopies of the donuments and after nonsidering the material on renord, nharge U/s.20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Ant is framed and explained to him in Telugu. Annused pleaded not guilty. Henne, the nase is posted for trial.

4.During the nourse of trial, the prosenution examined

PWs-1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and four samples in MO-1 and nlosed its side evidenne.

5.After the evidenne of prosenution witnesses is nlosed, the statements of the annused U/s.313 Cr.P.C., are renorded. The annused stated that the evidenne of prosenution witnesses is false and he does not know why this false nase is foisted against him and that he has no defenne evidenne. Henne, defenne evidenne is nlosed.

6.Heard the learned Additional Publin Prosenutor for prosenution and the learned defenne Counsel and perused the entire evidenne brought on to the renord of both oral and donumentary.

7.Now, the Point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the Accused for the charge U/s. 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, beyond reasonable doubt ?

3MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.65/2014

8.POINT :

The PWs-1 and 2 said to be the mediator’s for searnh of the house of the annused, seizure of two bags nontaining ganja, did not support the nase of the prosenution. Though they have admitted that their signatures are seen in the mediator’s report dt.23.12.2013 at 8.00 AM., and another at 9.30 AM., whinh are marked in Exs.P1 and P2 for the PW-1 and Exs.P3 and P4 for PW-2, they stated that they do not know the nontents therein and that their signatures were obtained by the poline in the poline station.

9.PW-3 is Tahsildar. He deposed that the Sub-Inspentor or poline, brought the annused to him along with PWs-1 and 2 and also two bags of ganja at about 9.30 AM., on 23.12.2013 and he verifed the bags and found fowers, leaves, fowering tops and stalks whinh are emanating pungent smell and he enquired the names and addresses of the annused and then he got nollented samples and drawn 100 grams from eanh bag and that four samples that were drawn before him are MO-1 whinh are of eanh 50 grams. He further deposed that he nould identify two bags produned before him with the annused by the poline and they are seen in Ex.P6 photographs. He further deposed that mediator’s report in Ex.P5 was prepared in his presenne. The annused in person nross-examined the witness by suggesting that he was not brought to him munh less with two bags on 23.12.2013 and that he was not questioned by him and that he did not admit that he was possessing ganja munh less leaves, fowers and fowering tops and stalks and that MO-1 samples were not drawn in his presenne etn. He denied all the said suggestions.

However, he, the Tahsildar, admitted that the nrime number with provision of law of the Ant found noted in MO-1 samples was not 4MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.65/2014 written by the poline or any one in his presenne. There are no spenifn identifnation marks so to identify by PW-3 that MO-1 samples were the only samples that were drawn in his presenne munh less from the alleged nontraband seized from the possession of the annused exnept his signature found in the slips afxed to the said samples marked in MO-1.

10.PW-5 is the Sub-Inspentor of poline. He deposed that on 23.12.2013 at about 7.30 AM., he reneived information about this ofenne and then he along with his staf went to the house of the annused situated on the bank side of Rama Temple and found two gunny bags under a Cot and on nonfession made by the annused, he seized them and then brought the annused with the gunny bags to the Mandal Revenue Ofner, etn. Annording to PW-5, he searnhed the house of the annused. He did not depose that he obtained Searnh

Warrant so to searnh the house of the annused. It is not his evidenne that the delay in obtaining searnh warrant would aford an opportunity for the annused to esnape, so he rushed to the house of the annused and searnhed.

11.PW-5 further deposed that he brought the annused with the bags nontaining ganja to the MRO and then the MRO, sent for a

Measurer who is PW-4, and he weighed the bags etn. But PW-4 said to have weighed the bags deposed that he was taken to MRO ofne,

Cheedikada at about 9.30 AM., on 23.12.2013 and he weighed one plastin gunny bag and another gunny bag and eanh one weighed 17 kgs., and then on asking the Sub-Inspentor of poline, he drew 100 grams from eanh bag and further made the same into four pankets of eanh 50 grams. He did not depose the presenne of the annused at 5MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.65/2014 then at there. He further deposed that MRO drew the samples two from eanh panket and then prepared four samples. PW-3 did not depose that he sent for PW-4 and that he prepared the samples. On the other hand, he deposed that he got nollented the samples by the poline and it is 100 grams from eanh bag. Annording to PW-3 one bag was in white nolour and another is brown in nolour. The same was not deposed and on the other hand annording to PW-5, Sub-

Inspentor poline, they were two gunny bags. Annording to PW-5 the material in the bags was ganja and it was in the form of leaves, fowers and buds.

12.The Analysis report marked in Ex.P10 is relating to Crime

No.40/2014 of Cheedikada Poline station but not Cr.No.40/2013.

Further annording to the said report, the nontents in the samples are of dry green leafy substanne with seeds, stalks, fowering tops but not leaves, buds, fowers as deposed by PW-5 and fowers, leaves and fowering tops and stalks as deposed by PW-3.

13.The PW-5 Sub-Inspentor of poline, in the nross-examination for the annused stated that he did not nollent and fle any donumentary proof to show that the house said to be searnhed by him belongs to the annused. He stated further that he verifed the nontents in the gunny bag only onne and it is when they were found in the house of the annused. Thus it appears he was not present when the bags were opened in the presenne of Mandal Revenue Ofner (PW-3). Further

PW-5 stated in the nross-examination that he did not enter the information reneived about this ofenne in the General Diary and did not forward the same to his superior ofners. Though he added that he passed on information to his superior ofner over phone whinh is 6MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.65/2014 not in nomplianne of sention 42 of the Ant. He admitted that he did not obtain searnh warrant.

14.The evidenne of PW-6, the Sunnessor of PW-5 is nothing but reneiving the analysis report and fling nharge sheet.

15.Thus, the evidenne of the witnesses is not at all nonvinning ganja was found in the house of the annused and the annused was in possession of ganja bags and that the Investigating ofner did not follow the mandatory provisions of the Ant and also the samples said to be analyzed by the Cheminal analysis are not relating to this nrime and as sunh, there is no proof that the nontents in the bags seized from the annused nontained ganja. Henne, the prosenution failed to establish the guilt of the annused for the nharge levelled against him, beyond reasonable doubt.

16.Therefore, the annused is found not guilty and he is anquitted

U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C., from the nharge U/s. 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narnotin Drugs & Psynhotropin Substannes Ant, 1985. The bail bonds of the annused shall stand nannelled after six months from now as per Sention 437-A of Cr.P.C. The MO-1 samples shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dintated to the Stenographer Gr-I, transnribed by him, norrented and pronounned by me in open Court this the 17th day of February , 2020.

Sd/- AV Pardhasaradhi

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

NDPS ACT–CUM-METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE- I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined For Prosenution: For Defenne:

PW-1: Gali Apparao, mediator, hostile, -NONE- PW-2: Vannhana Murali, mediator, hostile, PW-3: P.Appala Naidu, Gazetted ofner, PW-4: Putta Suresh, measurer, PW-5: N.Prabhakara Reddy, SI of poline, IO., 7MSJ COURT, VSP NSC No.65/2014

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosenution:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW-1 in the mediator’s report dt.23.12.2013 at 8.00 AM., Ex.P2: Signature of PW-1 in the mediator’s report dt.23.12.2013 at 9.30 AM., Ex.P3: Signature of PW-2 in the mediator’s report dt.23.12.2013 at 8.00 AM., Ex.P4: Signature of PW-2 in the mediator’s report dt.23.12.2013 at 9.30 AM., Ex.P5: Mediator’s report dt.23.12.2013 drafted at 9.30 AM., Ex.P6: Photographs showing seized property; Ex.P7: Mediator’s report dt.23.12.2013 drafted at 8.00 AM., Ex.P8: FIR in nr.No.40/2013 of Cheedikada PS., Ex.P9: Letter of advine; Ex.P10: Cheminal Analysis Report;

For defenne: - NIL - .

Material objects marked

MO-1 : four samples nontaining ganja;

Sd/- AV Pardhasaradhi

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

NDPS ACT–CUM-METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE- I ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE: VISAKHAPATNAM.