Sri Chinnamsetty Raju

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF NDPS ACT CASES: KRISHNA,

MACHILIPATNAM

Present:- Sri Chinnamsetty Raju, I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Judge for trial of NDPS Act Cases

Saturday, this the 29th day of March, 2025

Special Sessions Case No.31 of 2023

Name of the Complainant:The State, Inspector of Police, Nandigama Police Station, NTR District.

Names of the Accused :1. Panthangi Gopi Krishna, S/o. Srinivas, Aged 22 years, R/o. Kadada, Now at Mellacheruvu Village, Suryapet District, Telangana State

2. Gorrepati Koti, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged 24 years, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavaai Mandal, NTR District.

3. Avula Udaya Bhanu, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged 24 years, Bhimavarm Village, Vatsavai Mandal, NTR District.

4. Bhimala Narendra Babu, S/o.Venkaiah, Aged 22 years, R/o. Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal, NTR District.

Nature of Offence:Under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 against Accused Nos.1 to 4 .

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty 2

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.31/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 29.03.2025

Sentence or order:

In the result. Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty of the offence under Section 8(c), punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of NDPS Act, 1985 and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, of the said offence. M.O.6/ganja packet shall be destroyed by the Drug Disposal Committee, M.Os.1 to 4/cell phones shall be destroyed and M.O.5/cash of Rs.600/- and unmarked and unclaimed motorcycle bearing No.AP 07 DN 7191 16 CJ 7020, shall be confiscated to the State, after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution Conducted by:Sri S.Chinna Rao, Addl. Public Prosecutor, I Addl. Sessions Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Name of the Defence :Sri S.Balaji Rao, CounselsAdvocate for Accused Nos.1 to 4, Machilipatnam.

This case came on 21.03.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Chinna Rao, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri S.Balaji Rao, Advocate for Accused Nos.1 to 4, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a Special Sessions Case, filed by the Inspector of Police,

Nandigama Police Station in Crime No.319/2023 of said police station against Accused Nos.1 to 4, alleging that they committed an offence under Section 8(c), punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985.

2. This Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 3

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.31/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 29.03.2025 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (B) of NDPS Act, 1985, numbered the case as Special

Sessions Case No.31/2023 and summons were issued to Accused Nos.

1 to 4, who made an appearance before this Court. After furnishing copies of the material papers to Accused Nos. 1 to 4 u/s 208 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, a charge under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 was framed against them, explained the contents of the charge to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed that the case to be tried.

3. This Court conducted trial against the Accused herein and in trial three witnesses were examined from P.Ws. 1 to 4, 12 documents were marked from Exs.P1 to P12 and MOs.1 to 6 were marked, on behalf of the prosecution.

4. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were examined under Section 313 of

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and they denied the evidence on record.

5. Accused herein did not adduce any evidence.

6. P.W.1 was the Village Revenue Officer of Nandigama, who acted as one of the mediators along with L.W.6/Shaik Sabjho, VRO of

Nandigama-6, for the search and seizure of ganja by P.W.3 from the possession of accused Nos. 1 to 4.

4

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.31/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 29.03.2025

7. P.W.2 was the Mandal Revenue Officer of Nandigama

Mandal, who was a Gazetted Officer and he conducted search of the accused persons herein, found ganja in their possession and present at the time of recording their statements.

8. PW.3 was the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandigama Police

Station, who conducted search and search of ganja from the possession of accused persons herein in the presence of the mediators through

Gazetted Officer, got drafted a mediators' report, registered FIR, arrested the accused herein, conducted investigation and filed charge- sheet against the accused in this case.

9. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

a) Accused No.1 was habituated to transport ganja by purchasing the same from one Bahubali of Orissa State (A5) and selling the same for unlawful profits, Accused No.2 was habituated to consume and sale of ganja for illegal benefit and Accused Nos.3 and 4 were habituated to consume ganja by purchasing the same from Accused

No.2.

b) On 10.05.2023 at 10.30 a.m., when Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were present at the scene of offence, situated at Anasagaram Fly-over

Bridge, Anasagaram Village, Nandigarna Mandal, P.W.3 along with 5

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.31/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 29.03.2025

P.W.2/Mandal Revenue Officer and mediators/PW.1 and L.W.6/Shaik

Sabiho, on reliable information, caught them, got recorded their confessional statements, in the presence of the mediators and

Tahsildar, seized kg 1.250 grams of ganja wroth Rs.6,250/-, one motorcycle, four cell phones and cash of Rs.600/- from the possession of Accused Nos. 1 to 4, under the cover of a mediators' report.

c) P.W.3 registered the said Mediators' report as FIR in

Cr.No.319/2023 u/s 8 (c) r/w 20 (b)(ii) (B) of NDPS Act, submitted original FIR and mediators' report to the Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Nandigama and copies to all concerned and took-up investigation, under the oral instructions of his superior officers u/s 42 of NDPS Act, 1985.

d) During the course of investigation, P.W.3 examined the witnesses, recorded their separate statements u/s 161 of Cr.P.C., visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the same, arrested accused Nos. 1 to 4 and sent then for judicial remand. On 24.06 2023 he produced the seized ganja before the learned Magistrate concerned, on 08.08.2023 he sent the sample of ganja to the Chemical Examiner,

Regional Excise Laboratory, Kakinada for analysis and received report from the Laboratory, wherein it was stated that the sample was ganja.

As the address and details of said Bahubali (A5) of Orissa State were 6

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.31/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 29.03.2025 not found, this charge-sheet was filed only against Accused Nos. 1 to 4 and in future separate a charge-sheet will be filed against Accused No.5 u/s 173 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the charge-sheet.

10. Case of Accused Nos.1 to 4 is one of total denial. They contended that they did not commit any offence, nothing was seized from their possession and this case was foisted against them.

11. Heard both sides on 21.03.2025.

12. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence on record established that the accused committed the offence as mentioned supra and hence, they are liable to be convicted.

13. Advocate for Accused Nos. 1 to 4 submitted that no ganja was seized from the possession of the accused persons herein in the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and other mediator and nothing was happened in their presence, M.Os.1 to 6 were planted, no independent mediator was secured from the scene of offence to act as mediator,

Ex.P2 was prepared in the police station and the signatures of the alleged mediators and PW.2 were obtained at their office, there was delay in conducting the inventory proceedings, this case was foisted against the accused persons for statistical purpose and therefore, accused Nos. 1 to 4 are entitled to get acquittal.

7

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.31/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 29.03.2025

14. Now, the following points will arise for consideration of this

Court:

1.Whether on 10.05.2023 at about 10.30 a.m., Anasagaram Fly-

over Bridge, on the outskirts of Anasagaram Village,

Nandigama Mandal, Accused Nos.1 to 4 were found in

possession of 1250 grams of ganja and thereby they

committed an offence u/s 8 (c) r/w Section 20 (b)(ii)(B) of

NDPS Act?

2.Whether the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts?

3.To what point?

POINT Nos.1 & 2:

15. PW1 gave evidence that on 10.05.2023 at about 10.30 a.m., under a fly-over, on the outskirts of Anasagaram Village,

Nandigama Mandal, in his presence and in the presence of L.W.6/Shaik

Sabiho, VRO and P.W.2, P.W.3 and his staff members caught Accused

Nos. 1 to 4 and seized ganja of 1250 grams from their possession, which was kept on the motorcycle of Accused No.1, at the Office of

P.W.2, P.W.3 issued common summon to him and another mediator as in Ex.P1, P.W.3 seized said ganja, motorcycle and one cell phone from each of the accused as in M.Os.1 to 4 and cash of Rs.600/- from

Accused No.1 as in M.O.5, Accused Nos. 1 to 4 agreed for personal search by P.W.2, in the ganja packet kept on the motor cycle there was ganja of 620 grams, Accused No.2 was having two packets of 620 8

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.31/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 29.03.2025 grams each, Accused Nos.3 and 4 were having a packet each weighing about 05 grams, Accused Nos. 2 to 4 were having ganja packets in their hands, by following the due procedure laid down under law, one of the constables typed panchanama as in Ex.P2, print-out of the same was taken, in which all of them, including the accused persons signed.

16. PW.2 gave evidence that on 10.05.2023 at 10.30 a.m., at the said spot, in his presence and in the presence of P.W.1 and L.W.6.

P.W.3 and his staff caught Accused Nos. 1 to 4, seized mobile phones as in M.Os.1 to 4 from the accused, cash of Rs.600/- from Accused

No.1, before that P.W.3 issued a common notice u/s 50 of NDPS Act to all the accused as in Ex.P4, who accepted for personal search and seizure, P.W.3 also seized a motorcycle from Accused Nos.1 to 4 and incorporating the said facts, one of the constables typed a panchanama as in Ex.P2, print-out was taken, in which all of them, including Accused

Nos. 1 to 4 signed. Witness identified Accused Nos. 2 to 4.

17. PW.3 gave evidence that on 10.05.2023 at about 10.30 a.m., on the outskirts of Anasagaram Village, Nandigama Mandal, under a Fly-over bridge, in the presence of P.W.1. L.W.6 and P.W.2, he and his staff members caught Accused Nos. 1 to 4 and seized ganja of kg.

1.250 grams, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were in possession of 620 grams of ganja each and Accused Nos.3 and 4 were in possession of 05 grams 9

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.31/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 29.03.2025 of ganja each, Accused No.1 kept ganja in the front pouch of motorcycle, Accused No.2 kept ganja in a polythene cover in his hands and Accused Nos 3 and 4 kept ganja in their pockets, he also seized one phone from each of accused as in M.Os.1 to 4, cash from Accused

No.1 as in M.O.5, he also seized one motor cycle from accused No.1 as appeared in Ex.P3 photograph, he got typed a panchanama as in Ex.P2 and print-out was taken, in which all of them, including the accused persons signed. He further gave evidence that before going to search and seizure, he gave common notice to accused Nos. 1 to 4 as in

Ex.P5, for which accused gave common consent as in Ex.P5, he registered Ex.P2 as FIR in Cr.No.319/2023 and issued printed FIR as in

Ex.P6, submitted Exs.P2 and P6 to the learned Magistrate concerned and copies to all concerned, took-up investigation, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the same as in Ex.P7, examined witnesses and recorded their separate statements u/s 161 of Cr.P.C., on 24.06.2023 he got conducted inventory through the learned Addi.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nandigama, one week prior to said date

he filed requisition to conduct inventory, got lifted samples of 30 grams each for analysis, obtained inventory proceedings and certificates as in

Ex.PB, sent the samples of ganja under his letter of advice on 04.8.2023 as in Ex.P9, L.W.10 is the covering letter of the learned 10

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.31/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 29.03.2025

Magistrate and received report from the Laboratory as in Ex. P11, which

shows that sample was ganja. Even though, Accused Nos. 1 to 4 confessed that they purchased ganja from one Bahubali of Orissa State, he was not traced out and to that effect he filed a Memo before the learned Magistrate as in Ex. P12, ganja was produced before this Court as in M.O.6, excluding the sample and that as above he completed investigation and filed charge-sheet in this case.

18. It is the case of the prosecution that on 10.05.2023 at about 10.30 a.m., on receipt of information, P.W.3 secured the presence of a

Gazetted Officer/P.W.2 and two mediators i.e., P.W.1 and L.W.6/Shaik

Sabiho, VRO, Nandigama and along with his staff members, rushed to the scene of offence, situated under a Fly-over, on the outskirts of

Anasagaram Village, Nandigama Mandal, found Accused Nos. 1 to 4 herein, Accused No.1 was in possession of 620 grams of ganja and kept the same in the pouch of the motorcycle, Accused No.2 was in possession of 620 grams of ganja kept in his hands and Accused Nos.3 and 4 were in possession of 05 grams of ganja kept in their pockets and on questioning they stated that Accused No.1 purchased ganja of kg.1.250 grams from one Bahubali of Orissa State (A5), sold some portion to Accused No.2, who in turn sold 05 grams of ganja for personal consumption to Accused Nos.3 and 4 and then P.W.3 11

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.31/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 29.03.2025 searched the accused persons through P.W.2, who was a Gazetted

Officer after issuing a common notice to them u/s 50 of the Act as in

Ex.P4, obtained their consent as in Ex.P5 and then seized said ganja from all the accused; motor cycle bearing No.AP 07 DN 7191, cash of one a Rs.600/- from accused No.1 and one cell phone from each of the accused, in the presence of the mediators/P.W.2 and L.W.6, under the cover of a mediators' report as in Ex.P2, drafted by one of the

Constables, print-out of the same was taken, in which all of them.

including Accused Nos. 1 to 4 signed and then P.W.3 registered FIR as in Ex.P6, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the same as in Ex.P7, got conducted inventory through the learned

Magistrate concerned and lifted samples during inventory vide Ex.P8,

forwarded the samples to the Chemical Examiner, Excise Laboratory,

Kakinada under his letter of advice and covering letter of the Magistrate as in Exs.P9 and P10 and later received report from the Laboratory as in Ex.P11, which shows that sample was ganja and that as said

Bahubail/A5 was not traced, he filed a Memo as in Ex.P12 before the

Magistrate stating that in future separate a charge-sheet will be filed

against him and that before going to place of spot, P.W.3 issued common summons to the mediators as in Ex.P1 and that Ex.P3 is the photograph of the vehicle.

12

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.31/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 29.03.2025

19. The scene of offence, which was situated under a fly-over, on the outskirts of Anasagaram Village, Nandigama Mandal, is a public place and thus, the proceedings of search and seizure come the purview of under Section 43 of NDPS Act. The material on record does not disclose that P.W.3 forwarded the information received with regard and to the ganja or about the search and seizure of ganja from the possession of Accused Nos. 1 to 4, to his immediate superior officer. In the charge-sheet it was mentioned that on receipt of oral instructions from his superior officers, P.W.3 conducted investigation in this case.

The said statement by itself cannot be taken into consideration as compliance of Section 42 of the Act. However, as stated supra, since the provisions of Section 43 of the Act come into operation in the present case on hand, there was no need to comply with the mandatory provisions under Section 42 of the Act. Therefore, non-compliance of the mandatory provision under Section 42 (2) of NDPS Act is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.

20. Perusal of the mediators' report as in Ex.P2 goes to show that there was personal search of Accused Nos. 1 to 4 as Accused

Nos.2 to 3 were having ganja in their hand and pockets respectively and further on personal search cash and mobile phones were seized from all the the accused persons. It further goes to show that after noticing 13

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.31/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 29.03.2025 ganja in possession of the accused persons, P.W.3 issued a common notice to them under Section 50 of NDPS Act as in Ex.P4 for personal search giving option to the accused that P.W.2 was a Gazetted Officer and they have to choose him for personal search and on the consent given by the accused as in Ex.P5, then search was conducted by P.W.2 and found ganja in their possession. P.W.2 in his evidence deposed that underw P.W.3 issued a common notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act to

Accused Nos. 1 to 4, who accepted him for personal search and seizure and P.W.3 corroborated the said evidence. Therefore, the prosecution could able to establish that the mandatory provision u/s 50 of NDPS Act was complied with at the time of search and seizure of ganja from the possession of the accused herein.

21. As per Section 52-A of NDPS Act, 1985, the Officer in- charge of the Police Station shall prepare an inventory and get it certified through the Magistrate as soon as possible after seizure, but in this case it is clear that P.W.3 did not comply with Section 52-A of

NDPS Act soon after seizure of the ganja. P.W.3 conducted search and seized ganja from Accused Nos. 1 to 4 on 10.05.2023. P.W.3 in his evidence deposed that on 24.06.2023 he got conducted inventory with

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nandigama and one week prior to the said date, he gave a requisition to the Magistrate with a request to 14

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.31/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 29.03.2025 conduct inventory. No such requisition was produced before this Court to probablise the evidence of P.W.3. But, as seen from the Inventory

Certificate as in Ex.P8, it was mentioned therein that on 24.06.2023

P.W.3 filed a requisition u/s 52-A of the Act before the learned

Magistrate concerned, which was allowed by the Court on the same

date and on the even date inventory was conducted and during inventory one sample of 30 grams of lifted for the purpose of chemical analysis in the presence of the Magistrate and then the Magistrate issued Inventory Certificate as in Ex.P8. P.W.3 in his cross-examination deposed that there was delay of 44 days after seizure in conducting inventory. What is reasonable time to conduct inventory depends on the facts and circumstances of each case? As per the Notification issued by the Ministry of Finance, dt.23.12.2022, under clause (8) the Officer concerned shall apply to the Magistrate u/s 52-A (2) of the Act at the earliest. If there was any delay, the same has to be explained by the prosecution. In the case on hand, the requisition to conduct inventory and the inventory took place 44 days after seizure of ganja from the accused. The said delay was not explained by P.W.3 and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution. In a case of Union of India Vs. Mohanlal and another, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 379, Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India, inter alia, held that the scheme of the Act in general and Section 15

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.31/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 29.03.2025 52A in particular, does not brook any delay in the matter of making of an application or the drawing of samples and certification. Therefore, the inventory got conducted by PW.3 is not strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under law and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

22. As stated supra, search and seizure took place in this case on 10.05.2023, inventory was conducted on 24.06.2023 and the sample was forwarded to the Laboratory concerned on 08.08.2023 through the learned Magistrate concerned, but no evidence is produced by the prosecution to say that where the seized ganja was kept during the said period. P.W.3 in his cross-examination deposed that he did not file any document to show that the contraband was in safe custody between the date of seizure and the date of inventory. No Malkhana Register was produced before this Court to say that the ganja was kept in the safe custody of concerned police station during the intervening period by mentioning the same in the relevant Register under the control of a responsible police officer. In the absence of the said evidence, there is a doubt in the mind of the Court that whether the very same property that was allegedly seized from the accused persons, was produced before the learned Magistrate to conduct inventory proceedings and whether the very same sample that was lifted in the presence of the Magistrate 16

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.31/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 29.03.2025 during inventory was forwarded to the. Laboratory for analysis. In

Mohammed Khalid and another v. State of Telangana, reported in

2024 (1) ALT (Crl.) 366 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed that the glaring loopholes in the prosecution case give rise to an inescapable inference that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the required link evidence to satisfy the Court regarding safe custody of the sample packets from the time of seizure till the same reached the FSL. The principle laid down in the supra Judgment is squarely applicable to the present case on hand and thus, there was a glaring loophole in the case of the prosecution.

23. For the aforementioned reasons, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of Accused Nos. 1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubts and hence, Accused Nos. 1 to 4 are entitled to get benefit of doubt and consequently, they are liable to be acquitted for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii) (B) of NDPS Act, 1985, in the interest of justice.

24. Accordingly, the above points are answered.

POINT No.3:

17

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.31/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 29.03.2025

25. In the result, Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty of the offence under Section 8(c), punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of

NDPS Act, 1985 and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, of the said offence.

M.O.6/ganja packet shall be destroyed by the Drug Disposal

Committee, M.Os. 1 to 4/cell phones shall be destroyed and M.O.5/cash of Rs.600/- and unmarked and unclaimed motorcycle bearing No.AP 07

DN 7191, shall be confiscated to the State, after expiry of appeal time.

Since Accused No.1 is produced from Sub-Jail, Jaggaiahpet, he is set at liberty, if he is not required in any other case.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.I of this Court, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 29th day of March, 2025.

Sd/- Chinnamsetty Raju,

I Addl. Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES, EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1:Ambatipati Mukunda Devi.

P.W.2:S.Narasimha Rao.

P.W.3:M.Pandu Dora.

FOR DEFENCE: - N O N E-

DOCUMENTS, MARKED

18

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.31/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 29.03.2025

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1/dt.10.05.2023:Summons issued to Mediators. Ex.P2/dt.10.05.2023:Panchanama. Ex.P3/dt.:Photograph of motor cycle bearing No.AP 07 DN 7191. Ex.P4/dt.10.05.2023:Notice issued o accused u/s.50 of NDPS Act. Ex.P5/dt.10.05.2023:Common consent letter of accused. Ex.P6/dt.10.05.2023:Printed FIR in Cr.No.319/2023 of Nandigama PS. Ex.P7/Dt.10.05.2023:Rough Sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P8/dt.24.06.2023:Inventory Certificates. Ex.P9/dt.04.08.2023:Letter of Advice. Ex.P10/dt.08.08.2023:Covering letter of Magistrate to Chemical Examiner. Ex.P11/dt.09.08.2023:Laboratory Analysis Report. Ex.P12/dt.20.09.2023:Memo filed before the Magistrate.

FOR DEFENCE:NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS, MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

M.O.1:Cell Phone. M.O.2:Cell Phone. M.O.3:Cell Phone. M.O.4:Cell Phone. M.O.5:Cash of Rs.600/- M.O.6:Ganja Packet.

FOR DEFENCE: - N I L –

Sd/- Chinnamsetty Raju,

I-A.S.J., MTM.

19

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.31/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 29.03.2025

TABULAR FORM TO BE APPENDED TO THE FAIR COPY OF THE

JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 71 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE IN SPECIAL SESSIONS CASE NO.31/2023 ON THE

FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, KRISHNA,

MACHILIPATNAM.

1.Sessions Case No.:Spl. SC No.31/2023

2.Complainant:The State, Inspector of Police, Nandigama Police Station, NTR District.

3.Description of the : 4.Panthangi Gopi Krishna, S/o. accusedSrinivas, Aged 22 years, R/o. Kadada, Now at Mellacheruvu Village, Suryapet District, Telangana State

5.Gorrepati Koti, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged 24 years, Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavaai Mandal, NTR District.

6.Avula Udaya Bhanu, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Aged 24 years, Bhimavarm Village, Vatsavai Mandal, NTR District.

7.Bhimala Narendra Babu, S/o.Venkaiah, Aged 22 years, R/o. Bhimavaram Village, Vatsavai Mandal, NTR District.

4.Date of occurrence:10.05.2023.

5.Date of complaint:10.05.2023.

6.Date of apprehension :10.05.2023

7.Date of Committal Order:----

8.Date of Commencement :12.02.2025. of Trial

9.Date of closure of Trial:06.03.2025.

20

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.31/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 29.03.2025

10.Date of Sentence or :29.03.2025. Order

11.Charges:Under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 against Accused Nos.1 to 4 .

RESULT:

In the result. Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty of the offence under Section 8(c), punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of NDPS Act, 1985 and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, of the said offence. M.O.6/ganja packet shall be destroyed by the Drug Disposal Committee, M.Os.1 to 4/cell phones shall be destroyed and M.O.5/cash of Rs.600/- and unmarked and unclaimed motorcycle bearing No.AP 07 DN 7191 16 CJ 7020, shall be confiscated to the State, after expiry of appeal time.

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY:

This Special Sessions case was numbered as Spl.S.C.No.31/2023. On appearance of accused Nos.1 to 4, copies of documents were furnished to them. On 14.11.2024, Accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., for the above said charges. Trial schedule was issued finally on 14.11.2024. Trial Commenced in this case on 12.02.2025. In this case, PWs 1 to 3 are examined and Exs.P1 to P12 and Mos.1 to 6 were marked. Prosecution evidence was closed on 06.03.2025. On 20.03.2025, Accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Heard arguments on 31.03.2025 and Judgment pronounced on 29.03.2025. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Chinnamsetty Raju,

I Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Submitted to: The Hon'ble Registrar (Judl.) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi through the

Hon'ble Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF NDPS ACT CASES: KRISHNA,

MACHILIPATNAM

Present:- Sri Chinnamsetty Raju, I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Judge for trial of NDPS Act Cases

Friday, this the 4th day of April, 2025

Special Sessions Case No.18/2023

Name of the Complainant:The State, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Challapalli Circle.

Names of the Accused :1. Pamu Karthik, S/o John, 22 years, cinema Hall Centre, G.Konduru Village and Mandal, NTR District.

2. Kavarla Addu, S/o Narasingh, 30 years, Chinna Gangavaram Village, Darakonda Panchayat, G.K.Veedhi Mandal, Alluri Sitharamaraju District.

Nature of Offence:Under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 against Accused Nos.1 and 2.

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty

Sentence or order:

In the result, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offence under Section 8(c), punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, of the said offence. M.O.1/cash of Rs.210/- shall be confiscated to the State, M.O.2/cell phone (since not in working condition) and M.Os.5 and 6/SIM Cards shall be destroyed and M.O.3/Aadhar Card and 2

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.18/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 04.04.2025

M.O.4/PAN Card of Accused No.1 shall be returned to him, after expiry of appeal time, on proper identification.

Prosecution Conducted by:Sri S.Chinna Rao, Addl. Public Prosecutor, I Addl. Sessions Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Name of the Defence :Sri A.Satyanarayana, CounselsAdvocate for Accused No.1, Sri D.Rajeev, Advocate for Accused No.2, Machilipatnam.

This case came on 03.04.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Chinna Rao, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri A.Satyanarayana, Advocate for Accused No.1 and of Sri D.Rajeev, Advocate for Accused No.2, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a Special Sessions Case, filed by the Inspector of Police,

Challapalli Circle in Crime No.92/2023 of Ghantasala Police Station against Accused Nos.1 and 2, alleging that they committed an offence under Section 8(c), punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985.

2. This Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985; numbered the case as Special

Sessions Case No.18/2023 and summons were issued to both the

Accused, who made an appearance before this Court. After furnishing copies of the material papers to the Accused u/s 208 of the Code of 3

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.18/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 04.04.2025

Criminal Procedure, a charge under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of

NDPS Act, 1985 was framed against them, explained the contents of the charge to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed that the case to be tried.

3. This Court conducted trial against the Accused herein and in trial four witnesses were examined from P.Ws.1 to 4; 18 documents were marked from Exs.P1 to P18 and MOs.1 to 6 were marked, on behalf of the prosecution.

4. The Accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and he denied the evidence on record.

5. Accused herein did not adduce any evidence.

6. P.W.1 was the Village Revenue Officer of Chitturpu Village of Ghantasala Mandal, who acted as one of the mediators along with

L.W.7/Penjarthi Nagamalleswari, VRO of Ghantasalapalem Village, for the search and seizure of ganja from the possession of the accused.

7. P.W.2 was a Veterinary Doctor of Veterinary Dispensary,

Ghantasawla Mandal, who was a Gazetted Officer for the search and seizure of ganja from the accused and got prepared the mediators report in the presence of the mediators.

4

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.18/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 04.04.2025

8. P.W.3 was the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ghantasala Police

Station, who registered FIR in this Case, participated at the time of search and seizure of ganja from the possession of the accused and assisted P.W.4 in the investigation.

9. PW.4 was the Inspector of Police, Challapalli Circle, who conducted search and seizure of ganja from the accused, in the presence of the mediators and a Gazetted Officer, conducted investigation, arrested the accused and filed charge-sheet against the accused herein.

10. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

a) On 10.04.2023, on receipt of credible information,

P.W.4 secured the presence of mediators i.e., P.W.1,

L.W.7/Penjerthi Nagamalleswari, VRO of Ghantasalapalem

Village and a Gazetted Officer/P.W.2 and along with his staff members rushed to the scene of offence, situated on Krishna

River Karakattga road, near Bus Stop at Papavinasanam Village,

Ghantasala Mandal, found accused No.1, caught him when he tried to escape from said place, who on questioning confessed that he purchased ganja from Accused No.2 @ Rs.2,000/- per kilogram and he came to the said place for the purpose of sale, then P.W.4 seized kg.2.060 grams of ganja, one cell phone, 5

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.18/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 04.04.2025

Aadhar card, Pan card and cash from Accused No.1, in the presence of the mediators, under the cover of a mediators’ report and handed over Accused No.1, seized material and the mediators’ report to P.W.3 for registration of FIR.

b) P.W.3 registered the said Mediators’ report as FIR in

Cr.No.92/2023 u/s 8 (c) r/w 20 (b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act and submitted FIR to all concerned. P.W.4, on receipt of copy of FIR took-up investigation, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined the witnesses, recorded their separate statements u/s 161 (3) of Cr.P.C., arrested accused No.1 and sent him for judicial remand and then he also arrested Accused

No.2 by obtaining PT warrant while he was in judicial custody at

Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram in connection with

Cr.No.31/2023 of Chinturu Police Station and produced him

before the learned Magistrate concerned on 25.04.2023 for

judicial custody, lifted samples of 25 grams of ganja during inventory, forwarded the same to Chemical Examiner, Kakinada for analysis, who issued a report opining that the sample was ganja and then after completion of investigation he filed charge- sheet in this case. Hence, the charge sheet.

6

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.18/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 04.04.2025

11. Case of the Accused is one of total denial. They contended that they did not commit any offence, nothing was seized from their possession and this case was foisted against them.

12. Heard both sides on 03.04.2025.

13. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence on record established that the accused committed the offence as mentioned supra and hence, they are liable to be convicted.

14. Advocates for Accused Nos.1 and 2 submitted that no ganja was seized from the possession of accused No.1 in the presence of P.Ws.1, 2 and another mediator and nothing was happened in their presence, signatures of the mediators and Gazetted Officer were obtained on Exs.P1 and P2 respectively, M.Os.1 to 6 were planted, there was delay in conducting inventory proceedings in this case, no material was collected against Accused No.2 and this case was foisted against the accused persons for statistical purpose and therefore, both the accused are entitled to get acquittal.

15. Now, the following points will arise for consideration of this

Court:

1. Whether on 10.04.2023 at about 12.30 p.m., on Karakatta road, near Bus Stop, Papavinasanam Village,

Ghantasala Mandal, Accused No.1 was found in possession of kg.2.060 grams of ganja, which was 7

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.18/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 04.04.2025 purchased from Accused No.2, and thereby committed an offence u/s 8 (c) punishable u/s 20 (b)(ii)(B) of NDPS

Act, 1985?

2. Whether the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts?

3. To what point?

POINT Nos.1 & 2:

16. PW1 gave evidence that on 10.04.2023 at about 11.00 a.m., at Bus-Stop of Karakatta in Papavinasanam Village, Ghantasala

Mandal of Krishna District, in his presence and in the presence of

L.W.7/Naga Malleswari, VRO of Kothapalli Village and P.W.2, P.W.4 with the help of P.W.3 caught Accused No.1, who was in possession of one carry bag, found ganja in said bag and then P.W.4 seized said ganja, one cell phone as in M.O.2, Aadhar Card as in M.O.3, PAN card as in

M.O.4 and cash of Rs.210/- as in M.O.1 and two SIM cards as in

M.Os.5 and 6 from Accused No.1 by following due procedure laid down under law and then he drafted a panchanama as in Ex.P1, in which all of them, including Accused No.1 signed and that at Tahsildar’s Office,

Ghantasala Mandal P.W.4 issued summons to him as in Ex.P2.

Witness identified Accused Nos.1 and 2.

17. PW.2 gave evidence that P.W.4 issued a letter to him as in

Ex.P3 and then on 10.04.2023 at about 12.30 p.m., took him and the 8

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.18/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 04.04.2025 mediators to a Bus Stop on Karakatta in Papavinasanam Village of

Ghantasala Mandal and in their presence P.W.4 seized ganja of kg.2.060 grams from Accused No.1 and also seized M.Os.1 to 6 and then P.W.1 drafted a panchanama as in Ex.P1, in which all of them, including Accused No.1 signed. Witness identified Accused No.1.

18. PW.3 gave evidence that on 10.04.2023 at 12.30 p.m., at

Bus-Stop on Karakatta in Papavinasanam Village, Ghantasala Mandal, in his presence, other police personnel of Ghantasala P.S., mediators/P.W.1 and L.W.7 and a Gazetted Officer/P.W.2, P.W.4 caught

Accused No.1, seized ganja and M.Os.1 to 6 from him by following the due procedure laid down under law and then P.W.1 drafted a panchanama as in Ex.P1, in which all of them, including Accused No.1 signed, then he took Accused No.1, seized material and panchanama to the Police Station, registered FIR in Cr.No.92/2023 of Ghantasala P.S., issued printed FIR as in Ex.P4, submitted Exs.P1 and P4 to the learned

Magistrate concerned and copies to all concerned and then P.W.4

investigated into the case.

19. P.W.4 gave evidence that on 10.04.2023 at 12.30 p.m., at

Karakatta Bus Stop in Papavinasanam Village of Ghantasala Mandal,

Krishna District, he and his staff members, in the presence of P.Ws.1, 2 and another mediator/L.W.7, caught Accused No.1 and seized M.Os.1 9

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.18/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 04.04.2025 to 6 and ganja of kg.2.060 grams by following due procedure laid down under law and then P.W.1 drafted a panchanama as in Ex.P1, in which all of them, including Accused No.1 signed and later P.W.3 registered

Ex.P1 as FIR in Cr.No.92/2023 and issued printed FIR as in Ex.P4, at the spot he issued a notice u/s 50 of NDPS Act to accused No.1 as in

Ex.P5, for which he agreed for personal search by P.W.2, before going to the spot he gave a requisition as in Ex.P6 to Tahsildar, Ghantasala

Mandal requesting him to conduct personal search of the accused and to depute two Village Revenue Officers as mediators and that as

Tahsildar was not available he took P.W.2 to the spot. He further gave evidence that after registration of FIR he examined the witnesses and recorded their separate statements u/s 161 of Cr.P.C., observed the scene of offence, prepared an observation report as in Ex.P7, rough sketch as in Ex.P9, got photographed the same as in Ex.P9 and before going to the scene of offence he issued summons to L.W.7 as in Ex.P10 and then he filed requisition before the Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Movva to conduct inventory as in Ex.P11 and that on 29.04.2023 learned Magistrate conducted inventory, two samples of 25 grams each were lifted towards sample for analysis and issued inventory certificates as in Ex.P12, sent the samples to Excise Laboratory, Kakinada under

Ex.P13/covering letter, Ex.P14/letter of advice and Ex.P15/covering letter of SDPO, received report from Laboratory as in Ex.P16, which 10

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.18/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 04.04.2025 shows that sample was ganja, arrested Accused No.2 by obtaining PT

Warrant, got destroyed the remaining case property as in Ex.P17,

Ex.P18 is the GD Entry with regard to the movements of Accused No.1 at said place and that as above, he completed the investigation and filed charge-sheet in this case. Witness identified Accused No.1.

20. Case of the prosecution as per the material available on record is that on 10.04.2023 at 12.30 p.m., at the scene of offence, situated at Bus Stop of Karakatta in Papavinasanam Village, Ghantasala

Mandal, P.Ws.3 and 4, in the presence of the mediators/P.W.1 and

L.W.7/P.Naga Malleswari, VRO of Kothapalli Village and P.W.2/Gazetted

Officer, found accused No.1 in possession of a carry bag, caught him when he tried to escape from the said place, found ganja in said bag, served notice to the accused u/s 50 of NDPS Act, seized the same in the presence of the mediators and a Gazetted Officer, under the cover of a panchanama as in Ex.P1, got weighed the same, found it in the weight of kg.2.060 grams and then P.W.3 registered FIR as in Ex.P4, arrested Accused No.1, sent Accused No.1 for judicial custody, produced Accused No.2 by obtaining PT Warrant and sent him for judicial custody, got conducted inventory through the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Movva, lifted two samples of ganja @ 25 grams each, forwarded the sample to the Chemical Laboratory, Kakinada through the 11

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.18/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 04.04.2025

SDPO, Avanigadda under the cover of Exs.P13 to P15, obtained inventory certificates as in Ex.P12, received analysis report as in

Ex.P16, which shows that the sample was ganja and then he filed charge-sheet against the accused herein.

21. Perusal of the mediators’ report under Ex.P1 goes to show that at the time of search and seizure, P.W.4 said to have given option to accused No.1 for personal search either by himself or by P.W.2 and on the option chosen by accused No.1, in the presence of P.W.2, P.W.4 seized ganja, got weighed the ganja through an appraiser, found it as kg.2.060 grams, sealed the same and affixed panch slips containing their signatures. In this case there was personal search of accused

No.1, under which M.Os.1 to 6 were seized from his. Though, in Ex.P1 it was mentioned that P.W.4 gave option of personal search of accused

No.1 by either himself or by P.W.2, but P.Ws.1 to 3 in their evidence did not depose about giving of such notice and option to Accused No.1 for personal search and P.W.4 only deposed in his evidence about issuing of notice u/s 50 of the Act as in Ex.P5, but there was no written consent of the accused obtained or filed before this Court. P.Ws.1 to 3 in their evidence deposed that in their presence and in the presence of another mediator/L.W.7, P.W.4 seized ganja from Accused No.1, but no personal search appears to have made by P.W.2, as seen from their evidence.

12

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.18/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 04.04.2025

P.W.2 in his cross-examination deposed that in Ex.P1 there was no mention that he explained to Accused No.1 to choose himself or any other Gazetted Officer. As per Section 50 of the Act, P.W.4 ought to have given option to Accused No.1 for personal search either by himself or by P.W.2 or by any other Gazetted Officer or a Judicial Magistrate of I

Class, but he did not do so. Mere giving option to the accused to choose one among P.Ws.2 and 4 cannot be said as strict compliance of the mandatory provision under Section 50 of the Act. Therefore the prosecution failed to establish that the investigation officer has complied with the mandatory provision in accordance with Section 50 of NDPS

Act.

22. The scene of offence, which is situated at Bus-Stop of

Karakatta in Papavinasanam Village, Ghantasala Mandal of Krishna

District, is a public place and thus, the proceedings of search and seizure come the purview of under Section 43 of NDPS Act. Though,

P.W.4 deposed in his evidence that before going to the spot he forwarded the information received by him to his superior officer, but no such material is produced before this Court to probablise his evidence.

The material on record does not disclose that P.W.4 forwarded the information received by him about the movements of Accused No.1 or about the search and seizure of ganja from the possession of the 13

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.18/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 04.04.2025

Accused to his immediate superior officer after completion of search proceedings. However, as stated supra, since the provisions of Section 43 of the Act come into operation in the present case on hand, there was no need to comply with the mandatory provision under Section 42 of the Act. Therefore, non-compliance of the mandatory provision under

Section 42 (2) of NDPS Act is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.

23. As per Section 52-A of NDPS Act, 1985, the Officer in- charge of the Police Station shall prepare an inventory and get it certified through the Magistrate as soon as possible after seizure, but in this case it is clear that P.W.4 did not comply with Section 52-A of

NDPS Act soon after seizure of the ganja. P.W.3 conducted search and seized ganja from the Accused on 10.04.2023. As seen from the requisition as in Ex.P11 and the Inventory Certificates as in Ex.P12, it is evident that P.W.4 filed said requisition u/s 52-A of the Act on 17.04.2023 i.e., one week after the seizure, which was allowed by the

Magistrate giving a direction to P.W.4 to produce the seized material

before him on 29.04.2023 at 4.30 p.m., on which date the learned

Magistrate conducted inventory and during inventory two samples of 25

grams of ganja each were lifted for chemical analysis and issued inventory certificates. Thus, it is evident that the learned Magistrate conducted the inventory 13 days after filing of the requisition as in 14

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.18/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 04.04.2025

Ex.P11. What is reasonable time to conduct inventory depends on the facts and circumstances of each case? As per the Notification issued by the Ministry of Finance, dt.23.12.2022, under clause (8) the Officer concerned shall apply to the Magistrate u/s 52-A (2) of the Act at the earliest. If there was any delay, the same has to be explained by the prosecution. As states supra, since the said delay of 20 days was not explained either by P.W.4 or by the learned Magistrate, there was delay of 20 days in conducting the inventory proceedings, it is against to the object and procedure laid down under Section 52A of NDPS Act.

Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish that P.W.4 got conducted inventory proceedings without any delay and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

24. As stated supra, search and seizure took place in this case on 10.04.2023, inventory was conducted on 29.04.2023 and the samples lifted during inventory were forwarded to the Chemical

Laboratory on 28.06.2023 for analysis, but no evidence is produced by the prosecution to say that where the seized ganja and sample were kept during the said period respectively. No Malkhana Register was produced before this Court to say that the ganja was kept in the safe custody of concerned police station during the intervening period by mentioning the same in the relevant Register under the control of a 15

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.18/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 04.04.2025 responsible police officer. In the absence of the said evidence, there is a doubt in the mind of the Court that whether the very same property that was allegedly seized from accused No.1, was produced before the learned Magistrate to conduct inventory proceedings and whether the same sample that was lifted in the presence of the learned Magistrate was forwarded to the Laboratory for analysis. In Mohammed Khalid

and another v. State of Telangana, reported in 2024 (1) ALT (Crl.)

366 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed that the glaring loopholes in the prosecution case give rise to an inescapable inference that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the required link evidence to satisfy the Court regarding safe custody of the sample packets from the time of seizure till the same reached the FSL.

25. As per the contents of Ex.P1, Accused No.1 confessed that he purchased said ganja from Accused No.2 in order to sell the same at high rates to earn illegal profits. Accused No.2 was arrested on execution of P.T. Warrant when he was in judicial custody in connection with Cr.No.31/2023 of Chinturu Police Station for similar offence. No confession was recorded from him and no material was seized from him at the time of his arrest. Except the said confessional statement of accused No.1, no evidence is collected against Accused No.2 to show his role and involvement in the commission of offence as alleged by the 16

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.18/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 04.04.2025 prosecution. No ganja or any other material was collected from

Accused No.2 to show his guilt in the present case on hand. In

Mohammed Khalid and another v. State of Telangana, reported in

2024 (1) ALT (Crl.) 366 (SC), Honble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed that confession of an accused recorded by a Police Officer is not admissible in evidence as the same is hit by Section 25 of the

Evidence Act and proceeding to convict A-3 and A-4 in a sheerly mechanical manner without there being an iota of evidence on record of the case to hold them guilty is fatal. The said proposition of law is squarely applicable to the present case hand with regard to the guilt of

Accused No.2. Further, though 15 passengers were waiting at the said

Bus-stop, as deposed by P.W.2, P.W.4 did not ask any of them to act as a mediator and thus, it appears from the record that P.W.4 failed to take steps to get any independent mediator from the locality where the search and seizure of ganja took place as required u/s 100 (4) of Cr.P.C.

26. For the aforementioned reasons, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of Accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubts and hence, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to get benefit of doubt and consequently, they are liable to be acquitted for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985, in the interest of justice.

17

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.18/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 04.04.2025

27. Accordingly, the above points are answered.

POINT No.3:

28. In the result, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offence under Section 8(c), punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of

NDPS Act, 1985 and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, of the said offence.

M.O.1/cash of Rs.210/- shall be confiscated to the State, M.O.2/cell phone (since not in working condition) and M.Os.5 and 6/SIM Cards shall be destroyed and M.O.3/Aadhar Card and M.O.4/PAN Card of

Accused No.1 shall be returned to him, after expiry of appeal time, on proper identification.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.I of this Court, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 4th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Chinnamsetty Raju,

I Addl. Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES, EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1:K.Sai Babu. P.W.2:Dr.K.Ram Babu. P.W.3:K.Srinivasu. P.W.4:B.B.Ravi Kumar.

FOR DEFENCE: - N O N E- 18

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.18/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 04.04.2025

DOCUMENTS, MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1/dt.10.04.2023:Panchanama. Ex.P2/dt.10.04.2023:Summons issued to P.W.1. Ex.P3/dt.10.04.2023:Requisition issued to P.W.2. Ex.P4/dt.10.04.2023:Printed FIR in Cr.No.92/2023 of Ghantasala PS. Ex.P5/dt.10.04.2023:Notice issued to Accused No.1 u/s 50 of NDPS Act. Ex.P6/dt.10.04.2023:Requisition issued to Tahsildar, Ghantasala. Ex.P7/dt.10.04.2023:Scene observation report. Ex.P8/dt.10.04.2023:Rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P9/dt.---:Photographs along with CD. Ex.P10/dt.10.04.2023:Summons issued to L.W.7. Ex.P11/dt.17.04.2023:Requisition issued to Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Movva. Ex.P12/dt.29.04.2023:Inventory Certificates. Ex.P13/dt.28.06.2023:Covering letter to SDPO, Avanigadda. Ex.P14/dt.28.06.2023:Letter of advice. Ex.P15/dt.29.06.2023:Covering letter of SDPO, Avanigadda to Chemical Examiner. Ex.P16/dt.03.07.2023:Laboratory report. Ex.P17/dt.22.02.2025:Destruction Certificate. Ex.P18/dt.10.04.2023:General Diary Entry.

FOR DEFENCE:NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS, MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

M.O.1:Cash of Rs.210/-. M.O.2:Cell Phone. M.O.3:Aadhar Card. M.O.4:PAN Card. M.O.5:SIM Card ….0391. M.O.6:SIM Card ….0101.

FOR DEFENCE: - N I L –

Sd/- Chinnamsetty Raju,

I-A.S.J., MTM.

19

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.18/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 04.04.2025

TABULAR FORM TO BE APPENDED TO THE FAIR COPY OF THE

JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 71 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE IN SPECIAL SESSIONS CASE NO.18/2023 ON THE

FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, KRISHNA,

MACHILIPATNAM.

1.Sessions Case No.:Spl. SC No.18/2023

2.Complainant:The State, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Challapalli Circle.

3.Description of the :3. Pamu Karthik, S/o John, 22 years, accusedcinema Hall Centre, G.Konduru Village and Mandal, NTR District.

4. Kavarla Addu, S/o Narasingh, 30 years, Chinna Gangavaram Village, Darakonda Panchayat, G.K.Veedhi Mandal, Alluri Sitharamaraju District.

4.Date of occurrence:10.04.2023.

5.Date of complaint:10.04.2023.

6.Date of apprehension :A.1 - 10.04.2023. A.2 - 25.04.2023

7.Date of Committal Order:----

8.Date of Commencement :04.03.2025. of Trial

9.Date of closure of Trial:02.04.2025.

10.Date of Sentence or :04.04.2025. Order

11.Charges:Under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 against Accused Nos.1 and 2.

20

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.18/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 04.04.2025

RESULT:

In the result, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the offence under Section 8(c), punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of

NDPS Act, 1985 and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, of the said offence.

M.O.1/cash of Rs.210/- shall be confiscated to the State, M.O.2/cell phone (since not in working condition) and M.Os.5 and 6/SIM Cards shall be destroyed and M.O.3/Aadhar Card and M.O.4/PAN Card of

Accused No.1 shall be returned to him, after expiry of appeal time, on proper identification.

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY:

This Special Sessions case was numbered as

Spl.S.C.No.18/2023. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to Accused Nos.1 to 2. On 11.12.2024, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are examined under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., for the above said charges. Trial schedule was issued finally on 29.01.2025. Trial

Commenced in this case on 04.03.2025. In this case, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P18 and MOs.1 to 6 were marked. Prosecution evidence was closed on 02.04.2025. On 03.04.2025, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Heard arguments on 03.04.2025 and Judgment pronounced on 04.04.2025. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Chinnamsetty Raju,

I Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Submitted to: The Hon'ble Registrar (Judl.) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi through the

Hon'ble Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF NDPS ACT CASES: KRISHNA,

MACHILIPATNAM

Present:- Sri Chinnamsetty Raju, I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Judge for trial of NDPS Act Cases

Friday, this the 28th day of March, 2025

Special Sessions Case No.01 of 2023

Name of the Complainant:The State, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Nuzvidu Circle.

Names of the Accused :1. Chinni Srinivasa Rao @ Vasu, S/o.Purna Chandra Rao, Aged 35 years, Mulagalapativarigudem, Vissannapet Mandal

2. Dosapati Nagendra Rao, S/o. Sundara Rao Aged 49 years, R/o. Vissannapeta, Krishna District.

3. Nerella Lakshmana Rao, S/o. Appa Rao, Aged 30 years, R/o. Gampalagudem Village, Krishna District.

4. Dosapati Ramu, S/o. Venkata Mutyam, Aged 32 years, R/o.Sattupalli Road, Vissannapeta.

5. Pasumarti Naveen Kumar, S/o. Satyanarayana, Aged 33 years, R/o.Sattupalli, Khammam District.

6. Nakka Veera Raju, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, Aged 43 years, R/o.Bapuji Nagar, Nuzvidu.

Nature of Offence:Under Section 5 r/w Section 22 of Cigarettes and other Tobacco products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regular of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl. SC. No.01/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 28.03.2025 2003; and Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985.

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge:Not guilty

Sentence or order :

In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 6 are found not guilty of the offences under Section 5 r/w Section 22 of Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce,

Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003; and Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 and accordingly, they are acquitted under

Section 235 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, of the said offences.

Unmarked Case Property i.e., Auto bearing No. AP 16 TS 0705 and Car bearing No.AP 16DQ 3997 as in Exs.P.8 and P.9 respectively, which were already given to respective registered owners under interim custody, shall be made absolute and M.O.1/sample of ganja shall be destroyed by the Drug

Disposal Committee and MO.1/Tobacco Products from Serial Numbers 4 to 25, as mentioned in Form-60/Ex.P.15, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution Conducted by:Sri S.Chinna Rao, Addl. Public Prosecutor, I Addl. Sessions Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam. Name of the Defence :Sri A.Satyanarayana, CounselsAdvocate for Accused Nos.1 to 6 Machilipatnam.

This case came on 20.03.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Chinna Rao, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri A.Satyanarayana, Advocate for Accused Nos.1 3

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl. SC. No.01/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 28.03.2025 to 6, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a Special Sessions Case, filed by the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Nuzvidu Town Police Station in Crime No.193/2019 against

Accused Nos.1 to 6, alleging that they committed offences under

Section 5 r/w Section 22 of Cigarettes and other Tobacco products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regular of Trade and Commerce,

Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003; Sections 270 and 273 of

Indian Penal Code; and Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985.

2. This Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 5 r/w Section 22 of Cigarettes and other Tobacco products (Prohibition of

Advertisement and Regular of Trade and Commerce, Production,

Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003; Sections 270 and 273 of Indian

Penal Code; and Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985; and numbered the case as Special Sessions Case No.01/2023 and summons were issued to the Accused persons, who made an appearance before this Court. After furnishing copies of the material papers to Accused Nos.1 to 6 u/s 207 of the Code of Criminal procedure, Charges under Section (i) 5 r/w Section 22 of Cigarettes and other Tobacco products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regular of 4

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl. SC. No.01/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 28.03.2025

Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003; and (ii) Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 were framed against Accused Nos.1 to 6, explained the contents of the charges to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed that the case to be tried.

3. This Court conducted trial against the Accused persons and in trial four witnesses were examined from P.Ws.1 to 4; 18 documents were marked from Exs.P1 to P18 and MO.1 were marked, on behalf of the prosecution.

4. Accused were examined under Section 313 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 and they denied the evidence on record.

5. Accused Nos.1 to 6 did not adduce any evidence.

6. PW1 was the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nuzvidu Town Police

Station, who assisted P.W.3 for search and seizure of ganja and tobacco products, registered FIR and conducted some part of investigation in this case.

7. P.W.2 was the Village Revenue Officer of Nuzvidu town and he was said to be one of the mediators at the time of alleged search and seizure of ganja and tobacco products from the accused persons herein.

5

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl. SC. No.01/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 28.03.2025

8. P.W.3 was the Inspector of Police, Nuzvidu Circle, who investigated this case, arrested the accused persons and made some part of investigation.

9. PW.4 was the Inspector of Police, Nuzvidu Circle, who conducted further investigation, received report from Chemical

Examiner and filed preliminary charge sheet in this case.

10. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

a) On 19.06.2019 at 2.30 p.m., on receipt of reliable information with regard to transportation of prohibited gutka and ganja, the PW.1/Sub-Inspector of Police, Nuzvidu Town

P.S., after informing the same to his superior officers, secured the presence of mediators and along with staff members rushed to the scene of offence, situated at Rajiv Circle in

Nuzvidu Town and while they were checking vehicles, one

Auto bearing No.AP 16 TS 0705 was coming from

Vijayawada to Nuzvidu side, then they stopped the said auto, wherein Accused Nos.1 to 3 were got down and tried to skulk away, then the Sub-Inspector of Police with the assistance of his staff members caught hold of them.

b) On questioning, Accused Nos.1 to 3 revealed their 6

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl. SC. No.01/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 28.03.2025 identity particulars in the presence of mediators and on verifying the auto, P.W.3 found 150 different tobacco products in a bag and Ganja in one carry bag, which was in the weight of 2 kgs. Then the Sub-Inspector of Police seized the said ganja and gutka packets from the possession of the accused

Nos.1 to 3 and prepared Mediators report.

c) Said mediators’ reports were registered as a case in Crime No.193/2019 under Section 5 r/w Section 22 of

Cigarettes and other Tobacco products (Prohibition of

Advertisement and Regular of Trade and Commerce,

Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003; Sections 270 and 273 of Indian Penal Code; and Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and took-up investigation.

d) PW.3, during the course of investigation, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined witnesses and recorded their statements. The arrested accused persons were produced before the learned

Magistrate concerned for judicial remand. Inventory

proceedings to be certified by the Magistrate concerned, photographed the same and sent the sample of ganja to the 7

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl. SC. No.01/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 28.03.2025

Chemical Examiner, Kakinada for analysis and the Chemical

Examiner analyzed the ganja and issued report opining that it was ganja. PW.4 conducted remaining investigation and filed charge-sheet against Accused Nos.1 to 6. Hence, the charge-sheet.

11. Case of Accused Nos.1 to 6 is one of total denial. They contended that they did not commit any offence, nothing was seized from their possession and this case was foisted against them.

12. Heard both sides on 20.03.2025.

13. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence on record established that accused Nos.1 to 6 committed the offences as mentioned supra and hence, they are liable to be convicted.

14. Advocate for the Accused submitted that nothing was seized in the presence of PWs.1 to 3, PW.1 just typed the mediators’ reports in the Police Station, the signatures of PWs.2 and 3 were obtained on the respective mediators reports, PW.1 was planted as a witness, no independent mediator was secured, the name of the person who allegedly weighed ganja is not shown as a witness, inventory proceedings were not conducted immediately after seizure and that this case was foisted against the accused persons and therefore, accused 8

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl. SC. No.01/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 28.03.2025

Nos.1 to 6 herein are entitled to get acquittal.

15. Now, the following points will arise for consideration of this

Court:

1. Whether Accused Nos.1 to 6, at the said places, on the said date and time, were found in possession of tobacco products like ghutka etc., and kg.2.000 grams of ganja?

2. Whether the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts?

3. To what point?

POINT Nos.1 & 2:

16. PW1 gave evidence that on 19.06.2019, at about 02.30 p.m., he along with P.Ws.2 and 3, other mediators and his staff proceeded to Rajiv Circle, Nuzvidu Town and while they were checking vehicles, they found one auto bearing No.AP 16 TS 0705, wherein

Accused Nos.1 to 3 were found and on verifying the auto, they found

Gutka Packets for about 150 in one red bag and also found ganja, which was in the weight of 02 kgs. P.W.3 picked up samples of 100 grams from said 2 kgs and seized the same. L.W.7/Runjula Ramesh drafted panchanama as in Ex.P.1, on which, P.W.3 signed and accused

Nos.1 to 3 were signed. P.W.1 registered Ex.P.1 as FIR in Crime 9

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl. SC. No.01/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 28.03.2025

No.193/2019 and issued printed FIR as in Ex.P.2. On the same day,

P.W.3 along with P.Ws.1 and 2 proceeded to the house of Accused

No.1, at which, Accused No.1 stated that he kept Tobacco products in his car. The, P.W.3 checked the said car and found Tobacco products in three bags and drafted another panchanama as in Ex.P.3.

17. P.W.2 in his evidence deposed that on 19.06.2019 at about 03.00 p.m., P.Ws.1 and 3 and other police personnel took him along with L.W.7/Ramesh, VRO of Nuzvidu I Town to Rajiv Circle at Nuzvidu

Town, then and there, P.W.3 with the assistance of his staff were checking vehicles and found three persons in an auto and seized tobacco products and ganja in the said auto. On the same day, in his presence, P.W.3 seized tobacco products from the car of one person at his house at Nuzvidu. P.W.3 also seized the said tobacco products and car. Further, P.W.3 arrested three persons at Bus Stand of Nuzvidu

Town in his presence, but he cannot identify the said persons among

Accused Nos.1 to 6. Thereafter, one constable drafted another panchanama as in Ex.P.4, upon which, they all signed.

18. P.W.3 gave evidence that on 19.06.2019, at about 03.00 p.m., at Rajiv Circle in Nuzvidu Town, he along with his staff members and P.W.2, in the presence of P.W.2 and L.W.3 caught Accused Nos.1 to 3, who are coming from Vijayawada side to Nuzvidu, then he stopped 10

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl. SC. No.01/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 28.03.2025 the said auto and found Gutka packet and other Tobacco products in an auto. Further, he found ganja of 02 kgs in the presence of mediators.

Then, he seized the said auto in the presence of mediators and drafted panchanama as in Ex.P.1. He took Accused Nos.1 to 3 along with contraband, auto and other seized items and Ex.P.1 to police station, where P.W.1 registered Ex.P.1 as FIR in Crime No.193/2019 and issued printed FIR as in Ex.P.2. On the confession given by Accused Nos.1 to 3, on the same day, he along with P.W.1 and other staff proceeded to the house of Accused No.1 and found tobacco products in a car. P.W.1 seized the said tobacco products at the house of Accused No.1, drafted another panchanama as in Ex.P.3. He examined P.W.1 and other staff members and recorded their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

He lifted sample of 100 grams of ganja at the time of seizure. Under his letter of advice through SDPO, Nuzvidu, he forwarded the sample to

Laboratory, Kakinada for analysis. Basing on the confession given by

Accused Nos.1 to 3, he arrested Accused Nos.4 and 5 and drafted another panchanama as in Ex.P.4. Before going to scene of offence, he gave common notice to mediators as in Ex.P.5 and obtained search warrant from SDPO, Nuzvidu as in Ex.P.6. He issued notice to accused

No.1 under Section 50 of NDPS Act as in Ex.P.7 and he accepted for search. During the course of investigation, he visited scene of offence, 11

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl. SC. No.01/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 28.03.2025 prepared rough sketch as in Ex.P.10.

19. P.W.4 gave evidence that he took CD from P.W.1 and also received report from Excise Laboratory, Kakinada as in Ex.P.16.

L.W.13/M.V.V.S.N.Murthy got conducted inventory on 11.02.2022 and received inventory certificates as in Ex.P.17. He got destroyed the remaining ganja and after completion of investigation, L.W.,13 filed charge sheet against accused persons.

20. It is the case of prosecution that on receipt of information about sale of several Tobacco products and contraband ganja, PWs.1 and 3 along with mediators who are P.W.2 and LW.7 and his staff members went to scene of offence and found some tobacco products and ganja in an auto of Accused Nos.1 to 3, then basing on the confessional statement of the accused, they also went to the house of

Accused No.1 and found some other tobacco products, and then basing on the confession given by Accused Nos.1 to 3, PW.3 arrested Accused

Nos.4 to 6 and they confessed that they purchased tobacco products from Accused No.1. Then, P.W.3 seized several tobacco products from

Accused Nos.2 and 3 and 2 kgs of ganja from Accused No.1 and to that effect a mediators’ report as in Ex.P1 was prepared and then, he seized the said items got weighted ganja, took sample of ganja and got prepared another mediators’ report as in Ex.P3.

12

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl. SC. No.01/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 28.03.2025

21. In total, PW.3 prepared three mediators’ reports at three different places as search was conducted and contraband ganja was seized from the possession of the accused No.1.

22. Perusal of the mediators’ report dated 19.06.2019 drafted at 03.00 p.m., as in Ex.P1 and the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it appears that on receipt of reliable information with regard to transportation of gutka/khainee and ganja, PW.3 along with P.Ws.1 and 2 and his staff members went to the scene of offence, situated at Rajiv Circle, Nuzvidu

Town, found Accused Nos.1 to 3 in possession of tobacco products and ganja in an Auto, got weighed the same, found it to be in the weight of kg.2.00 grams, seized said contraband and auto in the presence of mediators.

23. At the time of search and seizure at three different places,

PW.2 and LW.7/VRO said to have acted as mediators. Pws.1 to 3 deposed that Rajiv Circle of Nuzvidu Town Area was a busy area and there is a Government Guest House at that place, but PW.3 did not try to secure any one to act as an independent mediator for the search and seizure of contraband ganja and thus, the evidence of PW.3 is doubtful and further as no independent mediator was secured at the scene of offence, the prosecution failed to comply with Section 100 (4) of Code of 13

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl. SC. No.01/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 28.03.2025

Criminal Procedure, 1973.

24. The evidence on record shows that search and seizure of ganja took place on 19.06.2019, but the inventory proceedings got certified through the learned Magistrate concerned on 11.02.2022 and the learned Magistrate conducted inventory and issued inventory certificates as in Ex.P17 and then PW.3 sent the sample to Laboratory,

Kakinada under his letter of advice as in Ex.P12. No evidence is adduced by the prosecution that during the said period of more than two years, ganja was kept in safe custody and therefore, a doubt arises in the mind of the Court whether the ganja that was allegedly seized from the accused No.1 was placed before the learned Magistrate to conduct inventory proceedings.

25. As per Section 52-A of NDPS Act, 1985, the Officer in- charge of the Police Station shall prepare an inventory and get it certified through the Magistrate as soon as possible, but in this case it is clear that PW.3 did not comply with Section 52A of NDPS Act soon after registration of the FIR and one year thereafter, PW.3 got certified the correctness of the inventory, which is against to the object and procedure under Section 52A of NDPS Act. In a case of Union of

India Vs. Mohanlal and another, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 379, 14

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl. SC. No.01/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 28.03.2025

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, inter alia, held that the scheme of the

Act in general and Section 52A in particular, does not brook any delay in the matter of making of an application or the drawing of samples and certification.What is reasonable time depends on the facts and circumstances of each case? However, as seen from the Standing

Order 1/88, it is desirable that the application under 52A should be made within 72 hours or near about the said time frame. But in this case, the sample was sent to the Laboratory with inordinate delay.

Therefore, the inventory being conducted by PW.5, taking sample and sending the same for analysis are not strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under law and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

26. Perusal of the record goes to show that except the confessional statement, allegedly made by Accused Nos.1 to 3, there is no evidence on record to show that Accused Nos.4 to 6 purchased the said contraband from Accused No.1. Nothing was seized from Accused

No.4 to 6. There is no material on record to say that Accused No.1 sold away the tobacco products to Accused Nos.4 to 6. In this connection, the confession of Accused No.1 is hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act, 1872.

15

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl. SC. No.01/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 28.03.2025

27. PW.2 while giving evidence did not identify Accused Nos.1 to 3 among accused Nos.1 to 6, who stood in court hall. Further, P.W.2 did not identify Accused Nos.4 to 6 from Accused Nos.1 to 6. Therefore, the said evidence of P.W.2 is fatal to the case of prosecution.

28. Further, who prepared the said mediators’ reports under

Exs.P1 and P2 is also a doubtful circumstance in this case? According to the evidence available on record, PW.1, who was present at the time of search and seizure and L.W.7 drafted said mediators’ reports as in

Ex.P.1, but he could not depose that where Ex.P.1 print out was taken.

This piece of evidence is not a believable one, because it is not possible to take a print out from the police jeep even though a printer is available in it, because it is known to everyone that to take a print out, electrical power is necessary and hence, who typed the mediators’ reports as in

Ex.P1 is a doubtful circumstance and it lends support to the defence of the accused that PW.1 was not present at the time of alleged search and seizure and Ex.P1 reports were typed in the police station.

29. No evidence has been placed to establish that the accused indulged in advertisement of the said tobacco products, that they purchased the same and transported the same for the purpose of sale and further, there are irregularities in the process of seizure of the 16

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl. SC. No.01/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 28.03.2025

Tobacco products and hence, no evidence is available on record to prove the charge under Section 5(3), punishable under Section 22 of

Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (prohibition of advertisement and regulation of trade and commerce, production, supply and distribution), 2003.

30. Sample of ganja and tobacco products were marked as

MO.1, instead of MOs.1 and 2, by mistake.

31. For the aforementioned reasons, the case of the prosecution is highly doubtful and hence, Accused Nos.1 to 6 are entitled to get benefit of doubt and consequently, they are liable to be acquitted for the offences under Section 5 r/w Section 22 of Cigarettes and other

Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003; and

Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985.

32. Accordingly, the above points are answered.

POINT No.3:

33. In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 6 are found not guilty of the offences under Section 5 r/w Section 22 of Cigarettes and other

Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003; and 17

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl. SC. No.01/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 28.03.2025

Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, of the said offences.

Unmarked Case Property i.e., Auto bearing No. AP 16 TS 0705 and Car bearing No.AP 16DQ 3997 as in Exs.P.8 and P.9 respectively, which were already given to respective registered owners under interim custody, shall be made absolute and M.O.1/sample of ganja shall be destroyed by the Drug Disposal Committee and MO.1/Tobacco Products from Serial Numbers 4 to 25, as mentioned in Form-60/Ex.P.15, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.I of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 28th day of March, 2025.

Sd/- Chinnamsetty Raju,

I Addl. Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES, EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1:Ch.Ranjith Kumar.

P.W.2:Kalla Kiran Kumar.

P.W.3:M.Geetha Rama Krishna.

P.W.4:P.Rama Chandra Rao.

FOR DEFENCE: - N O N E- .

18

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl. SC. No.01/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 28.03.2025

DOCUMENTS, MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1/dt.19.06.2019:Mediators’ report.

Ex.P2/dt.19.06.2019:FIR in Crime No.193/2019 of Nuzvidu Town P.S.

Ex.P3/dt.19.06.2019:Mediators’ Report.

Ex.P4/dt.30.06.2019:Mediators’ Report.

Ex.P5/dt.--:Summons issued to Mediators.

Ex.P6/dt.19.06.2019:Search Warrant.

Ex.P7/dt.--:Notice to Accused No.1 under Sec.50 of NDPS Act.

Ex.P8/dt.:Photo of seized Car.

Ex.P9/dt.--:Photo of seized auto.

Ex.P10/dt.--:Rough Sketch of scene of offence under Ex.P.1

Ex.P11/dt.--:Rough Sketch of scene of offence under Ex.P.3

Ex.P12/dt.30.06.2019:Letter of advice.

Ex.P13/dt.--:Requisition to SDPO, Nuzvidu.

Ex.P14/dt--:Covering letter of SDPO, Nuzvidu to Chemical Examiner, Kakinada. Ex.P15/dt--:Form – 60, which shows Tobacco products.

Ex.P16/dt.26.09.2019:Chemical Analysis Report.

Ex.P17/dt.11.02.2022:Inventory Certificates.

Ex.P18/dt.14.12.2022:Destruction Proceedings.

FOR DEFENCE:NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS, MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

M.O.1:Sample of Ganja.

M.O.1:Tobacco Products from Serial Nos.4 to 25 as mentioned in Form-60.

19

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl. SC. No.01/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 28.03.2025

FOR DEFENCE: - N I L –

Sd/- Chinnamsetty Raju,

I A.S.J., MTM.

20

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl. SC. No.01/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 28.03.2025

TABULAR FORM TO BE APPENDED TO THE FAIR COPY OF THE

JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 71 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE IN SPECIAL SESSIONS CASE NO.01/2023 ON THE

FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, KRISHNA,

MACHILIPATNAM

1.Sessions Case No.:Spl. SC No.01/2023

2.Complainant:The State, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Nuzvidu Circle.

3.Description of the :7. Chinni Srinivasa Rao @ Vasu, accusedS/o.Purna Chandra Rao, Aged 35 years, Mulagalapativarigudem, Vissannapet Mandal

8. Dosapati Nagendra Rao, S/o. Sundara Rao Aged 49 years, R/o. Vissannapeta, Krishna District.

9. Nerella Lakshmana Rao, S/o. Appa Rao, Aged 30 years, R/o. Gampalagudem Village, Krishna District.

10. Dosapati Ramu, S/o. Venkata Mutyam, Aged 32 years, R/o.Sattupalli Road, Vissannapeta.

11. Pasumarti Naveen Kumar, S/o. Satyanarayana, Aged 33 years, R/o.Sattupalli, Khammam District.

12. Nakka Veera Raju, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, Aged 43 years, R/o.Bapuji Nagar, Nuzvidu.

4.Date of occurrence:19.06.2019.

5.Date of complaint:19.06.2019.

6.Date of apprehension :A.1 to A.3-19.06.2019. A.4 to A.6-30.06.2019.

7.Date of Committal Order:---- 21

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl. SC. No.01/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 28.03.2025

8.Date of Commencement :29.10.2024. of Trial

9.Date of closure of Trial:19.03.2025.

10.Date of Sentence or :28.03.2025. Order

11.Charges:Under Section 5 r/w Section 22 of Cigarettes and other Tobacco products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regular of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003; and Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985.

RESULT:

In the result, Accused Nos.1 to 6 are found not guilty of the offences under Section 5 r/w Section 22 of Cigarettes and other

Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003; and

Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, of the said offences.

Unmarked Case Property i.e., Auto bearing No. AP 16 TS 0705 and Car bearing No.AP 16DQ 3997 as in Exs.P.8 and P.9 respectively, which were already given to respective registered owners under interim custody, shall be made absolute and M.O.1/sample of ganja shall be destroyed by the Drug Disposal Committee and MO.1/Tobacco Products from Serial Numbers 4 to 25, as mentioned in Form-60/Ex.P.15, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

22

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl. SC. No.01/2023 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 28.03.2025

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY:

This Special Sessions case was numbered as

Spl.S.C.No.01/2023. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them. On 21.09.2023, Accused Nos.1 to 6 were examined under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., for the above said charges.

Trial schedule was issued finally on 24.09.2024. Trial Commenced in this case on 29.10.2024. In this case, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and

Exs.P1 to P18 and Mos.1 and 2 were marked. Prosecution evidence was closed on 19.03.2025. On 20.03.2025, Accused Nos.1 to 6 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Heard arguments on 20.03.2025 and Judgment pronounced on 28.03.2025. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Chinnamsetty Raju,

I Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Submitted to: The Hon'ble Registrar (Judl.) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi through the

Hon'ble Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF NDPS ACT CASES: KRISHNA,

MACHILIPATNAM

Present:- Sri Chinnamsetty Raju, I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-

Special Judge for trial of NDPS Act Cases

Thursday, this the 3rd day of April, 2025

Special Sessions Case No.27/2022

Name of the Complainant:The State, Represented by Inspector of Police, Inaguduru Police Station.

Names of the Accused :Bommidi Mohana Ranga @ Ranga, S/o (late) Tataiah, 21 years, D.No.19/21, Circarthota, Chilakalapudi, Back side of Nancharamma Goddess Temple, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

Nature of Offence:Under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 against Accused Nos.1 to 4 .

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty

Sentence or order:

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty of the offence under Section 8(c), punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, of the said offence. M.O.1/ganja packet shall be destroyed by the Drug Disposal Committee, after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution Conducted by:Sri S.Chinna Rao, Addl. Public Prosecutor, I Addl. Sessions Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

2

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.27/2022 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 03.04.2025

Name of the Defence :Sri G.V.Ramana, CounselsAdvocate for the Accused, Machilipatnam.

This case came on 02.04.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Chinna Rao, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri G.V.Ramana, Advocate for the Accused, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a Special Sessions Case, filed by the Inspector of Police,

Inaguduru Police Station in Crime No.277/2021 of said Police Station against sole Accused, alleging that he committed an offence under

Section 8(c), punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985.

2. This Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985; numbered the case as Special

Sessions Case No.27/2022 and summons were issued to the Accused,

who made an appearance before this Court. After furnishing copies of the material papers to the Accused u/s 208 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, a charge under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 was framed against him, explained the contents of the charge to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed that the case to be tried.

3. This Court conducted trial against the Accused herein and 3

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.27/2022 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 03.04.2025 in trial three witnesses were examined from P.Ws.1 to 3; 9 documents were marked from Exs.P1 to P9 and MO.1 was marked, on behalf of the prosecution.

4. The Accused was examined under Section 313 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 and he denied the evidence on record.

5. Accused herein did not adduce any evidence.

6. P.W.1 was the Village Revenue Officer of Block-I,

Machilipatnam, who acted as one of the mediators along with

L.W.7/Mohammed Abdul Azeez, for the search and seizure of ganja from the possession of the accused.

7. P.W.2 was the Tahsildar of Machilipatnam Mandal, who was a Gazetted Officer and he found ganja with the accused and got weighed the same in the presence of the mediators.

8. PW.3 was the Inspector of Police of Inaguduru P.S., who conducted search and seizure of ganja from the accused, in the presence of the mediators and a Gazetted Officer, got recorded a panchanama, registered FIR and sent the samples of ganja to the

Chemical Laboratory for analysis and the investigation conducted by him in this case.

9. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

4

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.27/2022 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 03.04.2025

a) On 17.11.2021 prior to 9.00 a.m., P.W.3 received reliable information and then he secured the presence of mediators i.e., P.W.1, L.W.7/Mohammed Abdul Azeez and along with his staff members rushed to the scene of offence, situated near a closed buddy shop, back side of National College,

Current Colony, Machilipatnam, found the accused, caught him when he tried to skulk away, seized 1.2 kg., of ganja and Gold

Haram, which was the stolen property in Cr.No.157/2021 of

Inaguduru PS, produced him before P.W.2, who was a Gazetted

Officer, for personal search, who questioned the accused, weighed the ganja packet, found it in the weight of kg.1.200 grams, lifted 100 grams of ganja towards sample for chemical analysis and arrested the accused, in the presence of the mediators’ report, under the cover of a mediators’ report.

b) P.W.3 registered the said Mediators’ report as FIR in

Cr.No.277/2021 u/s 8 (c) r/w 20 (b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, submitted

FIR to all concerned and took-up investigation, examined the witnesses, recorded their separate statements u/s 161 (3) of

Cr.P.C., prepared rough sketch, arrested the accused and sent him for judicial remand, forwarded the sample of ganja to

Chemical Examiner, Kakinada for analysis, who issued a report opining that the sample was ganja, got conducted inventory of 5

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.27/2022 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 03.04.2025 the seized ganja through the L.W.9/Smt.V.Devi Sai Sreevani, II

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Machilipatnam and then

L.W.12/A.Uma Maheswara Rao, Inspector of Police, Inaguduru

P.S., received inventory report and filed charge sheet in this case. Hence, the charge sheet.

10. Case of the Accused is one of total denial. He contended that he did not commit any offence, nothing was seized from his possession and this case was foisted against him.

11. Heard both sides on 02.04.2025.

12. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence on record established that the accused committed the offence as mentioned supra and hence, he is liable to be convicted.

13. Advocate for the Accused submitted that no ganja was seized from the possession of the accused herein in the presence of

P.Ws.1, 2 and another mediator and nothing was happened in their presence, signatures of the mediators and Gazetted Officer were obtained on Exs.P1 and P2 respectively, this case was foisted against the accused for statistical purpose and therefore, the accused is entitled to get acquittal.

14. Now, the following points will arise for consideration of this

Court:

6

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.27/2022 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 03.04.2025

1. Whether on 17.11.2021 at about 9.00 a.m., back side of

National College, Current Colony, Machilipatnam, the

Accused was found in possession of 1200 grams of ganja, which an offence u/s 8 (c) punishable u/s 20

(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985?

2. Whether the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts?

3. To what point?

POINT Nos.1 & 2:

15. PW1 gave evidence that on 17.11.2021 at about 9.00 a.m., behind National College, on road, Current Colony, at Electricity Pole

No.32/56 towards S.N.Gollapalem Village road, in his presence and in the presence of L.W.7/Mohammad Abdul Azeez of Inaguduru,

Machilipatnam, P.W.3 and his staff members caught the accused, found ganja in a polythene cover in possession of the accused and then one of the Head Constables typed panchanama and print-out of the same was taken as in Ex.P1, in which all of them, including the accused signed. He further gave evidence that then they took the accused and ganja to the office of P.W.2, who got weighed the ganja, found it in the weight of kg.1.200 grams, lifted sample of 100 grams, packed the sample and remaining ganja, sealed and then one of the Head

Constables typed a panchanama as in Ex.P2, print-out of the same was taken, in which all of them, including the accused signed and M.O.1 is 7

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.27/2022 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 03.04.2025 ganja of kg.1.100 grams. Witness identified the Accused.

16. PW.2 gave evidence that on 17.11.2021 at about 10.15 a.m., P.W.3 produced the accused and contraband/ganja seized from the accused before him, in the presence of P.W.1 and L.W.7, he got weighed the ganja, found it in the weight of kg.1.200 grams, in his presence P.W.3 lifted sample of 100 grams, sealed the sample and remaining ganja as in M.O.1, affixed panch slips containing their signatures and one of the Constables typed panchanama as in Ex.P2, in which all of them, including the accused signed. Witness identified the Accused.

17. PW.3 gave evidence that on 17.11.2021 at 9.00 a.m., in

Current Colony, behind National College road, Electrical Pole No.32/56,

Rajupet at S.N.Gollapalem road, Machilipatnam, in the presence of

P.W.1 and L.W.7, with the assistance of his staff, he caught the accused in possession of a carry bag with ganja, seized ganja of kg.1.200 grams from his possession and a Gold Haram relating to a property offence, got typed a panchanama as in Ex.P1 through one of his Constables and print-out of the same was taken, in which all of them and the accused signed. He further gave evidence that on the same date at about 10.15 a.m., he produced the accused and contraband before P.W.2, who verified the same, found it as ganja, got weighed the same, separated 8

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.27/2022 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 03.04.2025 sample for analysis, remaining ganja and sample of ganja were sealed, panch slips were affixed, in which all of them signed, then he got drafted another panchanama as in Ex.P2, in which also all of them signed, he registered Ex.P2 as FIR in Cr.No.272/2021, issued printed FIR as in

Ex.P3, submitted Exs.P2 and P3 to the learned Magistrate concerned and copies to all concerned, examined the witnesses and recorded their separate statements u/s 161 of Cr.P.C., visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the same as in Ex.P4, forwarded the sample of ganja to the Laboratory, Kakinada for analysis under Ex.P5 covering letter, Ex.P6 letter of advice and covering letter of SDPO, Machilipatnam as in Ex.P7, got conducted inventory through II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Machilipatnam and then his successor received the inventory certificates as in Ex.P8 and report from Laboratory as in Ex.P9, which shows that sample was ganja, he identified the remaining ganja as in

M.O.1 and then his successor filed charge-sheet in this case. Witness identified the accused.

18. In the present case on hand, the contents of the mediators’ reports as in Exs.P1 and P2 go to show that on 17.11.2021 at 9.00 a.m., at the scene of offence, situated in Current Colony, behind National

College road, near Electrical Pole No.32/56, Rajupet, S.N.Gollapalem

Road, P.W.3, in the presence of the mediators/P.W.1 and 9

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.27/2022 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 03.04.2025

L.W.7/Mohammad Abdul Azeez, found the accused in possession of a polythene bag, caught him when he tried to skulk away from the said place, found ganja and seized the same, in the presence of the mediators, under the cover of a panchanama as in Ex.P1 and then on the option chosen by the accused, he was produced before P.W.2 at 10.15 a.m., who identified the seized contraband as ganja, got weighed the same through an appraiser, found it in the weight of 1200 grams, lifted 100 grams of sample for chemical analysis and sealed the sample and remaining ganja packet as in M.O.1, affixed panch slips containing their signatures and then another panchanama as in Ex.P2 was got drafted and then basing on the said mediators’ reports, P.W.3 registered

FIR under Ex.P3, forwarded the sample to the Chemical Laboratory,

Kakinada through the SDPO, Machilipatnam under the cover of Exs.P5 to P7, got conducted inventory of seized ganja through the learned

Magistrate concerned and then the successor of P.W.3 obtained

inventory certificates as in Ex.P8, received analysis report, which shows that the sample was ganja and then he filed charge-sheet against the accused herein.

19. Perusal of the document under Ex.P1 goes to show that at the time of search and seizure, P.W.3 said to have given option to the accused for personal search either by P.W.3 or by any other Gazetted 10

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.27/2022 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 03.04.2025

Officer and on the option chosen by the accused, he was produced

before P.W.2, who identified the contraband as ganja, got weighed the

ganja through an appraiser, found it as 1200 grams, lifted 100 grams of ganja for chemical analysis, sealed the sample and remaining ganja packet and then another mediators’ report as in Ex.P2 was got drafted.

In this case there was personal search of the accused, under which gold ornaments in connection with a property crime was seized from the possession of the accused. Though, in Ex.P1 it was mentioned that

P.W.3 gave option of personal search by either P.W.2 or by any other

Gazetted Officer, no notice u/s 50 of NDPS Act was given to the accused and P.Ws.1 to 3 in their evidence did not depose about giving of such option for personal search to the accused. P.Ws.1 to 3 in their evidence deposed that in the presence of P.W.1 and L.W.7 P.W.2 got weighed the ganja and it was in the weight of kg.1.200 grams and 100 grams of ganja was lifted towards sample for the purpose of cnalysis.

The evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the panchanama as in

Ex.P1 disclose that before going to P.W.2 already seizure of ganja from the possession of the accused taken place and P.W.2 without knowing about the consent of the accused for personal search by himself and without conducting search, noticed the seized contraband as ganja and got weighed the same, which is not sufficient as required under Section 50 of the Act. Therefore the prosecution failed to establish that the 11

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.27/2022 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 03.04.2025 investigation officer has complied with the mandatory provision under

Section 50 of NDPS Act.

20. The scene of offence, which is situated near Electrical Pole

No.32/56, Current Colony, behind National College, S.N.Gollapalem

Road, Rajupet, is a public place and thus, the proceedings of search and seizure come the purview of under Section 43 of NDPS Act. The material on record does not disclose that P.W.3 forwarded the information received with regard to the illegal possession or sale of ganja by the accused or about the search and seizure of ganja from the possession of the Accused to his immediate superior officer after completion of search proceedings. However, as stated supra, since the provisions of Section 43 of the Act come into operation in the present case on hand, there was no need to comply with the mandatory provision under Section 42 of the Act. Therefore, non-compliance of the mandatory provision under Section 42 (2) of NDPS Act is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.

21. As per Section 52-A of NDPS Act, 1985, the Officer in- charge of the Police Station shall prepare an inventory and get it certified through the Magistrate soon after the seizure, but in this case it is clear that P.W.3 did not comply with Section 52-A of NDPS Act soon after seizure of the ganja. P.W.3 conducted search and seized 12

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.27/2022 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 03.04.2025 ganja from the Accused on 17.11.2021. As seen from the Inventory

Certificates as in Ex.P8, the date of filing of the requisition/application u/s 52-A of the Act by P.W.3 was not noted and the prosecution also failed to file any copy of such requisition/application to establish that soon after seizure he took steps to conduct inventory proceedings, however, the inventory certificates show that it was conducted on 05.11.2022 by the learned Magistrate concerned. What is reasonable time to conduct inventory depends on the facts and circumstances of each case? As per the Notification issued by the Ministry of Finance, dt.23.12.2022, under clause (8) the Officer concerned shall apply to the

Magistrate u/s 52-A (2) of the Act at the earliest. If there was any

delay, the same has to be explained by the prosecution. As states supra, since the said delay was not explained, there was delay of nearly one year in conducting the inventory proceedings, which is against to the object and procedure laid down under Section 52A of NDPS Act.

Further, the material on record discloses that sample of 100 grams of ganja was lifted at the time of search and seizure, before P.W.2, in the presence of the mediators. NDPS Act does not provide such a procedure and as per Section 52-A of the Act, sample should be drawn in the presence of the Magistrate concerned during the process of inventory. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish that P.W.3 got conducted inventory proceedings without any delay and it is fatal to the 13

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.27/2022 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 03.04.2025 case of the prosecution.

22. As stated supra, search and seizure took place in this case on 17.11.2021 and inventory was conducted on 05.11.2022, but no evidence is produced by the prosecution to say that where the seized ganja and sample were kept during the said period. No Malkhana

Register was produced before this Court to say that the ganja was kept in the safe custody of concerned police station during the intervening period by mentioning the same in the relevant Register under the control of a responsible police officer. In the absence of the said evidence, there is a doubt in the mind of the Court that whether the very same property that was allegedly seized from the accused, was produced before the learned Magistrate to conduct inventory proceedings and whether the same sample that was lifted at the time of search and seizure was forwarded to the Laboratory for analysis. In

Mohammed Khalid and another v. State of Telangana, reported in

2024 (1) ALT (Crl.) 366 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed that the glaring loopholes in the prosecution case give rise to an inescapable inference that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the required link evidence to satisfy the Court regarding safe custody of the sample packets from the time of seizure till the same reached the FSL.

14

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.27/2022 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 03.04.2025

23. For the aforementioned reasons, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts and hence, the Accused is entitled to get benefit of doubt and consequently, he is liable to be acquitted for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985, in the interest of justice.

24. Accordingly, the above points are answered.

POINT No.3:

25. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty of the offence under Section 8(c), punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, of the said offence. M.O.1/ganja packet shall be destroyed by the Drug Disposal Committee, after expiry of appeal time. Since the accused is produced from Spl. Sub-Jail,

Machilipatnam, he is set at liberty, if he is not required in any other case.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.I of this Court, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 3rd day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Chinnamsetty Raju,

I Addl. Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES, EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1:D.Divya Srilakshmi. P.W.2:D.Sunil Babu. P.W.3:L.Ramesh.

15

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.27/2022 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 03.04.2025

FOR DEFENCE: - N O N E-

DOCUMENTS, MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1/dt.17.11.2021:Panchanama drafted at 9.00 a.m. Ex.P2/dt.17.11.2021:Panchanama drafted at 10.15 a.m. Ex.P3/dt.17.11.2021:Printed FIR in Cr.No.277/2021 of Inaguduru PS. Ex.P4/dt.---:Rough sketch. Ex.P5/dt.---:Covering letter of P.W.3. Ex.P6/dt.---:Letter of advice. Ex.P7/dt.19.11.2021:Covering letter of SDPO, Machilipatnam. Ex.P8/dt.05.11.2022:Inventory Certificates. Ex.P9/dt.20.11.2021:Panchanama.

FOR DEFENCE:NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS, MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

M.O.1:Ganja packet.

FOR DEFENCE: - N I L –

Sd/- Chinnamsetty Raju,

I-A.S.J., MTM.

16

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.27/2022 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 03.04.2025

TABULAR FORM TO BE APPENDED TO THE FAIR COPY OF THE

JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 71 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE IN SPECIAL SESSIONS CASE NO.27/2022 ON THE

FILE OF I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, KRISHNA,

MACHILIPATNAM.

1.Sessions Case No.:Spl. SC No.27/2022

2.Complainant:The State, Represented by Inspector of Police, Inaguduru Police Station.

3.Description of the :Bommidi Mohana Ranga @ accusedRanga, S/o (late) Tataiah, 21 years, D.No.19/21, Circarthota, Chilakalapudi, Back side of Nancharamma Goddess Temple, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

4.Date of occurrence:17.11.2021.

5.Date of complaint:17.11.2021.

6.Date of apprehension :17.11.2021.

7.Date of Committal Order:----

8.Date of Commencement :03.03.2025. of Trial

9.Date of closure of Trial:01.04.2025.

10.Date of Sentence or :03.04.2025. Order

11.Charges:Under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 against Accused Nos.1 to 4 .

RESULT:

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty of the offence under

Section 8(c), punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Code of 17

I Addl. Sessions Court, Spl.SC.No.27/2022 Krishna, Machilipatnam Dated 03.04.2025

Criminal Procedure, 1973, of the said offence. M.O.1/ganja packet shall be destroyed by the Drug Disposal Committee, after expiry of appeal time.

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY:

This Special Sessions case was numbered as

Spl.S.C.No.27/2022. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him. On 28.07.2023, Accused was examined under

Section 228 of Cr.P.C., for the above said charges. Trial schedule was issued finally on 17.02.2025. Trial Commenced in this case on 03.03.2025. In this case, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 and MO.1 were marked. Prosecution evidence was closed on 01.04.2025. On 02.04.2025, Accused was examined under Section 313

Cr.P.C. Heard arguments on 02.04.2025 and Judgment pronounced on 03.04.2025. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Chinnamsetty Raju,

I Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Submitted to: The Hon'ble Registrar (Judl.) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi through the

Hon'ble Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

1

IN THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KRISHNA,

MACHILIPATNAM.

(IX ADDL.DISTRICT (FTC) COURT, KRISHNA,

MACHILIPATNAM.)

PRESENT: Sri CHINNAMSETTY RAJU,

CHAIRMAN-M.A.C.TRIBUNAL, KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM.

(IX ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, (FTC), KRISHNA,

MACHILIPATNAM.)

SATURDAY, THIS THE 27th DAY OF AUGUST, 2016.

M.V.O.P.No.464/2008.

Between:

1.Gunturu Nirmala, W/o. Late Sundara Rao, Hindu, aged about 35 years, Housewife, R/o. Ganjavanipalem, H/o. Mopidevi village and Mandal, Krishna District.

2.Gunturu Veeranjaneyulu, S/o. Late Sundara Rao, Hindu, aged about 19 years, Student, R/o. Ganjavanipalem, H/o. Mopidevi village and Mandal, Krishna District. :: Petitioners

And

1.Veeramachineni Venkata Rambabu, S/o. Late Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged about 30 years, Drier of Vehicle No.AP 16 AS 3151, R/o. Bhushanagallu, Podaparupudi Mandal, Krishna District.

2.Gamini Chitti Babu, S/o. Gandhi, Hindu, aged about 40 years, Owner of Vehicle No.AP 16 AS 3151, R/o. Podaparupudi (v), Podaparupudi Mandal, Krishna District.

3.The United India Insurance Company Ltd., rep., by it's Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Vijayawada. :: Respondents.

This M.V.O.P., is coming for final hearing before me on 12.07.2016 in the presence of Sri S.Balaji Rao, Advocate for petitioner and Sri M.V.Narasimha Rao, Advocate for 1st respondent, Sri K.Siva Prasad, Advocate for 2nd respondent and Sri V.S.Ram, Advocate for 3rd respondent, upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

:: ORDER::

This is a claim application, filed by one Gunturu

Nirmala and one Gunturu Veeranjaneyulu (mother and son) under

Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P.

Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, claiming compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- 2 due to death of one Gunturu Sundara Rao, who is the husband of said Nirmala and father of said Veeranjaneyulu in motor vehicle accident.

2.Petitioners herein, under various heads, claimed compensation as follows.

a) Transport to hospital..Rs. 5,000-00

b) Funeral expenses..Rs. 10,000-00

c) Medical treatment during life time of said Sundara Rao..Rs. 35,000-00

d) Pain, suffering, mental agony and loss in earnings..Rs.1,50,000-00 ….....................

Total:Rs.2,00,000-00 ….....................

3.Petitioners, in brief, pleaded as follows:

(a) On 02.06.2008, said Sundara Rao left his village i.e.,

Ganjavanipalem, hamlet of Mopidevi village in Mopidevi Mandal of

Krishna District along with other coolies, to attend agricultural work in Repalle. He was waiting for vehicle near Penumudi bridge. 1st respondent, at that time came by driving a Tractor and Trailor bearing No.AP 16 AS 3151 and AP 16 AS 3152 respectively. He stopped the same and stated that he was carrying agricultural instruments in said Trailor and that he wanted some coolies to lift and down the same to the earth in Ravinantapuram village. 1st respondent requested said Sundara Rao and other coolies to do so by offering Rs.50/-. Accordingly, said Sundara Rao and other coolies agreed and boarded the said Trailor.

(b) Around 7.30 a.m., 1st respondent started from

Penumudi bridge and when he reached near Ravinantapuram village, 3 he drove the said Tractor and Trailor, in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of which, Trailor has fallen on the road side. Said

Sundara Rao and other coolies have fallen on the ground.

Agricultural instruments in the Trailor have fallen on them. Said

Sundara Rao and other coolies, received grievous injuries. Sundara

Rao was shifted to Government Hospital, where his statement was recorded by Police on the same day i.e., 02.06.2008.

(c) 1st Respondent accompanied said Sundara Rao and requested him, not to mention a fact that he (1st respondent) engaged him and other coolies and therefore, said Sundara Rao did not mention the same in his statement, that was given to Police.

Police registered the statement of said Sundara Rao under sec.337 of IPC. Said Sundara Rao was referred to Government Hospital,

Guntur and he took treatment till 27.06.2008 in Government

Hospital, Guntur. Said Sundara Rao sustained a fracture to Tibia and

Fibula to his left leg. Even after he was discharged from the hospital, he took treatment from local doctors at Mopidevi. Continuously fuss and blood was oozed out from the said injury and with the same injury, he died on 01.10.2008. Petitioners having not aware of the consequences, they burnt the dead body of Sundara Rao as per their custom. They reported the matter to Police, but Police expressed their inability to alter section of law.

(d) Said Sundara Rao was the only bread-winner of his family. He used to earn Rs.150/- per day and in total he earned

Rs.4,500/- per month.

(e) 1st respondent got driving licence bearing No.DLRAP 11612252008, issued by Additional Licencing Authority, Gudivada.

2nd respondent was the owner of said vehicle and he insured the 4 same with 3rdrespondent under a policy bearing

No.151003/31/08/01/00000101. The said policy was issued on 21.04.2008 and it was valid up-to 20.04.2009.

(f) Petitioners depended upon said Sundara Rao.

(g) Thus, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioners. Hence, the claim application.

4.1st respondent filed a counter by pleading, in brief, as follows:

(a) He does not know that the deceased was waiting near Penumudi bridge for vehicle to go to coolie works in Repalle.

(b) 1st respondent never drove the said Tractor in a rash and negligent manner. 2nd respondent took all necessary steps for the treatment of the injured persons immediately after occurrence of accident.

(c) 1st respondent does not know that said Sundara Rao died on 01.10.2008, due to injuries sustained by him in said accident.

(d) Accident was occurred not due to either rashness or negligence of the 1st respondent. Accident was occurred due to sudden shouting made by a person from the Trailor and in confusion, 1st respondent applied breaks and due to skid and jerk of the implements. Said accident was occurred due to 'Vis Major' even though 1st respondent took utmost care.

(e) 1st respondent, therefore, prayed this Tribunal to dismiss the petition with costs in the interest of justice.

5.2nd respondent filed a counter. Averments of the counters of 1st respondent and 2nd respondent are almost one and the same.

5

6.3rd respondent filed a counter by pleading that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the deceased and therefore, 3rd respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 3rd respondent also pleaded that the claim made by petitioners, is highly excessive and they are not entitled to claim

Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and that by pleading as such the 3rd respondent prayed this Tribunal, to dismiss the petition with costs.

7.On the basis of above pleadings, this Tribunal framed the following issues for trial.

1. Whether Guntur Sundara Rao died due to driving of the Tractor-Trailor No.AP 16 AS 3151 in the motor accident

dated 2.6.2008?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any amount of compensation, if so to what from whom?

3. To what relief?

8.In trial, 1st petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and she got marked documents under Exs.A.1 to A.11. One Gadde Venkateswara

Rao was examined as P.W.2. Dr.G.V.Reddy of Manipal Hospital,

Vijayawada, was examined as P.W.3. 2nd respondent was examined as R.W.1.

9.Heard both sides on 12.07.2016. Advocates on record reiterated the averments of petition, counters and evidence on record during the course of arguments.

Issue Nos.1 and 2:

10.Document under Ex.A.1 is an attested copy of FIR, dated 02.06.2008 in Cr.No.59/2008 of Repalle P.S. It was lodged by said

Sundara Rao i.e., deceased. He alleged that the driver of a Tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused 6 accident, in which, he sustained injuries.

11.Document under Ex.A.2 is an attested copy of charge- sheet in said Cr.No.59/2008 of Repalle P.S. In that charge-sheet, it was alleged that 1st respondent committed offences under secs.337 and 338 of IPC and that he was the driver of said Tractor and Trailor at the time of occurrence of accident.

12.Document under Ex.A.3 is an attested copy of wound certificate. It shows that said Sundara Rao sustained a fracture of

Tibia and Fibula to his left leg and other injuries.

13.Document under Ex.A.4 is a death certificate, dated 23.10.2008. It shows that said Sundara Rao died on 01.10.2008.

Document under Ex.A.5 is an attested copy of driving licence of 1st respondent. It shows that 1st respondent was permitted to drive light motor vehicle and motor cycle with gear (non-transport) and heavy transport vehicle. It further shows that he was permitted to drive non-transport vehicles, up-to 18.03.2017 and transport vehicle up-to 15.03.2011 and that he was issued said driving licence on 21.02.2008. As per section 2(21) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, light motor vehicle means a transport vehicle or omni-bus or tractor etc.

Therefore, it is clear that 1st respondent was having a valid driving licence to drive the said Tractor and Tralor on the date of accident.

14.Documents under Ex.A.6 are attested copies of certificates of registration in form No.23. They show that 2nd respondent was the owner of said Tractor and Trailor at the time of occurrence of accident.

15.Document under Ex.A.7 is an attested copy of Insurance

Policy, which was valid from 21.04.2008 to 20.04.2009. It further shows that 2nd respondent insured said Tractor and Trailor with 3rd 7 respondent and that the said Policy was in force on the date of accident.

16.X-ray films of said Sundara Rao were marked as Ex.A.8.

17.Some medical prescriptions were marked as Ex.A.9.

18.OP receipt, dated 26.09.2008, issued by Manipal

Hospital, Vijayawada, which is in the name of said Sundara Rao, was marked as Ex.A.10. History and physical examination of said

Sundara Rao of same hospital, was marked as Ex.A.11.

19.Petitioner as P.W.1, in her affidavit, filed in lieu of her chief-examination, reiterated the averments of claim application. In cross-examination, she deposed, inter-alia, that she does not know how her husband died, her husband died four months after the accident, her husband took treatment in Government Hospital,

Repalle and Government Hospital, Guntur, cremation of dead body of her husband was taken place without informing the same to

Police and that the Post-mortem was not conducted. She further deposed that there was no document to show that her husband was earning Rs.4,000/- per month by doing coolie works.

20.P.W.2 gave evidence that at the time of occurrence of accident, he was travelling in said Trailor along with the deceased and that the 1st respondent engaged them to unload the agricultural instruments by offering Rs.50/- to each of the person and that the 1st respondent drove the said Tractor and Trailor in a rash and negligent manner and that the agricultural instruments have fallen on said Sundara Rao, who received grievous injuries and that he was shifted to hospital in Repalle and later after four months, he came to know that said Sundara Rao died, due to injuries sustained by him in said accident.

8

21.P.W.3-Doctor gave evidence that on 26.09.2008, said

Sundara Rao came to Manipal Hospital, Vijayawada six months after first surgery was done at Government General Hospital, Guntur and he advised him for re-surgery, as the injuries were not healed. He further deposed that he observed that there was no union of Tibia and presence of infection and therefore second surgery was required. He also deposed that he cannot say, whether said Sundara

Rao died due to injuries already sustained by him. He also deposed that after 26.09.2008, said Sundara Rao did not come to said hospital.

22.2nd respondent as R.W.1, in his affidavit, filed in lieu of his chief-examination, reiterated the averments of his counter. In cross-examination, he deposed, inter-alia, that 1st respondent was the driver of the said vehicle at the time of occurrence of accident and that the deceased was engaged for the purpose of taking agricultural implements. He denied that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and that the respondents 1 and 2 violated the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy and that the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay compensation.

23.Documents under Exs.A.1 to A.3, coupled with oral evidence on record, established that said Sundara Rao was engaged by 1st respondent to lift agricultural instruments from said Trailor, that he and other coolies including P.W.2, were travelling in said

Trailor at the time of occurrence of accident, that accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent, that said Sundara Rao sustained injuries including fracture of Tibia and

Fibula to his left leg and that he took treatment in Government hospitals and said Manipal Hospital, Vijayawada.

9

24.Since, the claim application was filed under sec.163-A of

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, issue with regard to rash or negligent driving of 1st respondent, need not be decided and that issue is immaterial. Even otherwise, evidence on record established that 1st respondent drove the said Tractor and Trailor in a rash and negligent manner at the time of occurrence of accident.

25.Evidence on record, established that 1st respondent was having a valid driving licence, to drive the said Tractor and Trailor at the time of occurrence of accident and that the Insurance Policy, relating to said Tractor and Trailor was in force on the date of accident.

26.In this case, there are no violations of terms and conditions of said Insurance Policy.

27.Said Sundara Rao died on 01.10.2008. Accident was occurred on 02.06.2008. Four months after occurrence of accident, he died. In this case, Post-mortem was not conducted. On 26.09.2008, said Sundara Rao went to Manipal Hospital, Vijayawada for treatment. With the evidence of P.W.3, it is clear that on that date, said Sundara Rao required re-surgery, as the injuries were not healed. As per evidence of P.W.3, it is further clear that prior to 26.09.2008, first surgery was conducted in Government General

Hospital, Guntur and four days after 26.09.2008, said Sundara Rao died. Even though, P.W.3 deposed that he cannot say, whether said

Sundara Rao died due to injuries sustained by him, evidence on record, that is the fact of his going to Manipal Hospital, Vijayawada on 26.09.2008, established that said Sundara Rao died on 01.10.2008, due to injuries sustained by him in said road accident.

28.Since, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is a beneficial 10 legislation, Tribunals are not expected to deny the granting of compensation on one reason or the other, that too on flimsy grounds.

29.Since said Sundara Rao sustained injuries in said road accident, 1st respondent drove the said Tractor and Trailor at the time of accident in a rash and negligent manner, that said Sundara

Rao died due to injuries sustained by him in said accident, 1st respondent was having a valid driving licence to drive said Tractor and Trailor on the date of accident and that the Insurance Policy of said Tractor and Trailor was in force on the date of accident are facts borne out by evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to claim just compensation.

30.Petitioners pleaded that the deceased was earning

Rs.4,500/- per month by doing coolie works. They also pleaded that the deceased was aged 40 years on the date of accident. The same was not disputed by respondents.

31.In 2008, a person with an age of 40 years, could able to earn easily Rs.4,500/- per month by doing coolie works. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased can come to Rs.4,500/- X 12 =

Rs.54,000/-. Out of which, 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased is liable to be deducted. Then, the formula may be, 2/3rd X Rs.54,000/- X 15, which is a multiplier of age group from 36 to 40 years, as per column 6th item of the table, which was given in a case, Sarla Varma and Others vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation, reported in 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC).

32.As per above formula, just compensation comes to

Rs.5,40,000/-.

33.Petitioners did not file any medical bills except a bill for 11

Rs.300/- as in Ex.A.10, to show that said Sundara Rao spent an amount of Rs.35,000/- during his life time towards medical treatment.

34.Though, after applying the multiplier, just compensation comes to Rs.5,40,000/- + medical expenses of Rs.300/- and in total it comes to Rs.5,42,300/-, Rs.2,00,000/- can be granted as it was actually required by petitioners herein.

35.In view of above reasons, I come to conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to get just compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- and that this claim application is liable to be allowed.

36.Accordingly, the above issues are answered.

Issue No.3:

37.Intheresult,thisclaimapplicationin

M.V.O.P.No.464/2008 is allowed, granting just compensation to the petitioners at Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with costs and simple interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation against respondents herein, by directing 3rd respondent to deposit the said amount of compensation with interest and costs within one month from the date of this order so as to make payment to the petitioners and by permitting the petitioners to withdraw the entire amount in equal shares and by fixing fee of the Advocate for petitioners at Rs.1,500/-.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 27th day of August, 2016.

CHAIRMAN-M.A.C.TRIBUNAL,

KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM.

(IX ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, (FTC),

KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM.)

12

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses, examined

For Petitioner: For Respondents:

P.W.1: G.Nirmala.R.W.1: G.Chitti babu P.W.2: G.Venkateswara Rao P.W.3: Dr.G.V.Reddy

DOCUMENTS, MARKED

For Petitioner:

Ex.A.1 : Attested copy of FIR, dated 02.06.2008 in Cr.No.59/2008 of Repalle P.S Ex.A.2 : Attested copy of charge-sheet in Cr.No.59/2008 of Repalle P.S. Ex.A.3: Attested copy of wound certificate Ex.A.4: Death certificate, dated 23.10.2008. Ex.A.5: Attested copy of driving licence of 1st respondent. Ex.A.6: Attested copies of certificates of registration. Ex.A.7: Attested copy of Insurance Policy. Ex.A.8: X-ray films of deceased Sundara Rao. Ex.A.9: Medical prescriptions. Ex.A.10: OP receipt, dated 26.09.2008, issued by Manipal Hospital, Vijayawada. Ex.A.11: History and physical examination of deceased Sundara Rao.

For Respondents:

NIL.

CHAIRMAN-M.A.C.TRIBUNAL,

KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM.

(IX ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, (FTC),

KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM.)

IN THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KRISHNA,

MACHILIPATNAM.

(IX ADDL.DISTRICT (FTC) COURT, KRISHNA,

MACHILIPATNAM.)

PRESENT: Sri CHINNAMSETTY RAJU,

CHAIRMAN-M.A.C.TRIBUNAL, KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM.

(IX ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE, (FTC), KRISHNA,

MACHILIPATNAM.)

SATURDAY, THIS THE 27th DAY OF AUGUST, 2016.

M.V.O.P.No.464/2008.

Between:

1.Gunturu Nirmala, W/o. Late Sundara Rao, Hindu, aged about 35 years, Housewife, R/o. Ganjavanipalem, H/o. Mopidevi village and Mandal, Krishna District.

2.Gunturu Veeranjaneyulu, S/o. Late Sundara Rao, Hindu, aged about 19 years, Student, R/o. Ganjavanipalem, H/o. Mopidevi village and Mandal, Krishna District. :: Petitioners

And

1.Veeramachineni Venkata Rambabu, S/o. Late Satyanarayana, Hindu, aged about 30 years, Drier of Vehicle No.AP 16 AS 3151, R/o. Bhushanagallu, Podaparupudi Mandal, Krishna District.

2.Gamini Chitti Babu, S/o. Gandhi, Hindu, aged about 40 years, Owner of Vehicle No.AP 16 AS 3151, R/o. Podaparupudi (v), Podaparupudi Mandal, Krishna District.

3.The United India Insurance Company Ltd., rep., by it's Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Vijayawada. :: Respondents.

This is a claim application, filed by one Gunturu Nirmala and one Gunturu Veeranjaneyulu (mother and son) under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, claiming compensation at Rs.2,00,000/- due to death of one Gunturu Sundara Rao, who is the husband of said Nirmala and father of said Veeranjaneyulu in motor vehicle accident.

2.This M.V.O.P., is coming for final hearing before me on 12.07.2016 in the presence of Sri S.Balaji Rao, Advocate for petitioner and Sri M.V.Narasimha Rao, Advocate for 1st respondent, Sri K.Siva Prasad, Advocate for 2nd respondent and Sri V.S.Ram, Advocate for 3rd respondent, upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE.

3.That the claim be and the same is hereby allowed against both the respondents by awarding compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with subsequent interest at 7.5% per annum in equal shares from the date of filing of the petition till realization against respondents;

4.That the 3rd respondent being insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount before this Court on or before 27.09.2016 from the date of this petition till the date of realisation ;

5.In case the 3rd respondent fails to deposit the compensation as ordered by the court the petitioner is at liberty to proceed according to law;

6.That the Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1500/-; and

7.That the Respondents do pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.3,250/- towards costs of the petition and the Respondents do bear their own costs of Rs.Nil (as no bill of costs memo filed).

Given under my hand and seal of this Court this the 27th day of August, 2016.

MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-

CUM-IX ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

(FTC)KRISHNA AT MACHILIPATNAM.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

Petitioner Respondents Rs.Ps.Rs.Ps. 1.Vakalath'2-00– 2.Stamp duty on 1360-00No bill of costs filed. petition 3.Process188-00NIL 4.Pleader's fee1500-00– 5.Writing charges100-00 6.Type charges100-00 TotalRs.3,250-00 NIL

IX A.D.J., MTM