Smt. D. Leelavathi

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

NDPS CASES (I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE) WARANGAL

Friday, this the 23rd day of November, 2012

PRESENT: Smt.D.Leelavathi, FAC Special Sessions Judge for Trial of NDPS Cases-cum- I-Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal.

N.D.P.S. SESSIONS CASE NO.16 OF 2006

(Cr.No.224/2005 of Bhupalpally Police Station)

1.Name and description of the :The State of A.P. rep. by the complainantInspector of Police, PS Bhupalpally.

2.Name and description of the : Thatikonda Rajanarsaiah, s/o accusedRamaiah, Aged: 50 years, Black Smith, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Gorlaveedu Village.

3.Offence charged:Sec.8(b) r/w 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

4.Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

5.Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

6.Conviction, sentence or acquittal:The accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.PC of the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall be cancelled. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

7.Name of the Counsel for the :In-charge Addl. P.P. prosecution

8.Name of the counsel for accused:Sri C.Vidyasagar Reddy, Advocate

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of In-charge Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and of

Sri C.Vidyasagar Reddy, Advocate, for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T : :

: :

The Inspector of Police, Police Station Bhupalpally, has laid the charge sheet before this Court against the accused in Cr.No.224/2005 under Section 2S.C. No.16 of 2006 8(b) r/w 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, the Act).

2.The case of the prosecution as set out in the charge sheet is as follows:

i)That on 5.12.2005 morning as per the instructions of Inspector of Police,

PS Bhupalpally, LW1-SI of Police, PS Bhupalpally along with LW2-Prob.SI, LW3-

PC 1667 of PS Bhupalpally, CRP Force, LW5-Revenue Inspector, LW6-

Panchayat Secretary, Gorlaveedu and LW4-photographer visited Gorlaveedu

Village to conduct raids on ganja fields. Accordingly, they searched the fields at 4.15 p.m. and found 1740 ganja plants cultivated in Sy.No.780 in an extent of

Ac.0-15 guntas of land. As per the revenue records, LW6-Panchayat Secretary of Gorlaveedu identified the said field pertaining to the accused. LW1 conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LWs 5 and 6 and photographed the ganja field and plants through LW4/photographer and lifted two samples, packed and sealed as per procedure for the purpose of chemical analysis under cover of scene of offence panchanama and returned to the police station

Bhupalpally and handed over ganja samples and scene of offence panchanama and his report to LW9-Inspector of Police, PS Bhupalpally, for registering the case. LW9 the Inspector of Police, PS Bhupalpally, has registered the same as a case in Cr.No.224/2005 u/S 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act and issued FIR to all the concerned and took up the investigation. On 6.12.2005 LW9-Inspector of Police,

PS Bhupalpally along with LW7/MRO, Bhupalpally, LW4/photographer and LWs 5 and 6, the mediators visited the scene of offence i.e. the field of accused and plucked total 1740 ganja plants with the help of police persons, out of them, he collected two samples and packed separately and properly as per procedure and rest of the plants were destroyed under cover of panchanama in the presence of

MRO and mediators i.e. LWs 5 and 6. LW7/MRO issued Destruction Certificate.

On 20.12.2005 at 0800 hours the accused himself surrendered before

LW9/Inspector of Police, Bhupalpally PS and on his surrender LW9 affected his arrest and sent him to the Court for remand. The samples have been forwarded to the Government Chemical Examiner for Excise and Prohibition Cases at 3S.C. No.16 of 2006

Warangal through SDPO Parkal. LW8/Government Chemical Examiner,

Prohibition and Excise, Regional Laboratory at Warangal, examined the samples and issued report stating that the samples contained ganja. Thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 8(b) r/w 20 of

NDPS Act.

3.This Court being the Special Court to try the cases under the Act, has taken charge sheet on file under Section 8(b) r/w Section 20 of the said Act.

After securing the presence of the accused, copies of case records were furnished to him, as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.PC.

4.After hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, a charge under Section 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act, has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty for the said charge and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution has cited nine witnesses, out of them PWs 1 to 5 are only examined and got marked Exs-P1 to

P9 documents.

PWs 1 and 2 are the panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama and destruction of ganja plants. PW3 is the then SI of Police, PS

Bhupalpally, who detected the offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama and collected two samples, packed and sealed as per the procedure and handed over the samples and panchanama along with his report to PW5. PW4 is the then MRO, Bhupalpally, who conducted destruction panchanama in the presence of mediators. PW5 is the then Inspector of Police, PS Bhupalpally, who conducted investigation and sent the samples to the Chemical Examiner and after receipt of analyst report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused before this Court.

Ex-P1 is the pahani copy issued by PW1. Ex-P2 is the destruction panchanama. Ex-P3 and Ex-P4 are the photographs with negatives. Ex-P5 is 4S.C. No.16 of 2006 the scene of offence panchanama. Ex-P6 is the report of PW3. Ex-P7 is the destruction certificate issued by PW4. Ex-P8 is the FIR issued by PW5. Ex-P9 is the analysis report.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.PC, for which he denied the incriminating evidence found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and stated that he did not commit any offence and the police falsely implicated him in this case and he is no way concerned with the ganja plantation and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard the arguments of the learned In-charge Additional Public

Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the accused.

8.Now, the point that arises for determination is “whether the

prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act, beyond all

reasonable doubt”?

9.POINT:In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs 1 to 5.

PW3 deposed that on 5.12.2005 he along with his staff, the panchas i.e.

PW1/Mohd. Razaq, Panchayat Secretary and PW2/Sripada Satyanarayana,

Revenue Inspector and the photographer went to Gorlaveedu Village in order to conduct ganja raids. At about 4.15 p.m., they reached the land in Sy.No.780 and

PW2/Revenue Inspector has identified the said land as that of the accused as per revenue record. They counted the ganja plants to be 1740. He conducted scene of offence panchanama as per the procedure in the presence of mediators i.e. PWs 1 and 2. He got the ganja plants photographed, out of them he collected two samples, packed and sealed as per the procedure. Ex-P5 is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex-P3 and Ex-P4 are the photographs. Later, he 5S.C. No.16 of 2006 returned to police station and handed over the scene of offence panchanama, samples along with his report to PW5 and a case was registered on his report.

Ex-P6 is his report.

PW1 deposed that on the requisition of police, he along with PW2 went to

Gorlaveedu Village to a land in Sy.No.780 in an extent of Ac.0-15 guntas, they found ganja plantation, but he does not know the accused. He further deposed that on verification of the revenue records and copy of adangal pahani, which was supplied by him to the police, in column No.13 of the said pahani which is marked as Ex-P1, it is mentioned that the accused is having Ac.0-15 guntas of land. He also mentioned in Ex-P1 about rising of ganja plantations along with cotton crop. Police removed all the ganja plants from the fields, collected sample plants and destroyed the other entire ganja plants removed. Before removing the ganja plants and at the time of burning and destroying those plants, photographs were taken and entire proceedings were conducted under cover of

Ex-P2/destruction panchanama, which was signed by them. Ex-P3 and Ex-P4 are the photographs along with negatives, showing their presence. Police also conducted the scene of offence panchanama under Ex-P5.

PW2 deposed that on the requisition of police, he went to Gorlaveedu village to a land in Sy.No.780, which belongs to the accused on 5.12.2005 at 4.15 p.m. They found 1740 plants as a mixed crop with cotton. They were removed in their presence. The police conducted scene of offence panchanama.

PW5 deposed that on 5.12.2005 basing on a report given by PW3-

Venkateshwar Reddy, SI Bhupalpaly, he registered a case in this crime and issued FIR. Ex-P8 is the said FIR and he took up investigation in this crime. He visited scene of offence situated in Sy.No.780 and inspected the land in the presence of PW4/MRO and the panchas i.e. PWs 1 and 2 and found 1740 ganja plants in the said survey number in an extent of Ac.0-15 guntas. He got removed all the plants, out of them he collected two samples and packed separately and properly as per procedure by putting seals to them. The rest of the plants were 6S.C. No.16 of 2006 destroyed by PW4/MRO there itself. He has also taken photographs at the scene of offence with the help of LW4/photographer. He prepared a rough sketch in the panchanama. The entire proceedings were done under a cover of panchanama.

PW4 the then MRO, Bhupalpally Mandal, deposed that on 6.12.2005 he was called by PS Bhupalpally to conduct panchanama at Gorlaveedu Village

Shivar in Sy.No.780. In the presence of the mediators i.e. PWs 1 and 2, he has conducted destruction panchanama. The total number of ganja plants is 1740 in an extent of Ac.0-15 guntas. Ex-P7 is the destruction certificate. Ex-P1 is the pahani copy attested by him.

10.A perusal of the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 discloses that on 5.12.2005 PW3 conducted raids on ganja fields along with his staff and mediators i.e. PWs 1 and 2 and found 1740 ganja plants in the land in Sy.No.780 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and collected two samples in the presence of panchas i.e.

PWs 1 and 2 and handed over the scene of offence panchanama, two samples along with his report to PW5, in turn, PW5 after registering the same as a case in

Cr.No.224/2005, conducted investigation and during the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence and found 1740 ganja plants in the land in

Sy.No.780 in an extent of Ac.0-15 guntas and got removed all the plants and out of them he collected two samples and packed separately and properly as per procedure and the rest of the ganja plants were destroyed by PW4/MRO in his presence and the said proceedings are photographed by LW4 the photographer.

11.Now the crucial point to be considered is whether the prosecution could able to prove that the accused is in possession of Ac.0-15 guntas of land in

Sy.No.780 of Gorlaveedu village and he has cultivated ganja plants as a mixed crop with cotton.

In order to prove this aspect, the prosecution has relied upon Ex-

P1/pahani copy for the year 2005-2006. As per this document, Thatikonda 7S.C. No.16 of 2006

Rajashekaraiah, Venkataiah and Rajaveeru, resident of Gorlaveedu village are the pattedars. Admittedly, PW5 did not examine the pattedars. In column No.13 in Ex-P1, the name of the accused is shown as “possessor”. In Col.No.14 the extent is shown as Ac.0-15 guntas.

12.PW1 has stated in his cross-examination that the total extent of survey number 780 is Ac.4-18 guntas but the accused is not the pattedar of the land in

Sy.No.780, for any extent and he cannot say the names of pattedars for the entire extent of the land in Sy.No.780 and he did not lodge any police report even after coming to know about raising of ganja plantation in the said survey number.

He further stated that the accused was not present when they visited the said land. He admitted that there is a correction in Ex.P1 with regard to the year. As per Ex-P2/destruction panchanama, the name of the accused is mentioned as pattedar of the land, but, he does not know why the police have mentioned the accused as pattedar and he has not corrected in the said pahani mentioning that the accused was not the pattedar of that land. He also admitted that he does not know as to how many lands belonged to other accused were inspected on that day when he along with PW2, acted as mediators and he does not remember as to which panchanama was conducted first on that day with regard to other cases.

PW2 has stated in his cross-examination that he cannot say the survey number of the land unless it is properly surveyed in his presence. He further stated that since they came to know the said land belongs to the accused, they mentioned in Ex-P1 that the land with ganja plants belongs to the accused. But, he has no personal knowledge that who exactly planted those ganja plants. He has not examined any neighbouring land owners.

PW3 has stated in his cross-examination that only basing on the information given by the people at that place, he has located the land in this case. It shows that without verifying the revenue record, PW3 himself decided that the land in Sy.No.780 belongs to the accused.

8S.C. No.16 of 2006

PW4 has stated in his cross-examination that the survey number of the land and other particulars mentioned in Ex-P1 and panchanama with regard to the land are not personally known to him and only on the information furnished by VRO, he came to know about the said particulars. He further stated that there is no record to show that the accused was the cultivator at that time in the given extent and given survey number.

PW5 has admitted in his cross-examination that the accused is not the pattedar of the land in Sy.No.780 and except pahani he has not collected any other revenue record to show that how the name of the accused is entered as possessor of that land. He further admitted that he has not verified the original records of pahani in the MRO Office and he does not know whether the ganja crop was not recorded in the original records. He further stated that on examining the VAO, he noticed that the accused is the possessor of that land.

He further admitted that there was no report by VRO to the police with regard to the ganja cultivation in the area prior to the date of Ex-P5.

13.A scrutiny of the cross-examination of PWs 1 to 5, it is quite clear that without verifying the original revenue records, basing on the information given by

VAO, PW5 came to a conclusion that the accused is the possessor of the said land. The said VAO is neither cited as a witness nor examined by the police.

Even, the neighbouring land owners of the said land are not examined by PW5.

Even, the prosecution has not taken any pains to examine the pattedars of the land in Sy.No.780.

14.As seen from Ex-P1/pahani copy, it was issued by Secretary, Grama

Sachivalayam, Gorlaveedu, Man: Bhupalpally and counter-signed by PW4/MRO.

As seen from Ex-P1/pahani copy, there is a correction of year i.e. 2004- 2005 as 2005-2006. The same is admitted by PW4/MRO in his cross- examination. He could not give explanation with regard to the said correction in

Ex-P1. PW4 has stated in his cross-examination that the Village Secretary has 9S.C. No.16 of 2006 not brought to his notice about finding of ganja plants as mentioned in column

No.23 of Ex-P1 prior to Ex-P5/panchanama. He has neither enquired nor taken any action against the Village Secretary for not informing to the higher officials of his office about finding of illegal cultivation of ganja in that area. PW4 further admitted that the accused was not present at the time of conducting of destruction panchanama. Further, nowhere in the evidence of PW4 stated that the entries in Ex-P1 are true and correct and they are verified with the original records. PW5 clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he has not verified the original records of pahani in the MRO Office. So, it appears that without verifying the original records, the police have brought Ex-P1/pahani copy to establish their case. So, no reliance can be placed on Ex-P1/pahani in view of discrepancy in the evidence of PWs 1 to 5.

15.Even, the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 is considered that the accused is in possession of Ac.0-15 guntas of land in Sy.No.780, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused is the cultivator of the said land, on which ganja plants were found and seized under a cover of Ex-P5/scene of offence panchanama. No neighbouring land owner is examined to show that the accused is the cultivator of the said land, on which ganja plants were found and seized. Except Ex-P1/pahani copy, there is no other cogent and convincing evidence to show that the accused is the cultivator of the said land. Thatikonda

Rajashekaraiah, Venkataiah and Rajaveery are the pattedars in Sy.No.780 as per Ex-P1. The above said persons are the best persons to say as to how the accused came into possession of Ac.0-15 guntas of land in Sy.No.780 and allegedly raised the ganja plants as a mixed crop with cotton. In the absence of such evidence, no reliance can be placed solely on the entries made in Ex-

P1/pahani copy. If Ex-P1/pahani copy is excluded from consideration, absolutely, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused is in possession of Ac.0-15 guntas of land in Sy.No.780 and he is the cultivator of the said land, on which ganja plants were found and seized under a cover of Ex-

P5/scene of offence panchanama.

10S.C. No.16 of 2006

16.With regard to collection of samples, according to PW3, he has collected two samples, packed and sealed as per the procedure under Ex-P5/scene of offence panchanama. According to PW5, he also collected two samples and packed separately and properly as per procedure by putting seals to them, the rest of the plants were destroyed by PW4/MRO under Ex-P2/destruction panchanama. PW5 further deposed that he sent the seized samples for analysis and received Ex-P9/analysis report. So, four samples were collected and packed separately by PWs 3 and 5. But, Ex-P9/analysis report does not show how many samples were received by the Analyst. The Analyst who allegedly analyzed the samples is not examined in this case. Therefore, it is not known whether all the four samples are sent to Analyst for the purpose of chemical analysis or only two samples are sent, collected by PW5.

It is an important fact to be mentioned herein is that the samples which are allegedly collected and sent to the Analyst for chemical analysis are not produced before the Court for marking them as material objects. The prosecution also did not produce the unexpended portion of the samples returned by the Analyst. As per the evidence of PW5 after lifting the samples, the rest of the plants were destroyed by PW4/MRO under Ex-P2/destruction panchanama. The remaining contraband should be produced before the Court for the purpose of marking it as material object. So, the non-production of the case property i.e. samples and unexpended portion of the samples returned by the Analyst and the remaining contraband is fatal to the case of prosecution.

17.In these circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused is the cultivator of the land, on which ganja plants were found and seized under a cover of Ex-P5/scene of offence panchanama.

18.Thus, I conclude that the prosecution to put-forth its case could not adduce any positive material evidence in order to prove the offence punishable under Section 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act.

11S.C. No.16 of 2006

19.Therefore, in view of the material available on record and of the forgoing discussion, I conclude that the prosecution could not bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and thus the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, I find him not guilty of the offence, with which he is charged and the accused is entitled to an acquittal.

20.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Section 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.PC of the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall be cancelled. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation, after correction, pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 23rd day of November, 2012).

FAC SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1:Md. Rajak - None - PW2:S. Satyanarayana PW3:J. Venkateshwar Reddy PW4:M. Nagaiah PW5:P. Shoban Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex-P1 is the pahani copy issued by PW1. Ex-P2 is the destruction panchanama. Ex-P3 and Ex-P4 are the photographs with negatives. Ex-P5 is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex-P6 is the report given by PW3. Ex-P7 is the destruction certificate issued by PW4. Ex-P8 is the FIR issued by PW5. Ex-P9 is the analysis report.

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

FAC SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES,

WARANGAL.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

NDPS CASES (I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE) WARANGAL

Friday, this the 30th day of November, 2012

PRESENT: Smt.D.Leelavathi, FAC Special Sessions Judge for Trial of NDPS Cases-cum- I-Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal.

N.D.P.S. SESSIONS CASE NO.17 OF 2006

(Cr.No.216/2005 of Bhupalpally Police Station)

1.Name and description of the :The State of A.P. rep. by the complainantInspector of Police, PS Bhupalpally.

2.Name and description of the : Komireddy Malla Reddy, s/o accusedNarsimha Reddy, Aged: 60 years, Reddy, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Gorlaveedu Village.

3.Offence charged:Sec.8(b) r/w 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

4.Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

5.Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

6.Conviction, sentence or acquittal:The accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.PC of the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall be cancelled. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

7.Name of the Counsel for the :In-charge Addl. P.P. prosecution

8.Name of the counsel for accused:Sri T.Srinivas, Advocate

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of In-charge Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and of

Sri T.Srinivas, Advocate, for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T : :

: :

The Inspector of Police, Police Station Bhupalpally, has laid the charge sheet before this Court against the accused in Cr.No.216/2005 under Section 2S.C. No.17 of 2006 8(b) r/w 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, the Act).

2.The case of the prosecution as set out in the charge sheet is as follows:

i)That on 5.12.2005 morning as per the instructions of Inspector of Police,

PS Bhupalpally, LW1-SI of Police, PS Bhupalpally along with LW2-Prob.SI, LW3-

PC 1667 of PS Bhupalpally, CRP Force, LW5-Panchayath Secretary,

Gorlaveedu, LW6-Village Servant and LW4-photographer visited Gorlaveedu

Village to conduct raids on ganja fields. Accordingly, they searched the fields at 8.05 a.m. and found 2125 ganja plants cultivated in Sy.No.662 in an extent of

Ac.0-08 guntas of land and in Sy.No.663 in an extent of Ac.0-12 guntas of land totaling to Ac.0-20 guntas. As per the revenue records, LW5-Panchayat

Secretary of Gorlaveedu identified the said field pertaining to the accused. LW1 conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LWs 5 and 6 and photographed the ganja field and plants through LW4/photographer and lifted two samples, packed and sealed as per procedure for the purpose of chemical analysis under cover of scene of offence panchanama and returned to the police station Bhupalpally and handed over ganja samples and scene of offence panchanama and his report to LW9-Inspector of Police, PS Bhupalpally, for registering the case. LW9 the Inspector of Police, PS Bhupalpally, has registered the same as a case in Cr.No.216/2005 u/S 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act and issued FIR to all the concerned and took up the investigation. On 6.12.2005

LW9-Inspector of Police, PS Bhupalpally along with LW7/MRO, Bhupalpally,

LW4/photographer and LWs 5 and 6, the mediators visited the scene of offence i.e. the field of accused and plucked total 2125 ganja plants with the help of police persons, out of them, he collected two samples and packed separately and properly as per procedure and rest of the plants were destroyed under cover of panchanama in the presence of MRO and mediators i.e. LWs 5 and 6.

LW7/MRO issued Destruction Certificate. On 20.12.2005 at 0800 hours the accused himself surrendered before LW9/Inspector of Police, Bhupalpally PS and on his surrender LW9 affected his arrest and sent him to the Court for 3S.C. No.17 of 2006 remand. The samples have been forwarded to the Government Chemical

Examiner for Excise and Prohibition Cases at Warangal through SDPO Parkal.

LW8/Government Chemical Examiner, Prohibition and Excise, Regional

Laboratory at Warangal, examined the samples and issued report stating that the samples contained ganja. Thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act.

3.This Court being the Special Court to try the cases under the Act, has taken charge sheet on file under Section 8(b) r/w Section 20 of the said Act.

After securing the presence of the accused, copies of case records were furnished to him, as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.PC.

4.After hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, a charge under Section 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act, has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty for the said charge and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has cited nine witnesses, out of them only PWs 1 to 4 are examined and got marked Exs-P1 to P10 documents.

PW1 is the panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama and destruction of ganja plants. PW2 is the then SI of Police, PS Bhupalpally, who detected the offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama and collected two samples, packed and sealed as per the procedure and handed over the samples and panchanama along with his report to PW4. PW3 is the then MRO,

Bhupalpally, who conducted destruction panchanama in the presence of mediators. PW4 is the then Inspector of Police, PS Bhupalpally, who conducted investigation and sent the samples to the Chemical Examiner and after receipt of analyst report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused before this Court.

Ex-P1 is the pahani copy issued by PW1. Ex-P2 is the destruction panchanama. Exs-P3 to P5 are the photographs with negatives. Ex-P6 is the 4S.C. No.17 of 2006 scene of offence panchanama. Ex-P7 is the report of PW2. Ex-P8 is the destruction certificate issued by PW3. Ex-P9 is the FIR issued by PW4. Ex-P10 is the analysis report.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.PC, for which he denied the incriminating evidence found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and stated that he did not commit any offence and the police falsely implicated him in this case and he is no way concerned with the ganja plantation and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard the arguments of the learned In-charge Additional Public

Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the accused.

8.Now, the point that arises for determination is “whether the

prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act, beyond all

reasonable doubt”?

9.POINT:In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs 1 to 4.

PW2 deposed that on 5.12.2005 he along with his staff, the panchas i.e.

PW1-Mohd.Razaq, Panchayat Secretary and LW6-Bogi Sailu and the photographer went to Gorlaveedu Village in order to conduct ganja raids. At about 8.05 a.m., they reached the land in Sy.Nos.662 and 663 and Revenue

Inspector has identified the said land as that of the accused as per revenue record. They counted the ganja plants to be 2125. He conducted scene of offence panchanama as per the procedure in the presence of mediators i.e. PW1 and LW6. He got the ganja plants photographed, out of them he collected two samples, packed and sealed as per the procedure. Ex-P6 is the scene of offence panchanama. Exs-P3 to P5 are the photographs. Later, he returned to 5S.C. No.17 of 2006 police station and handed over the scene of offence panchanama, samples along with his report to PW4. Ex-P7 is his report.

PW1 deposed that on the requisition of police, he along with another mediator went to Gorlaveedu Village to a land in Sy.Nos.662 and 663 in an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas, they found ganja plantation. He further deposed that on verification of the revenue records and copy of adangal pahani, which was supplied by him to the police, in column No.13 of the said pahani which is marked as Ex-P1, it is mentioned that the accused is having Ac.0-20 guntas of land. He also mentioned in Ex-P1 about rising of ganja plantations along with cotton plants in the land of accused. Police removed all the ganja plants from the fields, collected sample plants and destroyed the other entire ganja plants removed. Before removing the ganja plants and at the time of burning and destroying those plants, photographs were taken and entire proceedings were conducted under cover of Ex-P2/destruction panchanama, which was signed by him. Exs-P3 to P5 are the photographs along with negatives, showing their presence. Police also conducted the scene of offence panchanama under

Ex-P6.

PW4 deposed that on 5.12.2005 basing on a report given by PW2-

Venkateshwar Reddy, SI Bhupalpaly, he registered a case in this crime and issued FIR. Ex-P9 is the said FIR and he took up investigation in this crime. He visited scene of offence situated in Sy.Nos.662 and 663 and inspected the land in the presence of PW3/MRO and the panchas i.e. PW1 and LW6 and found 2125 ganja plants in the said survey numbers in an extent of Ac.0-08 guntas and

Ac.0-12 guntas respectively. He got removed all the plants, out of them he collected two samples and packed separately and properly as per procedure by putting seals to them. The rest of the plants were destroyed by PW3/MRO there itself. He has also taken photographs at the scene of offence with the help of

LW4/photographer. He prepared a rough sketch in the panchanama. The entire proceedings were done under a cover of panchanama/Ex-P6.

6S.C. No.17 of 2006

PW3 the then MRO, Bhupalpally Mandal, deposed that on 6.12.2005 he was called by PS Bhupalpally to conduct panchanama at Gorlaveedu Village

Shivar in Sy.Nos.662 and 663. In the presence of the mediators, he has conducted destruction panchanama. The total number of ganja plants is 2125 in an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas. Ex-P8 is the destruction certificate. Ex-P1 is the pahani copy attested by him.

10.A perusal of the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 discloses that on 5.12.2005 PW2 conducted raids on ganja fields along with his staff and mediators i.e. PW1 and

LW6-Bogi Sailu and found 2125 ganja plants in the land in Sy.Nos.662 and 663 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and collected two samples in the presence of panchas i.e. PW1 and LW6 and handed over the scene of offence panchanama, two sample plants along with his report to PW4, in turn, PW4 after registering the same as a case in Cr.No.216/2005, conducted investigation and during the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence and found 2125 ganja plants in the land in Sy.Nos.662 and 663 in an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas and got removed all the plants and out of them he collected two samples and packed separately and properly as per procedure and the rest of the ganja plants were destroyed by PW3/MRO in his presence and the said proceedings are photographed by LW4 the photographer.

11.Now the crucial point to be considered is whether the prosecution could able to prove that the accused is in possession of Ac.0-08 guntas of land in

Sy.No.662 and Ac.0-12 guntas of land in Sy.No.663 of Gorlaveedu village and he has cultivated ganja plants as a mixed crop with cotton.

In order to prove this aspect, the prosecution has relied upon

Ex-P1/pahani copy for the year 2005-2006. As per this document, one Pingili

Prameelamma is the pattedar in Sy.No.662 and one Komreddy Chinna Raji

Reddy resident of Kasimpally village is the pattedar in Sy.No.663. Admittedly,

PW4 did not examine the said pattedars. In column No.13 in Ex-P1, the name of the accused is shown as “possessor”. In Col.No.14 the extent is shown as 7S.C. No.17 of 2006

Ac.0-08 guntas in Sy.No.662 and Ac.0-12 guntas in Sy.No.663 totalling to

Ac.0-20 guntas.

12.PW1 has stated in his cross-examination that the total extent of

Sy.Nos.662 and 663 is Ac.0-20 guntas but the accused is not the pattedar of the land in Sy.Nos.662 and 663, for any extent and he cannot say the names of pattedars for the entire extent of the land in Sy.Nos.662 and 663 and he did not lodge any police report even after coming to know about raising of ganja plantation in the said survey numbers. He further stated that the accused was not present when they visited the said land. He admitted that there is a correction in Ex.P1 with regard to the year and as per Ex-P2/destruction panchanama, the name of the accused is mentioned as pattedar of the land, but, he does not know why the police have mentioned the name of accused as pattedar and he has not corrected in the said pahani mentioning that the accused was not the pattedar of that land. He also admitted that he does not know as to how many lands belonged to other accused were inspected on that day when he along with another, acted as mediators and he does not remember as to which panchanama was conducted first on that day with regard to other cases.

PW2 has stated in his cross-examination that only basing on the information given by the people at that place, he has located the land in this case. It shows that without verifying the revenue record, PW2 himself decided that the land in Sy.Nos.662 and 663 belongs to the accused.

PW3 has stated in his cross-examination that the survey number of the land and other particulars mentioned in Ex-P1 and panchanama with regard to the land are not personally known to him and only on the information furnished by VRO, he came to know about the said particulars. He further stated that there is no record to show that the accused was the cultivator at that time in the given extent and given survey number.

8S.C. No.17 of 2006

PW4 has admitted in his cross-examination that the accused is not the pattedar of the land in Sy.Nos.662 and 663 and except pahani he has not collected any other revenue record to show that how the name of the accused is entered as possessor of that land. He further admitted that he has not verified the original records of pahani in the MRO Office and he does not know whether the ganja crop was not recorded in the original records. He further stated that on examining the VAO, he noticed that the accused is the possessor of that land.

He further admitted that there was no report by VRO to the police with regard to the ganja cultivation in the area prior to the date of Ex-P6.

13.A scrutiny of the cross-examination of PWs 1 to 4, it is quite clear that without verifying the original revenue records, basing on the information given by

VAO, PW4 came to a conclusion that the accused is the possessor of the said land. The said VAO is neither cited as a witness nor examined by the police.

Even, the neighbouring land owners of the said land are not examined by PW4.

Even, the prosecution has not taken any pains to examine the pattedars of the land in Sy.Nos.662 and 663.

14.Ex-P1 is pahani copy issued by Secretary, Grama Sachivalayam,

Gorlaveedu, Man: Bhupalpally and counter-signed by PW3/MRO.

As seen from Ex-P1/pahani copy, there is a correction of year i.e. 2004- 2005 as 2005-2006. The same is admitted by PW3/MRO in his cross- examination. He could not give any explanation with regard to the said correction in Ex-P1. PW3 has stated in his cross-examination that the Village

Secretary has not brought to his notice about finding of ganja plants as mentioned in column No.23 of Ex-P1 prior to Ex-P6/panchanama. He has neither enquired nor taken any action against the Village Secretary for not informing to the higher officials of his office about finding of illegal cultivation of ganja in that area. PW3 further admitted that the accused was not present at the time of conducting of destruction panchanama. Further, nowhere in the evidence of PW3 stated that the entries in Ex-P1 are true and correct and they are verified 9S.C. No.17 of 2006 with the original records. PW4 clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he has not verified the original records of pahani in the MRO Office. So, it appears that without verifying the original records, the police have brought Ex-P1/pahani copy to establish their case. So, no reliance can be placed on Ex-P1/pahani in view of discrepancy in the evidence of PWs 1 to 4.

15.Even, the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 is considered that the accused is in possession of Ac.0-20 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.662 and 663, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused is the cultivator of the said land, on which ganja plants were found and seized under a cover of Ex-P6/scene of offence panchanama. No neighbouring land owner is examined to show that the accused is the cultivator of the said land, on which ganja plants were found and seized. Except Ex-P1/pahani copy, there is no other cogent and convincing evidence to show that the accused is the cultivator of the said land. One Pingili

Prameelamma is the pattedar in Sy.No.662 and one Komreddy Chinna Raji

Reddy is the pattedar in Sy.No.663 as per Ex-P1. The above said persons are the best persons to say as to how the accused came into possession of Ac.0-20 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.662 and 663 and allegedly raised the ganja plants as a mixed crop with cotton. In the absence of such evidence, no reliance can be placed solely on the entries made in Ex-P1/pahani copy. If Ex-P1/pahani copy is excluded from consideration, absolutely, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused is in possession of Ac.0-20 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.662 and 663 and he is the cultivator of the said land, on which ganja plants were found and seized under a cover of Ex-P6/scene of offence panchanama.

16.With regard to collection of samples, according to PW2, he has collected two samples, packed and sealed as per the procedure under Ex-P6/scene of offence panchanama. According to PW4, he also collected two samples and packed separately and properly as per procedure by putting seals to them, the rest of the plants were destroyed by PW3/MRO under Ex-P2/destruction panchanama. PW4 further deposed that he sent the seized samples for analysis 10S.C. No.17 of 2006 and received Ex-P10/analysis report. So, four samples were collected and packed separately by PWs 2 and 4. But, Ex-P10/analysis report does not show how many samples were received by the Analyst. The Analyst who allegedly analyzed the samples is not examined in this case. Therefore, it is not known whether all the four samples are sent to Analyst for the purpose of chemical analysis or only two samples are sent, collected by PW4.

It is an important fact to be mentioned herein is that the samples which are allegedly collected and sent to the Analyst for chemical analysis are not produced before the Court for marking them as material objects. The prosecution also did not produce the unexpended portion of the samples returned by the Analyst. As per the evidence of PW4 after lifting the samples, the rest of the plants were destroyed by PW3/MRO under Ex-P2/destruction panchanama. The remaining contraband should be produced before the Court for the purpose of marking it as material object. So, the non-production of the case property i.e. samples and unexpended portion of the samples returned by the Analyst and the remaining contraband is fatal to the case of prosecution.

17.In these circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused is the cultivator of the land, on which ganja plants were found and seized under a cover of Ex-P6/scene of offence panchanama.

18.Thus, I conclude that the prosecution to put-forth its case could not adduce positive material evidence in order to prove the offence punishable under

Section 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act.

19.Therefore, in view of the material available on record and of the forgoing discussion, I conclude that the prosecution could not bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and thus the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, I find him not guilty of the offence, with which he is charged and the accused is entitled to an acquittal.

11S.C. No.17 of 2006

20.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Section 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.PC of the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall be cancelled. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation, after correction, pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 30th day of November, 2012).

FAC SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1:Mohd. Razaaq - None - PW2:J. Venkateshwar Reddy PW3:M. Nagaiah PW4:P. Shoban Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex-P1 is the pahani copy issued by PW1. Ex-P2 is the destruction panchanama. Ex-P3 to Ex-P5 are the photographs with negatives. Ex-P6 is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex-P7 is the report of PW2. Ex-P8 is the destruction certificate issued by PW3. Ex-P9 is the FIR issued by PW4. Ex-P10 is the analysis report.

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

FAC SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES,

WARANGAL.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

NDPS CASES (I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE) WARANGAL

Friday, this the 23rd day of November, 2012

PRESENT: Smt.D.Leelavathi, FAC Special Sessions Judge for Trial of NDPS Cases-cum- I-Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal.

N.D.P.S. SESSIONS CASE NO.18 OF 2006

(Cr.No.217/2005 of Bhupalpally Police Station)

1.Name and description of the :The State of A.P. rep. by the complainantInspector of Police, PS Bhupalpally.

2.Name and description of the : Komireddy Chinna Raji Reddy, s/o accusedNarsimha Reddy, Aged: 40 years, Reddy, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Gorlaveedu Village.

3.Offence charged:Sec.8(b) r/w 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

4.Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

5.Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

6.Conviction, sentence or acquittal:The accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.PC of the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall be cancelled. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

7.Name of the Counsel for the :In-charge Addl. P.P. prosecution

8.Name of the counsel for accused:Sri T.Srinivas, Advocate

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of In-charge Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and of

Sri T.Srinivas, Advocate, for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T : :

: :

The Inspector of Police, Police Station Bhupalpally, has laid the charge sheet before this Court against the accused in Cr.No.217/2005 under Section 2S.C. No.18 of 2006 8(b) r/w 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, the Act).

2.The case of the prosecution as set out in the charge sheet is as follows:

i)That on 5.12.2005 morning as per the instructions of Inspector of Police,

PS Bhupalpally, LW1-SI of Police, PS Bhupalpally along with LW2-Prob.SI, LW3-

PC 1667 of PS Bhupalpally, CRP Force, LW5-Revenue Inspector, LW6-

Panchayat Secretary, Gorlaveedu and LW4-photographer visited Gorlaveedu

Village to conduct raids on ganja fields. Accordingly, they searched the fields at 9.05 a.m. and found 2760 ganja plants cultivated in Sy.No.666/A in an extent of

Ac.0-10 guntas of land. As per the revenue records, LW6-Panchayat Secretary of Gorlaveedu identified the said field pertaining to the accused. LW1 conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LWs 5 and 6 and photographed the ganja field and plants through LW4/photographer and lifted two samples, packed and sealed as per procedure for the purpose of chemical analysis under cover of scene of offence panchanama and returned to the police station

Bhupalpally and handed over ganja samples and scene of offence panchanama and his report to LW9-Inspector of Police, PS Bhupalpally, for registering the case. LW9 the Inspector of Police, PS Bhupalpally, has registered the same as a case in Cr.No.217/2005 u/S 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act and issued FIR to all the concerned and took up the investigation. On 6.12.2005 LW9-Inspector of Police,

PS Bhupalpally along with LW7/MRO, Bhupalpally, LW4/photographer and LWs 5 and 6, the mediators visited the scene of offence i.e. the field of accused and plucked total 2760 ganja plants with the help of police persons, out of them, he collected two samples and packed separately and properly as per procedure and rest of the plants were destroyed under cover of panchanama in the presence of

MRO and mediators i.e. LWs 5 and 6. LW7/MRO issued Destruction Certificate.

On 20.12.2005 at 0800 hours the accused himself surrendered before

LW9/Inspector of Police, Bhupalpally PS and on his surrender LW9 affected his arrest and sent him to the Court for remand. The samples have been forwarded to the Government Chemical Examiner for Excise and Prohibition Cases at 3S.C. No.18 of 2006

Warangal through SDPO Parkal. LW8/Government Chemical Examiner,

Prohibition and Excise, Regional Laboratory at Warangal, examined the samples and issued report stating that the samples contained ganja. Thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 8(b) r/w 20 of

NDPS Act.

3.This Court being the Special Court to try the cases under the Act, has taken charge sheet on file under Section 8(b) r/w Section 20 of the said Act.

After securing the presence of the accused, copies of case records were furnished to him, as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.PC.

4.After hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, a charge under Section 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act, has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty for the said charge and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution has cited nine witnesses, out of them PWs 1 to 5 are only examined and got marked Exs-P1 to

P9 documents.

PWs 1 and 2 are the panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama and destruction of ganja plants. PW3 is the then SI of Police, PS

Bhupalpally, who detected the offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama and collected two samples, packed and sealed as per the procedure and handed over the samples and panchanama along with his report to PW5. PW4 is the then MRO, Bhupalpally, who conducted destruction panchanama in the presence of mediators. PW5 is the then Inspector of Police, PS Bhupalpally, who conducted investigation and sent the samples to the Chemical Examiner and after receipt of analyst report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused before this Court.

Ex-P1 is the pahani copy issued by PW1. Ex-P2 is the destruction panchanama. Ex-P3 and Ex-P4 are the photographs with negatives. Ex-P5 is 4S.C. No.18 of 2006 the scene of offence panchanama. Ex-P6 is the report of PW3. Ex-P7 is the destruction certificate issued by PW4. Ex-P8 is the FIR issued by PW5. Ex-P9 is the analysis report.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.PC, for which he denied the incriminating evidence found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and stated that he did not commit any offence and the police falsely implicated him in this case and he is no way concerned with the ganja plantation and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard the arguments of the learned In-charge Additional Public

Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the accused.

8.Now, the point that arises for determination is “whether the

prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act, beyond all

reasonable doubt”?

9.POINT:In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs 1 to 5.

PW3 deposed that on 5.12.2005 he along with his staff, the panchas i.e.

PW1/Mohd. Razaq, Panchayat Secretary and PW2/Sripada Satyanarayana,

Revenue Inspector and the photographer went to Gorlaveedu Village in order to conduct ganja raids. At about 9.05 a.m., they reached the land in Sy.No.666/A and PW2/Revenue Inspector has identified the said land as that of the accused as per revenue record. They counted the ganja plants to be 2760. He conducted scene of offence panchanama as per the procedure in the presence of mediators i.e. PWs 1 and 2. He got the ganja plants photographed, out of them he collected two samples, packed and sealed as per the procedure. Ex-P5 is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex-P3 and Ex-P4 are the photographs.

5S.C. No.18 of 2006

Later, he returned to police station and handed over the scene of offence panchanama, samples along with his report to PW5 and a case was registered on his report. Ex-P6 is his report.

PW1 deposed that on the requisition of police, he along with PW2 went to

Gorlaveedu Village to a land in Sy.No.666/A in an extent of Ac.0-10 guntas, they found ganja plantation, but he does not know the accused. He further deposed that on verification of the revenue records and copy of adangal pahani, which was supplied by him to the police, in column No.13 of the said pahani which is marked as Ex-P1, it is mentioned that the accused is having Ac.0-10 guntas of land. He also mentioned in Ex-P1 about rising of ganja plantations along with cotton crop. Police removed all the ganja plants from the field, collected sample plants and destroyed the other entire ganja plants removed. Before removing the ganja plants and at the time of burning and destroying those plants, photographs were taken and entire proceedings were conducted under cover of

Ex-P2/destruction panchanama, which was signed by them. Ex-P3 and Ex-P4 are the photographs along with negatives, showing their presence. Police also conducted the scene of offence panchanama under Ex-P5.

PW2 deposed that on the requisition of police, he went to Gorlaveedu village to a land in Sy.No.666/A, which belongs to the accused on 5.12.2005 at 9.05 a.m. They found 2760 plants as a mixed crop with cotton. They were removed in their presence. The police conducted scene of offence panchanama.

Ex-P5 is the scene of offence panchanama.

PW5 deposed that on 5.12.2005 basing on a report given by PW3-

Venkateshwar Reddy, SI Bhupalpaly, he registered a case in this crime and issued FIR. Ex-P8 is the said FIR and he took up investigation in this crime. He visited scene of offence situated in Sy.No.666/A and inspected the land in the presence of PW4/MRO and the panchas i.e. PWs 1 and 2 and found 2760 ganja plants in the said survey number in an extent of Ac.0-10 guntas. He got removed all the plants, out of them he collected two samples and packed separately and 6S.C. No.18 of 2006 properly as per procedure by putting seals to them. The rest of the plants were destroyed by PW4/MRO there itself. He has also taken photographs at the scene of offence with the help of LW4/photographer. He prepared a rough sketch in the panchanama. The entire proceedings were done under a cover of panchanama/Ex-P5.

PW4 the then MRO, Bhupalpally Mandal, deposed that on 6.12.2005 he was called by PS Bhupalpally to conduct panchanama at Gorlaveedu Village

Shivar in Sy.No.666/A. In the presence of the mediators i.e. PWs 1 and 2, he has conducted destruction panchanama. The total number of ganja plants is 2760 in an extent of Ac.0-10 guntas. Ex-P7 is the destruction certificate. Ex-P1 is the pahani copy attested by him.

10.A perusal of the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 discloses that on 5.12.2005 PW3 conducted raids on ganja fields along with his staff and mediators i.e. PWs 1 and 2 and found 2760 ganja plants in the land in Sy.No.666/A and conducted scene of offence panchanama and collected two samples in the presence of panchas i.e. PWs 1 and 2 and handed over the scene of offence panchanama, two samples along with his report to PW5, in turn, PW5 after registering the same as a case in Cr.No.217/2005, conducted investigation and during the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence and found 2760 ganja plants in the land in Sy.No.666/A in an extent of Ac.0-10 guntas and got removed all the plants and out of them he collected two samples and packed separately and properly as per procedure and the rest of the ganja plants were destroyed by

PW4/MRO in his presence and the said proceedings are photographed by LW4 the photographer.

11.Now the crucial point to be considered is whether the prosecution could able to prove that the accused is in possession of Ac.0-10 guntas of land in

Sy.No.666/A of Gorlaveedu village and he has cultivated ganja plants as a mixed crop with cotton.

7S.C. No.18 of 2006

In order to prove this aspect, the prosecution has relied upon Ex-

P1/pahani copy for the year 2005-2006.

12.PW1 has stated in his cross-examination that the total extent of survey number 666/A is Ac.0-10 guntas but the accused is not the pattedar of the land in

Sy.No.666/A, for any extent and he cannot say the names of pattedars for the entire extent of the land in Sy.No.666/A and he did not lodge any police report even after coming to know about raising of ganja plantation in the said survey number. He further stated that the accused was not present when they visited the said land. He admitted that there is a correction in Ex.P1 with regard to the year. As per Ex-P2/destruction panchanama, the name of the accused is mentioned as pattedar of the land, but, he does not know why the police have mentioned the accused as pattedar and he has not corrected in the said pahani mentioning that the accused was not the pattedar of that land. He also admitted that he does not know as to how many lands belonged to other accused were inspected on that day when he along with PW2, acted as mediators and he does not remember as to which panchanama was conducted first on that day with regard to other cases.

PW2 has stated in his cross-examination that he cannot say the survey number of the land unless it is properly surveyed in his presence. He further stated that since they came to know the said land belongs to the accused, they mentioned in Ex-P1 that the land with ganja plants belongs to the accused. But, he has no personal knowledge that who exactly planted those ganja plants. He has not examined any neighbouring land owners.

PW3 has stated in his cross-examination that only basing on the information given by the people at that place, he has located the land in this case. It shows that without verifying the revenue record, PW3 himself decided that the land in Sy.No.666/A belongs to the accused.

8S.C. No.18 of 2006

PW4 has stated in his cross-examination that the survey number of the land and other particulars mentioned in Ex-P1 and panchanama with regard to the land are not personally known to him and only on the information furnished by VRO, he came to know about the said particulars. He further stated that there is no record to show that the accused was the cultivator at that time in the given extent and given survey number.

PW5 has admitted in his cross-examination that the accused is not the pattedar of the land in Sy.No.666/A and except pahani he has not collected any other revenue record to show that how the name of the accused is entered as possessor of that land. He further admitted that he has not verified the original records of pahani in the MRO Office and he does not know whether the ganja crop was not recorded in the original records. He further stated that on examining the VAO, he noticed that the accused is the possessor of that land.

He further admitted that there was no report by VRO to the police with regard to the ganja cultivation in the area prior to the date of Ex-P5.

13.A scrutiny of the cross-examination of PWs 1 to 5, it is quite clear that without verifying the original revenue records, basing on the information given by

VAO, PW5 came to a conclusion that the accused is the possessor of the said land. The said VAO is neither cited as a witness nor examined by the police.

Even, the neighbouring land owners of the said land are not examined by PW5.

14.As seen from Ex-P1/pahani copy, it was issued by Secretary, Grama

Sachivalayam, Gorlaveedu, Mandal Bhupalpally and counter-signed by

PW4/MRO.

As seen from Ex-P1/pahani copy, there is a correction of year i.e. 2004- 2005 as 2005-2006. The same is admitted by PW4/MRO in his cross- examination. He could not give explanation with regard to the said correction in

Ex-P1. PW4 has stated in his cross-examination that the Village Secretary has not brought to his notice about finding of ganja plants as mentioned in column 9S.C. No.18 of 2006

No.23 of Ex-P1 prior to Ex-P5/panchanama. He has neither enquired nor taken any action against the Village Secretary for not informing to the higher officials of his office about finding of illegal cultivation of ganja in that area. PW4 further admitted that the accused was not present at the time of conducting of destruction panchanama. Further, nowhere in the evidence of PW4 stated that the entries in Ex-P1 are true and correct and they are verified with the original records. PW5 clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he has not verified the original records of pahani in the MRO Office. So, it appears that without verifying the original records, the police have brought Ex-P1/pahani copy to establish their case. So, no reliance can be placed on Ex-P1/pahani in view of discrepancy in the evidence of PWs 1 to 5.

15.Even, the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 is considered that the accused is in possession of Ac.0-10 guntas of land in Sy.No.666/A, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused is the cultivator of the said land, on which ganja plants were found and seized under a cover of Ex-P5/scene of offence panchanama. No neighbouring land owner is examined to show that the accused is the cultivator of the said land, on which ganja plants were found and seized. Except Ex-P1/pahani copy, there is no other cogent and convincing evidence to show that the accused is the cultivator of the said land. If Ex-

P1/pahani copy is excluded from consideration, absolutely, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused is in possession of Ac.0-10 guntas of land in

Sy.No.666/A and he is the cultivator of the said land, on which ganja plants were found and seized under a cover of Ex-P5/scene of offence panchanama.

16.With regard to collection of samples, according to PW3, he has collected two samples, packed and sealed as per the procedure under Ex-P5/scene of offence panchanama. According to PW5, he also collected two samples and packed separately and properly as per procedure by putting seals to them, the rest of the plants were destroyed by PW4/MRO under Ex-P2/destruction panchanama. PW5 further deposed that he sent the seized samples for analysis 10S.C. No.18 of 2006 and received Ex-P9/analysis report. So, four samples were collected and packed separately by PWs 3 and 5. But, Ex-P9/analysis report does not show how many samples were received by the Analyst. The Analyst who allegedly analyzed the samples is not examined in this case. Therefore, it is not known whether all the four samples are sent to Analyst for the purpose of chemical analysis or only two samples are sent, collected by PW5.

It is an important fact to be mentioned herein is that the samples which are allegedly collected and sent to the Analyst for chemical analysis are not produced before the Court for marking them as material objects. The prosecution also did not produce the unexpended portion of the samples returned by the Analyst. As per the evidence of PW5 after lifting the samples, the rest of the plants were destroyed by PW4/MRO under Ex-P2/destruction panchanama. The remaining contraband should be produced before the Court for the purpose of marking it as material object. So, the non-production of the case property i.e. samples and unexpended portion of the samples returned by the Analyst and the remaining contraband is fatal to the case of prosecution.

17.In these circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused is the cultivator of the land, on which ganja plants were found and seized under a cover of Ex-P5/scene of offence panchanama.

18.Thus, I conclude that the prosecution to put-forth its case could not adduce any positive material evidence in order to prove the offence punishable under Section 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act.

19.Therefore, in view of the material available on record and of the forgoing discussion, I conclude that the prosecution could not bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and thus the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, I find him not guilty of the offence, with which he is charged and the accused is entitled to an acquittal.

11S.C. No.18 of 2006

20.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Section 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.PC of the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall be cancelled. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation, after correction, pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 23rd day of November, 2012).

FAC SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1:Md. Razak - None - PW2:S. Satyanarayana PW3:J. Venkateshwar Reddy PW4:M. Nagaiah PW5:P. Shoban Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex-P1 is the pahani copy issued by PW1. Ex-P2 is the destruction panchanama. Ex-P3 and Ex-P4 are the photographs with negatives. Ex-P5 is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex-P6 is the report given by PW3. Ex-P7 is the destruction certificate issued by PW4. Ex-P8 is the FIR issued by PW5. Ex-P9 is the analysis report.

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

FAC SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES,

WARANGAL.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

NDPS CASES (I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE) WARANGAL

Friday, this the 23rd day of November, 2012

PRESENT: Smt.D.Leelavathi, FAC Special Sessions Judge for Trial of NDPS Cases-cum- I-Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal.

N.D.P.S. SESSIONS CASE NO.15 OF 2006

(Cr.No.223/2005 of Bhupalpally Police Station)

1.Name and description of the :The State of A.P. rep. by the complainantInspector of Police, PS Bhupalpally.

2.Name and description of the : I lapuram Linga Chary, s/o accusedVenkatesham, Aged: 35 years, Vadla, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Gorlaveedu Village.

3.Offence charged:Sec.8(b) r/w 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

4.Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

5.Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

6.Conviction, sentence or acquittal:The accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.PC of the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall be cancelled. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

7.Name of the Counsel for the :In-charge Addl. P.P. prosecution

8.Name of the counsel for accused:Sri T.Srinivas, Advocate

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of In-charge Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and of

Sri T.Srinivas, Advocate, for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T : :

: :

The Inspector of Police, Police Station Bhupalpally, has laid the charge sheet before this Court against the accused in Cr.No.223/2005 under Section 2S.C. No.15 of 2006 8(b) r/w 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, the Act).

2.The case of the prosecution as set out in the charge sheet is as follows:

i)That on 5.12.2005 morning as per the instructions of Inspector of Police,

PS Bhupalpally, LW1-SI of Police, PS Bhupalpally along with LW2-Prob.SI, LW3-

PC 1667 of PS Bhupalpally, CRP Force, LW5-Revenue Inspector, LW6-

Panchayat Secretary, Gorlaveedu and LW4-photographer visited Gorlaveedu

Village to conduct raids on ganja fields. Accordingly, they searched the fields at 3.20 p.m. and found 2025 ganja plants cultivated in Sy.No.781 in an extent of

Ac.0-20 guntas of land. As per the revenue records, LW6-Panchayat Secretary of Gorlaveedu identified the said field pertaining to the accused. LW1 conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LWs 5 and 6 and photographed the ganja field and plants through LW4/photographer and lifted two samples, packed and sealed as per procedure for the purpose of chemical analysis under cover of scene of offence panchanama and returned to the police station

Bhupalpally and handed over ganja samples and scene of offence panchanama and his report to LW9-Inspector of Police, PS Bhupalpally, for registering the case. LW9 the Inspector of Police, PS Bhupalpally, has registered the same as a case in Cr.No.223/2005 u/S 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act and issued FIR to all the concerned and took up the investigation. On 6.12.2005 LW9-Inspector of Police,

PS Bhupalpally along with LW7/MRO, Bhupalpally, LW4/photographer and LWs 5 and 6, the mediators visited the scene of offence i.e. the field of accused and plucked total 2025 ganja plants with the help of police persons, out of them, he collected two samples and packed separately and properly as per procedure and rest of the plants were destroyed under cover of panchanama in the presence of

MRO and mediators i.e. LWs 5 and 6. LW7/MRO issued Destruction Certificate.

On 20.12.2005 at 0800 hours the accused himself surrendered before

LW9/Inspector of Police, Bhupalpally PS and on his surrender LW9 affected his arrest and sent him to the Court for remand. The samples have been forwarded to the Government Chemical Examiner for Excise and Prohibition Cases at 3S.C. No.15 of 2006

Warangal through SDPO Parkal. LW8/Government Chemical Examiner,

Prohibition and Excise, Regional Laboratory at Warangal, examined the samples and issued report stating that the samples contained ganja. Thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 8(b) r/w 20 of

NDPS Act.

3.This Court being the Special Court to try the cases under the Act, has taken charge sheet on file under Section 8(b) r/w Section 20 of the said Act.

After securing the presence of the accused, copies of case records were furnished to him, as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.PC.

4.After hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, a charge under Section 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act, has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty for the said charge and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution has cited nine witnesses, out of them PWs 1 to 5 is only examined and got marked Exs-P1 to

P9 documents.

PW1 is the then Revenue Inspector, Bhupalpally. He is a panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama and destruction of ganja plants. PW2 is the then SI of Police, PS Bhupalpally, who detected the offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama and collected two samples, packed and sealed as per the procedure and handed over the samples and panchanama along with his report to PW5. PW3 is the then MRO, Bhupalpally, who conducted destruction panchanama in the presence of mediators. PW4 is the Panchayat Secretary,

Gorlaveedu Village, who alleged to be a panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama and destruction of ganja plants. He turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW5 is the then Inspector of Police, PS

Bhupalpally, who conducted investigation and sent the samples to the Chemical 4S.C. No.15 of 2006

Examiner and after receipt of analyst report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused before this Court.

Ex-P1 is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex-P2 is the destruction panchanama. Ex-P3 are the photographs. Ex-P4 is the report of PW2. Ex-P5 is the destruction certificate issued by PW3. Ex-P6 is the pahani copy attested by

PW3. Ex-P7 is the signature of PW4 on Ex-P2. Ex-P8 is the FIR issued by

PW5. Ex-P9 is the analysis report.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.PC, for which he denied the incriminating evidence found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and stated that he did not commit any offence and the police falsely implicated him in this case and he is no way concerned with the ganja plantation and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard the arguments of the learned In-charge Additional Public

Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the accused.

8.Now, the point that arises for determination is “whether the

prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused for the

offence punishable under Section 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act,

beyond all reasonable doubt”?

9.POINT:In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs 1 to 5.

PW2 deposed that on 5.12.2005 he along with his staff, the panchas i.e.

PW1-Sripada Satyanarayana, Revenue Inspector and PW4/Mohd.Razaq,

Panchayat Secretary and the photographer went to Gorlaveedu Village in order to conduct ganja raids. At about 3.20 p.m., they reached the land in Sy.No.781 and PW1/Revenue Inspector has identified the said land as that of the accused 5S.C. No.15 of 2006 as per revenue record. They counted the ganja plants to be 2025. He conducted scene of offence panchanama as per the procedure in the presence of mediators i.e. PWs 1 and 4. He got the ganja plants photographed, out of them he collected two samples, packed and sealed as per the procedure. Ex-P1 is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex-P3 are the photographs. Later, he returned to police station and handed over the scene of offence panchanama, samples along with his report to PW5 and a case was registered on his report.

Ex-P4 is his report.

PW1 deposed that on the requisition of police, he went to Gorlaveedu village to a land in Sy.No.781, which belongs to the accused on 5.12.2005 at 3.20 p.m. They found 2025 plants as a mixed crop with cotton. They were removed in their presence. The police conducted scene of offence panchanama.

Ex-P1 is the scene of offence panchanama.

PW5 deposed that on 5.12.2005 basing on a report given by PW2-

Venkateshwar Reddy, SI Bhupalpaly, he registered a case in this crime and issued FIR. Ex-P8 is the said FIR and he took up investigation in this crime. He visited scene of offence situated in Sy.No.781 and inspected the land in the presence of PW3/MRO and the panchas i.e. PWs 1 and 4 and found 2025 ganja plants in the said survey number in an extent of one acre. He got removed all the plants, out of them he collected two samples and packed separately and properly as per procedure by putting seals to them. The rest of the plants were destroyed by PW3/MRO there itself. He has also taken photographs at the scene of offence with the help of LW4/photographer. He prepared a rough sketch in the panchanama. The entire proceedings were done under a cover of panchanama/Ex-P1.

PW3 the then MRO, Bhupalpally Mandal, deposed that on 6.12.2005 he was called by PS Bhupalpally to conduct panchanama at Gorlaveedu Village

Shivar in Sy.No.781. In the presence of the mediators i.e. PWs 1 and 4, he has conducted destruction panchanama. The total number of ganja plants is 2025 in 6S.C. No.15 of 2006 an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas. Ex-P5 is the destruction certificate. Ex-P6 is the pahani copy attested by him.

PW4 deposed that he went to an agricultural field, there they found some ganja plants. A panchanama was conducted by the police that was drafted by other mediator, he does not know his name. He signed on the destruction panchanama. He cannot say the survey number of the land or the number of the ganja plants therein. He does not know about the cultivator of that land.

10.A perusal of the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 5 discloses that on 5.12.2005

PW2 conducted raids on ganja fields along with his staff and mediators i.e. PWs 1 and 4 and found 2025 ganja plants in the land in Sy.No.781 and conducted scene of offence and collected two samples in the presence of panchas i.e. PWs 1 and 4 and handed over the scene of offence panchanama, two samples along with his report to PW5, in turn, PW5 after registering the same as a case in

Cr.No.223/2005, conducted investigation and during the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence and found 2025 ganja plants in the land in

Sy.No.781 in an extent of one acre and got removed all the plants and out of them he collected two samples and packed separately and properly as per procedure and the rest of the ganja plants were destroyed by PW3/MRO in his presence and the said proceedings are photographed by LW4 the photographer.

11.Now the crucial point to be considered is whether the prosecution could able to prove that the accused is in possession of Ac.0-20 guntas of land in

Sy.No.781 of Gorlaveedu village and he has cultivated ganja plants as a mixed crop with cotton.

In order to prove this aspect, the prosecution has relied upon Ex-

P6/pahani copy for the year 2005-2006. As per this document, one Kammari

Mallesham, resident of Gorlaveedu village is the pattedar. Admittedly, PW5 did not examine the pattedar. In column No.13 in Ex-P6, the name of the accused is shown as “possessor”. In Col.No.14 the extent is shown as Ac.0-20 guntas.

7S.C. No.15 of 2006

12.PW1 has stated in his cross-examination that he cannot say the survey number of the land unless it is properly surveyed in his presence. He further stated that since they came to know the said land belongs to the accused, they mentioned in Ex-P6 that the land with ganja plants belongs to the accused. But, he has no personal knowledge that who exactly planted those ganja plants. He has not examined any neighbouring land owners. PW2 has stated in his cross- examination that only basing on the information given by the people at that place, he has located the land in this case. It shows that without verifying the revenue record, PW2 himself decided that the land in Sy.No.781 belongs to the accused.

PW3 has stated in his cross-examination that the survey number of the land and other particulars mentioned in Ex-P6 and panchanama with regard to the land are not personally known to him and only on the information furnished by VRO, he came to know about the said particulars. He further stated that there is no record to show that the accused was the cultivator at that time in the given extent and given survey number. PW5 has admitted in his cross-examination that the accused is not the pattedar of the land in Sy.No.781 and except pahani he has not collected any other revenue record to show that how the name of the accused is entered as possessor of that land. He further admitted that he has not verified the original records of pahani in the MRO Office and he does not know whether the ganja crop was not recorded in the original records. He further stated that on examining the VAO, he noticed that the accused is the possessor of that land. He further admitted that there was no report by VRO to the police with regard to the ganja cultivation in the area prior to the date of Ex-P1.

13.A scrutiny of the cross-examination of PWs 1 to 3 and 5, it is quite clear that without verifying the original revenue records, basing on the information given by VAO, PW5 came to a conclusion that the accused is the possessor of the said land. The said VAO is neither cited as a witness nor examined by the police. Even, the neighbouring land owners of the said land are not examined by

PW5. Even, the prosecution has not taken any pains to examine the pattedar of the land in Sy.No.781.

8S.C. No.15 of 2006

14.As seen from Ex-P6/pahani copy, it was issued by Secretary, Grama

Sachivalayam, Gorlaveedu, Man: Bhupalpally and counter-signed by PW3/MRO, whereas, PW4/Panchayat Secretary has stated in his chief-examination itself that he cannot say the survey number of the land or number of the ganja plants therein and he does not know about the cultivator of that land. PW4 was declared as hostile witness by the learned Addl.P.P. and cross-examined him, but nothing was elicited from his cross-examination to discredit his testimony with regard to fact that the accused was in possession of Ac.0-20 guntas of land in

Sy.No.781 situated at Gorlaveedu Village and he is the cultivator of the said land.

As seen from Ex-P6/pahani copy, there is a correction of year i.e. 2004- 2005 as 2005-2006. The same is admitted by PW3/MRO in his cross- examination. He could not give explanation with regard to the said correction in

Ex-P6. PW3 has stated in his cross-examination that the Village Secretary has not brought to his notice about finding of ganja plants as mentioned in column

No.23 of Ex-P6 prior to Ex-P1/panchanama. He has neither enquired nor taken any action against the Village Secretary for not informing to the higher officials of his office about finding of illegal cultivation of ganja in that area. PW3 further admitted that the accused was not present at the time of conducting of destruction panchanama. Further, nowhere in the evidence of PW3 stated that the entries in Ex-P6 are true and correct and they are verified with the original records. PW5 clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he has not verified the original records of pahani in the MRO Office. So, it appears that without verifying the original records, the police have brought Ex-P6/pahani copy to establish their case. So, no reliance can be placed on Ex-P6/pahani in view of discrepancy in the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 5.

15.Even, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 5 is considered that the accused is in possession of Ac.0-20 guntas of land in Sy.No.781, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused is the cultivator of the said land, on which ganja plants were found and seized under a cover of Ex-P1/scene of offence 9S.C. No.15 of 2006 panchanama. No neighbouring land owner is examined to show that the accused is the cultivator of the said land, on which ganja plants were found and seized. Except Ex-P6/pahani copy, there is no other cogent and convincing evidence to show that the accused is the cultivator of the said land. One

Kammari Mallesham is the pattedar in Sy.No.781 as per Ex-P6. The said

Mallesham is the best person to say as to how the accused came into possession of Ac.0-20 guntas of land in Sy.No.781 and allegedly raised the ganja plants as a mixed crop with cotton. In the absence of such evidence, no reliance can be placed solely on the entries made in Ex-P6/pahani copy. If Ex-P6/pahani copy is excluded from consideration, absolutely, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused is in possession of Ac.0-20 guntas of land in Sy.No.781 and he is the cultivator of the said land, on which ganja plants were found and seized under a cover of Ex-P1/scene of offence panchanama.

16.With regard to collection of samples, according to PW2, he has collected two samples, packed and sealed as per the procedure under Ex-P1/scene of offence panchanama. According to PW5, he also collected two samples and packed separately and properly as per procedure by putting seals to them, the rest of the plants were destroyed by PW3/MRO under Ex-P2/destruction panchanama. PW5 further deposed that he sent the seized samples for analysis and received Ex-P9/analysis report. So, four samples were collected and packed separately by PWs 2 and 5. But, Ex-P9/analysis report does not show how many samples were received by the Analyst. The Analyst who allegedly analyzed the samples is not examined in this case. Therefore, it is not known whether all the four samples are sent to Analyst for the purpose of chemical analysis or only two samples are sent, collected by PW5.

It is an important fact to be mentioned herein is that the samples which are allegedly collected and sent to the Analyst for chemical analysis are not produced before the Court for marking them as material objects. The prosecution also did not produce the unexpended portion of the samples 10S.C. No.15 of 2006 returned by the Analyst. As per the evidence of PW5 after living the samples, the rest of the plants were destroyed by PW3/MRO under Ex-P2/destruction panchanama. The remaining contraband should be produced before the Court for the purpose of marking it as material object. So, the non-production of the case property i.e. samples and unexpended portion of the samples returned by the Analyst and remaining contraband is fatal to the case of prosecution.

17.In these circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused is the cultivator of the land, on which ganja plants were found and seized under a cover of Ex-P1/scene of offence panchanama.

18.Thus, I conclude that the prosecution to put-forth its case could not adduce any positive material evidence in order to prove the offence punishable under Section 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act.

19.Therefore, in view of the material available on record and of the forgoing discussion, I conclude that the prosecution could not bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and thus the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, I find him not guilty of the offence, with which he is charged and the accused is entitled to an acquittal.

20.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Section 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.PC of the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall be cancelled. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after his transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 23rd day of November, 2012).

FAC SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES,

WARANGAL.

11S.C. No.15 of 2006

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1:Sripada Satyanarayana - None - PW2:J. Venkateshwar Reddy PW3:M. Nagaiah PW4:Mohd. Razaaq PW5:P. Shoban Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex-P1 is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex-P2 is the destruction panchanama. Ex-P3 is the photographs. Ex-P4 is the report given by PW2. Ex-P5 is the destruction certificate issued by PW3. Ex-P6 is the pahani copy attested by PW3. Ex-P7 is the signature of PW4 on Ex-P2. Ex-P8 is the FIR issued by PW5. Ex-P9 is the analysis report.

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

FAC SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES,

WARANGAL.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

NDPS CASES (I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE) WARANGAL

Friday, this the 23rd day of November, 2012

PRESENT: Smt.D.Leelavathi, FAC Special Sessions Judge for Trial of NDPS Cases-cum- I-Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal.

N.D.P.S. SESSIONS CASE NO.19 OF 2006

(Cr.No.218/2005 of Bhupalpally Police Station)

1.Name and description of the :The State of A.P. rep. by the complainantInspector of Police, PS Bhupalpally.

2.Name and description of the : Chukka Srinivas, s/o late Ramaiah, accusedAged: 26 years, Munnurukapu, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Gorlaveedu Village.

3.Offence charged:Sec.8(b) r/w 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

4.Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

5.Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

6.Conviction, sentence or acquittal:The accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.PC of the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall be cancelled. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

7.Name of the Counsel for the :In-charge Addl. P.P. prosecution

8.Name of the counsel for accused:Sri M.Goutham Kumar, Advocate

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of In-charge Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and of

Sri M.Goutham Kumar, Advocate, for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T : :

: :

The Inspector of Police, Police Station Bhupalpally, has laid the charge sheet before this Court against the accused in Cr.No.218/2005 under Section 2S.C. No.19 of 2006 8(b) r/w 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, the Act).

2.The case of the prosecution as set out in the charge sheet is as follows:

i)That on 5.12.2005 morning as per the instructions of Inspector of Police,

PS Bhupalpally, LW1-SI of Police, PS Bhupalpally along with LW2-Prob.SI, LW3-

PC 1667 of PS Bhupalpally, CRP Force, LW5-Revenue Inspector, LW6-

Panchayat Secretary, Gorlaveedu and LW4-photographer visited Gorlaveedu

Village to conduct raids on ganja fields. Accordingly, they searched the fields at 10.10 a.m. they found 1980 ganja plants cultivated in Sy.No.762 in an extent of

Ac.0-20 guntas of land. As per the revenue records, LW6-Panchayat Secretary of Gorlaveedu identified the said field pertaining to the accused. LW1 conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LWs 5 and 6 and photographed the ganja field and plants through LW4/photographer and lifted two samples, packed and sealed as per procedure for the purpose of chemical analysis under cover of scene of offence panchanama and returned to the police station

Bhupalpally and handed over ganja samples and scene of offence panchanama and his report to LW9-Inspector of Police, PS Bhupalpally for registering the case. LW9, the Inspector of Police, PS Bhupalpally has registered the same as a case in Cr.No.218/2005 u/S 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act and issued FIR to all the concerned and took up the investigation. On 6.12.2005 LW9-Inspector of Police,

PS Bhupalpally along with LW7/MRO, Bhupalpally, LW4/photographer and LWs 5 and 6, the mediators visited the scene of offence i.e. the field of accused and plucked total 1980 ganja plants with the help of police persons, out of them, he collected two samples and packed separately and properly as per procedure and rest of the plants were destroyed under cover of panchanama in the presence of

MRO and the mediators i.e. LW5 and LW6. LW7/MRO issued Destruction

Certificate. On 20.12.2005 at 0800 hours the accused himself surrendered

before LW9/Inspector of Police, Bhupalpally PS and on his surrender LW9

affected his arrest and sent him to the Court for remand. The samples have been forwarded to the Government Chemical Examiner for Excise and 3S.C. No.19 of 2006

Prohibition Cases at Warangal through SDPO Parkal. LW8/Government

Chemical Examiner, Prohibition and Excise, Regional Laboratory at Warangal, examined the samples and issued report stating that the samples contained “ganja”. Thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under

Section 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act.

3.This Court being the Special Court to try the cases under the Act, has taken charge sheet on file under Section 8(b) r/w Section 20 of the said Act.

After securing the presence of the accused, copies of case records were furnished to him, as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.PC.

4.After hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, a charge under Section 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act, has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty for the said charge and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution has cited nine witnesses, out of them PWs 1 to 5 are only examined and got marked Exs-P1 to

P9 documents.

PW1 is the then Revenue Inspector, Bhupalpally. He is a panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama and destruction of ganja plants. PW2 is the then SI of Police, PS Bhupalpally, who detected the offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama and collected two samples, packed and sealed as per the procedure and handed over the samples and panchanama along with his report to PW5. PW3 is the then MRO, Bhupalpally, who conducted destruction panchanama in the presence of mediators. PW4 is the Panchayat Secretary,

Gorlaveedu Village, who alleged to be a panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama and destruction of ganja plants. He turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW5 is the then Inspector of Police, PS

Bhupalpally, who conducted investigation and sent the samples to the Chemical 4S.C. No.19 of 2006

Examiner and after receipt of analyst report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused before this Court.

Ex-P1 is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex-P2 is the destruction panchanama. Ex-P3 are photographs. Ex-P4 is the report of PW2. Ex-P5 is the destruction certificate issued by PW3. Ex-P6 is the pahani copy attested by

PW3. Ex-P7 is the signature of PW4 on Ex-P2. Ex-P8 is the FIR issued by

PW5. Ex-P9 is the analysis report.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.PC, for which he denied the incriminating evidence found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and stated that he did not commit any offence and the police falsely implicated him in this case and he is no way concerned with the ganja plantation and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard the arguments of the learned In-charge Additional Public

Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the accused.

8.Now, the point that arises for determination is “whether the

prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused for the offence

punishable under Section 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act, beyond all

reasonable doubt”?

9.POINT:In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs 1 to 5.

PW2 deposed that on 5.12.2005 he along with his staff, the panchas i.e.

PW1-Sripada Satyanarayana, Revenue Inspector and PW4/Mohd.Razaq,

Panchayat Secretary and the photographer went to Gorlaveedu Village in order to conduct ganja raids. At about 3.20 p.m., they reached the land in Sy.No.762 and PW1/Revenue Inspector has identified the said land as that of the accused 5S.C. No.19 of 2006 as per revenue record. They counted the ganja plants to be 1980. He conducted scene of offence panchanama as per the procedure in the presence of mediators i.e. PWs 1 and 4. He got the ganja plants photographed, out of them he collected two samples, packed and sealed as per the procedure. Ex-P1 is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex-P3 are the photographs. Later, he returned to police station and handed over the scene of offence panchanama, samples along with his report to PW5 and a case was registered on his report.

Ex-P4 is his report.

PW1 deposed that on the requisition of police, he went to Gorlaveedu village to a land in Sy.No.762, which belongs to the accused on 5.12.2005 at 10.10 a.m. They found 1980 plants as a mixed crop with cotton. They were removed in their presence. The police conducted scene of offence panchanama.

Ex-P1 is the scene of offence panchanama.

PW5 deposed that on 5.12.2005 basing on a report given by PW2-

Venkateshwar Reddy, SI Bhupalpaly, he registered a case in this crime and issued FIR. Ex-P8 is the said FIR and he took up investigation in this crime. He visited scene of offence situated in Sy.No.762 and inspected the land in the presence of PW3/MRO and the panchas i.e. PWs 1 and 4 and found 1980 ganja plants in the said survey number in an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas. He got removed all the plants, out of them he collected two samples and packed separately and properly as per procedure by putting seals to them. The rest of the plants were destroyed by PW3/MRO there itself. He has also taken photographs at the scene of offence with the help of LW4/photographer. He prepared a rough sketch in the panchanama. The entire proceedings were done under a cover of panchanama/Ex-P1.

PW3 the then MRO, Bhupalpally Mandal, deposed that on 6.12.2005 he was called by PS Bhupalpally to conduct panchanama at Gorlaveedu Village

Shivar in Sy.No.762. In the presence of the mediators i.e. PWs 1 and 4, he has conducted destruction panchanama. The total number of ganja plants is 1980 in 6S.C. No.19 of 2006 an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas. Ex-P5 is the destruction certificate. Ex-P6 is the pahani copy attested by him.

PW4 deposed that he went to an agricultural field, there they found some ganja plants. A panchanama was conducted by the police that was drafted by other mediator, he does not know his name. He signed on the destruction panchanama. He cannot say the survey number of the land or the number of the ganja plants therein. He does not know about the cultivator of that land.

10.A perusal of the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 5 discloses that on 5.12.2005

PW2 conducted raids on ganja fields along with his staff and mediators i.e. PWs 1 and 4 and found 1980 ganja plants in the land in Sy.No.762 and conducted scene of offence and collected two samples in the presence of panchas i.e. PWs 1 and 4 and handed over the scene of offence panchanama, two samples along with his report to PW5, in turn, PW5 after registering the same as a case in

Cr.No.218/2005, conducted investigation and during the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence and found 1980 ganja plants in the land in

Sy.No.762 in an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas and got removed all the plants and out of them he collected two samples and packed separately and properly as per procedure and the rest of the ganja plants were destroyed by PW3/MRO in his presence and the said proceedings are photographed by LW4 the photographer.

11.Now the crucial point to be considered is whether the prosecution could able to prove that the accused is in possession of Ac.0-20 guntas of land in

Sy.No.762 of Gorlaveedu village and he has cultivated ganja plants as a mixed crop with cotton.

In order to prove this aspect, the prosecution has relied upon Ex-

P6/pahani copy for the year 2005-2006. As per this document, one Penukula

Chandraiah, resident of Gorlaveedu village is the pattedar. Admittedly, PW5 did not examine the pattedar. In column No.13 in Ex-P6, the name of the accused is shown as “possessor”. In Col.No.14 the extent is shown as Ac.0-20 guntas.

7S.C. No.19 of 2006

12.PW1 has stated in his cross-examination that he cannot say the survey number of the land unless it is properly surveyed in his presence. He further stated that since they came to know the said land belongs to the accused, they mentioned in Ex-P6 that the land with ganja plants belongs to the accused. But, he has no personal knowledge that who exactly planted those ganja plants. He has not examined any neighbouring land owners. PW2 has stated in his cross- examination that only basing on the information given by the people at that place, he has located the land in this case. It shows that without verifying the revenue record, PW2 himself decided that the land in Sy.No.762 belongs to the accused.

PW3 has stated in his cross-examination that the survey number of the land and other particulars mentioned in Ex-P6 and panchanama with regard to the land are not personally known to him and only on the information furnished by VRO, he came to know about the said particulars. He further stated that there is no record to show that the accused was the cultivator at that time in the given extent and given survey number. PW5 has admitted in his cross-examination that the accused is not the pattedar of the land in Sy.No.762 and except pahani he has not collected any other revenue record to show that how the name of the accused is entered as possessor of that land. He further admitted that he has not verified the original records of pahani in the MRO Office and he does not know whether the ganja crop was not recorded in the original records. He further stated that on examining the VAO, he noticed that the accused is the possessor of that land. He further admitted that there was no report by VRO to the police with regard to the ganja cultivation in the area prior to the date of Ex-P1.

13.A scrutiny of the cross-examination of PWs 1 to 3 and 5, it is quite clear that without verifying the original revenue records, basing on the information given by VAO, PW5 came to a conclusion that the accused is the possessor of the said land. The said VAO is neither cited as a witness nor examined by the police. Even, the neighbouring land owners of the said land are not examined by

PW5. Even, the prosecution has not taken any pains to examine the pattedar of the land in Sy.No.762.

8S.C. No.19 of 2006

14.As seen from Ex-P6/pahani copy, it was issued by Secretary, Grama

Sachivalayam, Gorlaveedu, Man: Bhupalpally and counter-signed by PW3/MRO, whereas, PW4/Panchayat Secretary has stated in his chief-examination itself that he cannot say the survey number of the land or number of the ganja plants therein and he does not know about the cultivator of that land. PW4 was declared as hostile witness by the learned Addl.P.P. and cross-examined him, but nothing was elicited from his cross-examination to discredit his testimony with regard to fact that the accused was in possession of Ac.0-20 guntas of land in

Sy.No.762 situated at Gorlaveedu Village and he is the cultivator of the said land.

As seen from Ex-P6/pahani copy, there is a correction of year i.e. 2004- 2005 as 2005-2006. The same is admitted by PW3/MRO in his cross- examination. He could not give explanation with regard to the said correction in

Ex-P6. PW3 has stated in his cross-examination that the Village Secretary has not brought to his notice about finding of ganja plants as mentioned in column

No.23 of Ex-P6 prior to Ex-P1/panchanama. He has neither enquired nor taken any action against the Village Secretary for not informing to the higher officials of his office about finding of illegal cultivation of ganja in that area. PW3 further admitted that the accused was not present at the time of conducting of destruction panchanama. Further, nowhere in the evidence of PW3 stated that the entries in Ex-P6 are true and correct and they are verified with the original records. PW5 clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he has not verified the original records of pahani in the MRO Office. So, it appears that without verifying the original records, the police have brought Ex-P6/pahani copy to establish their case. So, no reliance can be placed on Ex-P6/pahani in view of discrepancy in the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 5.

15.Even, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 5 is considered that the accused is in possession of Ac.0-20 guntas of land in Sy.No.762, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused is the cultivator of the said land, on which ganja plants were found and seized under a cover of Ex-P1/scene of offence 9S.C. No.19 of 2006 panchanama. No neighbouring land owner is examined to show that the accused is the cultivator of the said land, on which ganja plants were found and seized. Except Ex-P6/pahani copy, there is no other cogent and convincing evidence to show that the accused is the cultivator of the said land. One

Penukala Chandraiah is the pattedar in Sy.No.762 as per Ex-P6. The said

Chandraiah is the best person to say as to how the accused came into possession of Ac.0-20 guntas of land in Sy.No.762 and allegedly raised the ganja plants as a mixed crop with cotton. In the absence of such evidence, no reliance can be placed solely on the entries made in Ex-P6/pahani copy. If Ex-P6/pahani copy is excluded from consideration, absolutely, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused is in possession of Ac.0-20 guntas of land in Sy.No.762 and he is the cultivator of the said land, on which ganja plants were found and seized under a cover of Ex-P1/scene of offence panchanama.

16.With regard to collection of samples, according to PW2, he has collected two samples, packed and sealed as per the procedure under Ex-P1/scene of offence panchanama. According to PW5, he also collected two samples and packed separately and properly as per procedure by putting seals to them, the rest of the plants were destroyed by PW3/MRO under Ex-P2/destruction panchanama. PW5 further deposed that he sent the seized samples for analysis and received Ex-P9/analysis report. So, four samples were collected and packed separately by PWs 2 and 5. But, Ex-P9/analysis report does not show how many samples were received by the Analyst. The Analyst who allegedly analyzed the samples is not examined in this case. Therefore, it is not known whether all the four samples are sent to Analyst for the purpose of chemical analysis or only two samples are sent, collected by PW5.

It is an important fact to be mentioned herein is that the samples which are allegedly collected and sent to the Analyst for chemical analysis are not produced before the Court for marking them as material objects. The prosecution also did not produce the unexpended portion of the samples 10S.C. No.19 of 2006 returned by the Analyst. As per the evidence of PW5 after living the samples, the rest of the plants were destroyed by PW3/MRO under Ex-P2/destruction panchanama. The remaining contraband should be produced before the Court for the purpose of marking it as material object. So, the non-production of the case property i.e. samples and unexpended portion of the samples returned by the Analyst and remaining contraband is fatal to the case of prosecution.

17.In these circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused is the cultivator of the land, on which ganja plants were found and seized under a cover of Ex-P1/scene of offence panchanama.

18.Thus, I conclude that the prosecution to put-forth its case could not adduce any positive material evidence in order to prove the offence punishable under Section 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act.

19.Therefore, in view of the material available on record and of the forgoing discussion, I conclude that the prosecution could not bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and thus the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, I find him not guilty of the offence, with which he is charged and the accused is entitled to an acquittal.

20.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Section 8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.PC of the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall be cancelled. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation, after correction, pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 23rd day of November, 2012).

FAC SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES,

WARANGAL.

11S.C. No.19 of 2006

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1:Sripada Satyanarayana - None - PW2:J. Venkateshwar Reddy PW3:M. Nagaiah PW4:Mohd. Razaaq PW5:P. Shoban Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex-P1 is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex-P2 is the destruction panchanama. Ex-P3 is the photographs. Ex-P4 is the report given by PW2. Ex-P5 is the destruction certificate issued by PW3. Ex-P6 is the pahani copy attested by PW3. Ex-P7 is the signature of PW4 on Ex-P2. Ex-P8 is the FIR issued by PW5. Ex-P9 is the analysis report.

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

FAC SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES,

WARANGAL.