Sri G.gopi

1 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.187 /2016

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

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

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri Guttala Gopi Spl. Judge to try Offences under NDPS Act -cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge

Wednesday, the 19 th day of April, 2017.

N.S.C.No.187/2016.

a)The serial number of the case:NSC.No.187/2016.

b) Date of commission of offence:09-02-2016

c)Name of the Complainant, if any:State represented by the Proh.& Excise Inspector, Prohibition & Excise Station,Chodavaram, Visakhapatnam District.

d)Name of the accused person, his A1Vadala Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Vasantha parentage and residence, if anyRao, aged 48 years, C/o. Yadava, D.No.20-98/2, Kotha Relli veedhi, Visakhapatnam-1.

A2Pechcheti Raju, S/o. Mahalakshmi Naidu(Pecheti Guravaiamma son) age 28 years, C/o. Kapu, R/o. Jampena, V. Madugula Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. A3 Shaik Azghar, S/o. Late Sk.Rasool, aged 36 years, C/o. Muslim, R/o.D.No.38-7-6, Muslim street, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam.

A4Tatikonda Naidu, S/o. Appa Rao, aged 46 years, C/o. Kaput R/o. Veeravalli Agraharam, V. Madugula Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. A5 Pechcheti Sreenu, S/o. Nookarju, aged 27 years, C/o. Kapu, R/o. Rampena, V . Madugula Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

e)Offences complained of or proved :U/sec.20(b) of NDPS Act,1985.

f)Plea of the accused and his :A1 to A5 pleaded not guilty. examination, if any

This case has come up on 07-04-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Prudvi Raj, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri K. Siva, Advocate for Accused 1 to A5, and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Prohibition & Excise Station,

Chodavaram, Visakhapatnam District filed charge sheet against the above 2 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.187 /2016 named accused in Crime No.407/2015-16 for the offence punishable U/s.8© r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act).

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case are that on 09-02-2016 the

LW-3 received information about the ganja was being transporting through

Chodavaram on a TATA “Winger” vehicle bearing Registration No.AP 31 TA 1743 escorted by a Bajaj Discover 100CC motorcycle bearing registration No.

AP 31 CB 7024. On the basis of information the LW-3 and his staff conducted route watch near Citizen Degree college on the route from Vaddadi to

Chodavaram. At about 08-40 AM the motorcycle matching the description registration number came near the check point. The LW-3 questioned the persons driving the motorcycle that LW3 had information that he was acting as an escort to the vehicle transporting ganja. That person first denied his involvement, but later admitted that he was acting as an escort. Then LW3 asked him how he communicates with the vehicle. He stated that when he observed any obstruction he would contact Pecheti Srinu who would in turn contact the driver of the vehicle. Then LW3 sent Smt P. Leela Rani, Proh. &

Excise Sub Inspector (PW3) to secure mediators and took the person and his vehicle to the side of road and waited for the Winger vehicle. LW3 asked him about his name and the documents of the vehicle and he produced “C” book of the motorcycle, it was in the name of one Nookaraju and there were documents in his name. He stated Nookaraju is his father-in-law and he disclosed the cell phone Number of the Pecheti Srinu as 8500528523.

Meanwhile LW4 brought the mediators to that place. The mediators

Venkateswara Rao. VRO, and Koteswra Rao, VRA of Chodavaram. And the

LW3 informed him about what was happening and they questioned Tatikonda

Naidu. They are all waited for the Winger vehicle. At 09-50 AM the TATA

Winger vehicle bearing registration No. AP 31 TA 1743, at lost the said vehicle approached the check point. The LW3 stopped the vehicle and found one 3 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.187 /2016 person in the driving seat and two persons in the passenger seat and in the rear seat. LW3 told to the person in the driving seat that he had information that ganja was being transported in his vehicle. And after completion of all formalities and search of the accused and seizure of the property from the accused and also issued notice to the accused U/sec.50 of NDPS Act.

Subsequently, the Accused were remanded to judicial custody and forwarded the sample packets to Regional Excise Laboratory for chemical analysis and after receiving the chemical analysis report and after completion of the investigation, Inspector Proh. & Excise filed charge sheet.

3.After careful verification of the record, the case was taken on file as

NSC.No.187/2016 and after secure the presence of the accused, copies of documents furnished, under section 207 Cr. P.C.

4.After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, but the accused was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C., a charge

U/s.8© r/w Sec.20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act,1985 was framed, read over and explained to the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Accordingly, trial scheduled was fixed and trial was conducted.

5.To ground the case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 7, and Exs.P1 to

Ex.P25 and MOs.1 to MO.8 got marked on behalf of the prosecution. During the cross-examination of PW4, Ex.D1 marked on behalf of the accused.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused examined U/s.313

Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence available in the record, but the accused denied the entire evidence and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard for both the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and defence.

8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the prosecution established the case beyond all reasonable doubt with support of

PW1 to 7, Ex.P1 to P25 and MOs.1 to 8. The evidence let in by the prosecution is more than sufficient to convict the accused and prayed the court to convict the accused according to law.

4 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.187 /2016

9.The learned counsel for the defence would argued that even the prosecution vehemently tried to bring home the guilt of the accused several contradictions and omissions were occurred, though the entire list of witnesses LW1 to 7 were examined as PW1 to 7. Most of the prosecution witnesses failed to depose the material aspects of the offence alleged to be committed by the accused. Moreover the prosecution failed to comply the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act which is fatal to the case of the prosecution, hence prayed this court to acquit the accused according to law.

10.Upon hearing both sides and after gone through the entire material available on the record, the following points emerged for consideration:

1. Whether the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt that 480kgs of Ganja was seized from the possession of Accused 1 to A5?

2. Whether the mandatory provisions governing the search and seizure under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 have been complied with in this case?

11.POINT Nos.1 and 2 :It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused transporting the ganja illegally in Tata Winger vehicle with escort.

Upon a credible information the PW6 secured the PW3 Sub Inspector of Excise and also PW4 constable Proh.&Excise, Anakapalli and also secured the

PW1&PW2 who acted as mediators during the conducting proceedings. To support the same, the main prosecution witnesses are PW1&PW2 deposed on the similar lines with slight differences.

12.As per the evidence of the PW1, he admitted, the police called him to act as mediators on 09-02-2016 and he went to station at about 11-30 AM and scribed on the mediators report that was prepared by the police. And also stated that the persons who are apprehended were not shown to him, though the PW1 asked about the persons who are alleged to be apprehended by the police. But the police replied that they were kept inside the station. So it is clear, the police only obtained the signatures of the PW1 without shown the persons and property which were alleged to be apprehended and seized the property. At this stage, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought leave 5 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.187 /2016 of the court to examine the witness under Sec.154 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 as PW1 turned hostile, as he failed to identify the person and the property. But nothing was elicited by the Additional Public Prosecutor with regard to the identification of the persons. So it is clear the PW1 not seen the persons and preparing documents he signed on at the instance of police, hence the evidence of the PW1 is not helpful to the prosecution case.

13.Now coming to the evidence of the PW2, who is another mediator also deposed on the similar lines of PW1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also cross-examined the PW2 by declaring him as hostile witness. Hence evidence of PW2 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

14.Now coming to the evidence of another important witness to the prosecution is PW3 Sub Inspector of Proh. & Excise Anakapalli. According to her evidence she accompanied with the PW6 who lead the team for conducting the vehicle search on the alleged date on 09-02-2016. As per her evidence, on the instructions of the PW6, she went to the place of offence and brought the mediators i.e. PW1 &PW2 to conduct proceedings. But during the cross-examination, she stated that the registration number stated in her chief-examination is not appear on the motorcycle shown in Ex.P2 and the name of the vehicle also not appears on Ex.P15 and fourteen bags are visible in Ex.P13. As the Ex.P13 is a photograph of Ganja, hence there is a inconsistency of the evidence in her chief-examination. She also testified that she do not remember at what time she went to secure the mediators and further stated that samples were not drawn from all the packets and from each lot and she cannot say which samples were drawn as the entire 24 bags was segregated as a lots. But she cannot say which sample packet drawn from which packet and also deposed that the weight of each packet 2kgs and there were 240 packets in 24 bags. The total weight was 480kgs. The 24 bags were assigned serial numbers 1 to 24 and were divided into 4 lots for drawing samples. One to six bags was lot one. Seven to twelve were lot two, thirteen to eighteen lot three and nineteen to twenty four lot four. Two samples 6 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.187 /2016 weighing 24grams each were drawn from each lot. The original was sent to the laboratory for chemical examination and the duplicate was kept at the station. During her cross-examination samples were not drawn from all the packets and she cannot say from which lot which sample was drawn. So in chief-examination she categorically testified that samples were drawn from each lot and each packet. But in the cross-examination again she testified that the samples were drawn from all the packets.

15.Moreover, in Ex.P13 only 14 bags are visible but as per the chief- examination she was testified that 24 bags were seized. And also serial No1 to 24 were assigned to the bags but as per the Ex.P13 photograph no serial numbers were found as stated by the PW3. Hence the entire chief and cross- examination of the PW3 riddled omissions and contradictions, which raises doubt with regard to the seizure of the property and weighing of the bags and other formalities done by the prosecution in the presence of the PW3.

16.Moreover, it is the evidence of the PW3 she was sent by the PW6 to bring the mediators, so she did not know what happened during her absence.

The same was also confirmed by the PW6 during his cross-examination. So whether the PW6 waited till to brought the PW1&PW2 by PW3 or conducted the search and other proceedings in their presence.

17.Now coming to the evidence of the PW4, constable Prohibition and

Excise he also testified that he accompanied with the PW3&PW6 on 09-02- 2016 at about 6-00 AM they wait at Degree college, Chodavaram, the person came on two wheeler, was stopped and questioned by Circle Inspector, and came to he was acting as an escort for ganja vehicle. And also testified that the bags and the vehicle shown in Ex.P13 and P14 and 15 are the ones he saw on that day. He can identify the person who came on the vehicles and identified the vehicle who are sat in the court. And also testified that he drafted one report in this case, the Circle Inspector Chodavaram, Head constable and himself singed on the report and he do not remember whether

Naidu and Basha signed on it. And the signature also found on the document 7 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.187 /2016 but the signature of the accused are not there on it which were marked as

Ex.D1. the Ex.D1 is attested mediators report dt.09-02-2016. As per Ex.D1 the signatures of the accused were not found. In fact the Investigation Officer has to obtain the signatures of the accused on the mediators report as they apprehend by the police on that day. So the PW4 also testified that the signature of the accused not found on the mediators report.

18. Now coming to the evidence of PW5 Circle Inspector, Proh. & Excise,

Chodavaram he received the entire case papers and property and the accused from the Station Sentry i.e., PW7 he kept the accused with PW7 and registered the case only and he was not participated in the investigation. As per his evidence he was admitted the description of the property is not stated in endorsement on Ex.P19. Ex.D1 is attested by him, by the time he reached the station the staff of Anakapalli Task Force was not there. The slips were affixed by Task Force personnel. And further admitted that there was no battery in MO.2 only four samples were produced before this court. He does not know what fast blue ‘B’ salt test means. The registration number plate is not there on the vehicle shown in Ex.P14. And he also admitted that he conducted the 52-A proceedings. Since he conducted 52-A proceedings for dispose of the property he must verified the property which was alleged to be handed over from the PW7 because he is a rank of Gazetted officer and his profession is very responsible and receiving the property from the constable he must take care. But in the instant case as per Ex.P19 endorsement the description of the property was not mentioned is also raises a doubt whether the PW5 received the entire property from PW-7 or not.

19.Moreover, the information about the vehicle is not stated in the

Annexure-I of Ex.P22, as per the evidence 24 bags shown but in Ex.P13, 13 bags are only visible. This fact was also admitted by the PW5, the main allegations is 24 bags were seized from the accused, but as per the Ex.P13 photograph 13 bags only appeared. Hence the evidence of PW5 riddled with the omissions and contradictions.

8 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.187 /2016

20.Now the evidence of PW6 who led the team for conducting the raid. The

PW6 reiterated the entire charge-sheet in chief-examination with regard to the information and securing the PW1&PW2 and opening the bags and weighment of the bags and drafting the mediators report and also deposed with regard to the investigation conducted by the PW5. But during the cross- examination, he failed to mention exact time of conducting search and reaching of alleged vehicle. Further deposed that at 06-15 AM all the prosecution witnesses assembled at his office Anakapalli and PW3 secured the mediators at 08-40 AM. And further stated that PW3 not present, when he examined Tatikonda Naidu who is a A4 in this case and again stated she was present and questioned about his personal details.

21. Moreover, in Ex.P19 mediators report the PW4 signature only appears and other signatures were not appeared. And the signature of the Head constable Appa Rao, Basha and Naidu are not there on Ex.P19. He further deposed that he did not trace the details of the cell phone numbers given. No documents were taken from the RTO to determine the ownership of TATA

Winger vehicle. So it clearly shows the callous attitude of the PW6 in conducting investigation why because the main crime vehicle is a Tata Winger which was found with ganja and main instrument for transporting the illegal ganja. But the reasons best known to the PW6 he failed to trace out the owner of the Tata winger is also raises doubt and negligence attitude of the

PW6. Moreover, it is the case of the prosecution the serial number allotted to the 24 bags as 1 to 24 and also divided into 4 lots. But as per the evidence of

PW6 serial number and lots numbers are not thereon Ex.P13 to P15. And further admitted that he drawn 8 samples from the 24 bags but only 4 sample packets produced before the court. It is further admitted that the samples were not drawn in the presence of the Magistrate. So it is clearly shows that

before conducting inventory in the presence of Magistrate by PW5 the

samples were drawn by the PW6 at the place of offence.

9 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.187 /2016

22.But as per the evidence of PW5 no identification slips, crime number is visible in Ex.P13 once PW1 drawn the samples at place of offence certainly the

PW6 who affix the identification slips on the bags to identified the bags that was seized in this crime number. But no identification slips found on the bags shown in Ex.P13. So whether the bags shown in Ex.P13 are the bags seized by the PW6 are one and the same also raises a doubt.

23.Moreover, the police seized 24 bags but in Ex.P13 only 13 bags were found. So the entire evidence of the PW5&PW6 are not corroborated with each other. Moreover the serial numbers 1 to 24 also not visible on Ex.P.13.

24.Now coming to the evidence of PW7 who is a Sentry on the date of the offence he testified that he received the property from the Circle Inspector i.e. PW6 on the date of offence, he received the case papers, four accused, one Winger vehicle, one bike and 24 gunny bags and four mobile phones two RC photo copies Driving license of one person, four original and four duplicate samples. During the cross-examination he admitted the description received by him is not mentioned in Ex.P25 endorsement of PW7 on Ex.P19 and also admitted that only 14 bags are visible on Ex.P.13. Number plate not exhibited in Ex.P14, even the number plate is also not confirmed the vehicle which is alleged to be seized by the police on that day. The 24 bags were also not found in Ex.P13 and the same was admitted by the PW.4 to 7. Hence the entire evidence of the prosecution riddled with the contradictions and omissions and the PW1&PW2 also turned hostile who is said to be independent witnesses. And even the PW3 to 7 being Departmental persons they also not corroborated with the evidence of other witnesses. Hence the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

25.In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty and they are acquitted

U/sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the offence U/sec.8©, r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of NADPS

Act. A3 released forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases. A1 to A5 shall execute a personal bond of Rs.10,000/-each (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of this Court within seven days from the date of the Judgment, as security for his appearance

before any higher Court as and when such higher Court issue summons in

respect of any appeal or revision filed against the judgment of this Court, as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., after appeal time is over. The 10 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.187 /2016

Mos.5 to MO.8 shall be destroyed, and MO.1 to 4 Cell phones shall be confiscated to the State, after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Superintendent, V AJCJ), transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19 th day of March, 2017.

Sd/- Guttala Gopi

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

N.D.P.S ACT-cum- METROPOLITAN SESSIONS

JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Prosecution: For Defense: PW-1: Y.Venkateswara Rao, VRO,Chodavaram - NONE- PW-2: Ch. Koteswara Rao, VRA,Chodavaram PW-3 : P. Leela Rani, SI of police, P&E,Anakapalle PW-4 : K. Ananda Rao,Constable P&E, Anakapalle PW-5 : B. Eswara Rao, Circle Inspector, P&E,Chodavaram PW-6 : K.V. Papunaidu, Circle Inspector, P&E, Visakhapatnam PW-7 :S. Bheemalingeswara Rao, Constable, P&E, Chodavaram

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on Mediator report, dt.09-02-2016 Ex.P2: Signature on 50 NDPS Act notice Ex.P3: Signature of PW1 on Sample packet Ex.P4: Signature of PW1 on Sample packet Ex.P5: Signature of PW1 on Sample packet Ex.P6: Signature of PW1 on Sample packet Ex.P7: Signature of PW2 on mediators report Ex.P8: Signature of PW2 on 50 NDPS Notice Ex.P9: signature of PW2 on Sample packet Ex.P10: Signature of PW2 on Sample packet Ex.P11: Signature of PW2 on Sample packet Ex.P12: Signature of PW2 on Sample packet Ex.P13: Photograph of ganja bags Ex.P14: Photograph of vehicle Ex.P15: Photograph of vehicle Ex.P16: Copy of driving license AP 31 1992001370 Ex.P17: Copy of driving license AP 31 CB 7024 Ex.P18: Certificate of registration Ex.P19: Mediators report, dt.09-02-2016 Ex.P20: FIR in Cr.No.407/2015-16 of P&E Chodavaram Ex.P21: REL Report Ex.P22: Annexure/Inventory For defense: Ex.D1: Copy of accused mediators report,dt.09-02-2016 No. of Material Objects MO.1: Silver Cell phone MO.2: Yellow Cell phone MO.3: Black Cell phone MO.4: Carbon Cell phone MO.5: Sample packet MO.6: Sample packet MO.7: Sample packet MO.8: Sample packet

Sd/- Guttala Gopi

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER N.D.P.S ACT

-cum- METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

1 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.39 /2011

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

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

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri Guttala Gopi Spl. Judge to try Offences under NDPS Act -cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge

Wednesday, the 19 th day of April, 2017.

N.S.C.No.39/2011.

a)The serial number of the case:NSC.No.39/2011.

b) Date of commission of offence:28-10-2010

c)Name of the Complainant, if any:State represented by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Annavaram Police Station,ChinthapalliCircle, Visakhapatnam District.

d)Name of the accused person, his A1AguruLakshmanaRao,S/o. parentage and residence, if anyPandayya, aged 30 years, Bhagatha by caste, Vandanapalli village, KudumusaraPanchayath, Chinthapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. A2Vanabhangi China Balanna,S/o. Sanyasi Dora, aged 22 years,Bagatha by caste, Kokkirapalli village, G. Madugula Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. (Case against A2 is separated and numbered as NSC.20/2017 and the case against A2 is abated on 30-03- 2017). A3 Vudi Sreenu, S/o. Nooki Naidu, aged 30 years, Kapu by caste, Ratnampeta village,RoluguntaMandal, Visakhapatnam District. AguruLakshmanaRao,S/o. A4 Sanyasayya,aged33 years, Bhagatha by caste, Vandanapalli village, Kudumusara Panchayath, Chinthapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. A5 Biyyala Appala Naidu, Benna Bhupalapatnam village, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Nakka Appa Rao, S/o. Pothuraju, A6 Ratnampetavillage,Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

A7Chedala Bujji Padal, S/o. Mallu Padal, aged 40 years, Bhagatha by caste, Vandanapalli village, Kudimusara Panchayath, Chinthapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. AguruChandraRao,S/o. A8 Sanyasayya,aged40 years, 2 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.39 /2011

Bhagatha by case, Vandanapalli village, Kudumusara Panchayath, Chinthapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. A9 Chedala China Mallu Padal, S/o. Balanna, aged 40 years, Bhagatha by caste,Vandanapallivillage, KudumusaraPanchayath, Chinthapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

e)Offences complained of or proved :U/ss.20(b) of NDPS Act,1985.

f)Plea of the accused and his :A1, A3 to A9 pleaded not guilty. examination, if any

This case has come up on 13-04-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Prudvi Raj, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Smt R. Krishna Kumari, Advocate for Accused 1,3,4,6 to 9, and Sri K. Siva, advocate for the A5 and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Annavaram Police Station, Chinthapalli Circle

Visakhapatnam District filed charge sheet against the above named accused in Crime No.23/2010 for the offence punishable U/s.20(b) of the Narcotic

Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS

Act).

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case as unfolded in charge-sheet are that on 28-10-2010 at 09-00 hours LW.13 along with his staff LW.1 to

LW7 and APSP party conducted village visiting through Vandanapalli village,

Kudumusara Panchayat, Chinthapalli Mandal. While reaching near the outskirts of Vandanapalli village, the above noted accused caught hold the gunny bas with some coolies and on seeing police party the accused tried to escape from the eyes of Police party. Immediately LW13 caught hold of them with gunny bag with the help of his staff and APSP party. When LW13 questioned the accused about their names and identity and their escaping from the police party. The accused disclosed their names and addresses and further they stated that they are living by doing coolie works, due to lack of coolie works they along with some other villagers went to bordering villages of

Odissa State and collecting ganja at low price and the same was selling to the 3 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.39 /2011 ganja purchasers who are coming from plain areas for getting more money from them. On that all accused are caught hold while they are transporting ganja bags on their shoulders for selling the same remaining A5 to A9 are left the ganja bags and ran away from the scene of offence and the LW1 to 7 traced to secured them but in vain. LW.13 found the bags which are in possession of A1 to A4 adoring ganja smell. LW13 drafted an observation report as there are no mediators available at the time. LW13 took the accused along with 34 gunny bags to PGC Lothugedda village with the support of his staff APSP party and LW13 sent a requisition to LW10 requested him to conduct search in his presence all the ganja bags were opened, weighed and collected sample packets from the ganja bags. After completion of all the formalities and investigation the Sub Inspector , A. Annavaram PS filed charge-sheet against the accused.

3.The case was taken on file as NSC.No.39/2011 and after secure the presence of the accused, copies of documents were furnished, under section 207 Cr. P.C. The accused was examined was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C., a charge U/s.8© r/w Sec.20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act,1985 was framed, and explained the acquisition against them, but the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, trial scheduled was fixed and trial was conducted.

5.To ground the case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 5, though they cited LWs.1 to 13 and Exs.P1 to Ex.P10 and MOs.1 to MO.6 got marked on behalf of the prosecution.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence available in the record, but the A1 to A3 denied as false and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard for both the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and defence.

8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would argued that though the

PW2 to PW4 turned hostile. The evidence of PW1&PW5 is sufficient to convict 4 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.39 /2011 the accused according to law and prayed the court to punish the accused basing on the evidence available in the record.

9.The learned counsel for the accused could argue that PW2 to PW4 are turned hostile. PW2 and PW3 are independent witness and mediators and main witnesses to the incident, except PW1&PW5 no any other prosecution witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. However, the evidence of the PW1&PW5 also riddled with several contradictions and omissions. Hence the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt and prayed the court to acquit the accused according to law.

10.Upon hearing both sides and after gone through the entire material available on the record, the following points emerged for consideration:

1. Whether the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt that 730kgs of Ganja was seized from the possession of Accused 1 to A9?

2. Whether the mandatory provisions governing the search and seizure under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 have been complied with in this case?

11.POINT Nos.1 and 2 :It is the specific case of the prosecution that the PW5 and other police party conducted raid at Vandanapalem village,

Chinthapalli Mandal to detect the Excise offences while the police party i.e.

PW5 and other Excise people reached to the out skirts of the Vandanapalem village, the above noted accused found with the gunny bags with some coolies. On seeing the police the accused tried to escape from the eyes of the police but the PW5 and the other police people caught hold the accused. The

PW5 questioned about their escaping on seeing the police. The accused confessed that they are all coolies due to lack of cooli works they trying to transporting the ganja by purchasing the same from the neighbouring villages of the Odissa State, but meanwhile they have caught hold of the police.

12.To support the case, the prosecution examined one PW1 who is said to be Gazetted Officer and Civil Assistant surgeon Lothugedda PHC, Chinthapalli

Mandal, he deposed that on 28-10-2010 at about 1-00PM Annavaram Sub 5 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.39 /2011

Inspector informed him and caught hold the accused and ganja and requested him to act as Gazetted Officer. Accordingly he found 34 bags and weighed about 730kgs and drawn two samples of 50gms from each bag for sending to chemical examination. And he scribed his signatures on the identification slips affixed to the sample packets are marked as MO.1 to MO.68. He also testified that he scribed the signature on the document containing the entire proceedings occurred in his presence i.e. ExP1 mediators report and also identified the accused and bags shown in the photographs. but later he testified that he cannot say whether he could identify them or not. But during the cross-examination the learned counsel for the accused elicited that the

PW1 is not an authorized officer to conduct search as per Sec.42 of NDPS Act.

13.He further deposed that Ex.P1 was drafted by the constable but during the cross-examination the counsel for A1,A3 to A9 elicited that he do not remember who drafted the Ex.P1. And also admitted that he do not remember whether the arrest of the accused was mentioned in Ex.P1 or not. Moreover, out of 34 bas only two bags plastic and he do not remember whether it was stated in Ex.P1 or not. And also admitted that the last bag on the Ex.P2 photograph year 2011 was appears. In fact, the offence was occurred on 28- 10-2010 and the bags and samples were drawn on the same day. But as per the evidence of the PW1, in Ex.P2 photograph the year on the last bag was appears the year 2011. So there is a doubt about the property seized by the police under Ex.P2 is pertaining to this case or not. Why because the entire case was detected in the year 2010 and all the formalities were finished on 28-10-2010 but how the bag shown in Ex.P2 appears to 2011 has to be explained by the prosecution. But no explanation offered by the prosecution with regard to the bag appears on Ex.P2 is a 2011. Hence the evidence of the

PW1 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

14.Now coming to the evidence of the PW2 to PW4, theses three witnesses are private persons and independent witnesses who are turned hostile, at this stage the learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought permission and cross- 6 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.39 /2011 examine the PW2 to 4 by suggesting the 161 Cr.P.C., to them but nothing was elicited against the accused. hence the evidence of the PW2 to PW4 are not helpful to the prosecution as they are turned hostile.

15.Now coming to the important witness to the prosecution is PW5. The

PW5 is investigating officer who played main role in conducting the offence detection. As usually the PW5 reiterated the averments of the charge-sheet with regard to the detecting the case and summoning the PW1 and also weighed and conducting of other formalities as contemplated under NDPS Act.

But during the cross-examination he failed to mention that whether the PW5 and other police party made any attempts to secure the independent witnesses at the place of offence or not and also admitted that the same was not mentioned in Ex.P7 occurrence report.

16.Moreover, he also not obtained the signatures of the accused on Ex.P1 report. It is also an admitted he has not mentioned in Ex.P6 notice that issue of notice and consent of the Ex.P6 and other formalities also riddled with defects of the investigation and except the PW5 no any other Excise people or police party were examined as witnesses to support the version of PW1&PW5.

Since the PW2 to PW4 are turned hostile, the case of the prosecution automatically weaked because the PW2 to PW4 independent witnesses and the villagers of the place of offence.

17.Moreover, the seizure of the property and drawn the samples from the alleged ganja from the gunny bas is also not proper and according to the

NDPS Act. Even the PW5 did not take care while drafting the occurrence report and issuing of notice to the accused U/sec.50 of the NDPS Act. Even he did not made any attempt to secure the mediators at the place of offence.

18.In the above foregoing discussions and evidence of the PW1&PW2, the both the witnesses are forget to depose the several aspects with regard to the having possession of ganja by the accused and more over not follow the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is the case of the prosecution that the total ganja was 730kgs 7 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.39 /2011 but how PW1&PW5 arrived such a figure of 730kgs without examining the weigher who alleged to be weighed the ganja at the place of offence. PW1 also testified that he cannot identify the accused due to afflux of time. Since no identification of accused and no proper investigation was conducted by

PW5 and no any Excise people who accompanied that PW5 also not examined to support the case of the prosecution. Hence the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

19.In the result, A1,A3 to A9 are found not guilty and they are acquitted U/sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the offence U/sec.8©, r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of NADPS Act. A1,A3 to A9 shall execute a personal bond of Rs.10,000/-each (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of this Court within seven days from the date of the Judgment, as security for his appearance before any higher Court as and when such higher Court issue summons in respect of any appeal or revision filed against the judgment of this Court, as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., after appeal time is over. The Mos.1 to MO.68 shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Superintendent, V AJCJ), transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 19 th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- Guttala Gopi

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

N.D.P.S ACT-cum- METROPOLITAN SESSIONS

JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Prosecution: For Defense: PW-1: Dr. N. Satyanarayana, Civil Assistant surgeon - NONE- PW-2: Narsi Appa Rao, Cultivation PW-3 : Potturu Devaiah, cultivation PW-4 : Gode Ravi Kumar, Business PW-5: S.Suryachandra Rao, Sub Inspector of police, Spl.Branch

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Mediators report, dt.28-10-2010 Ex.P2: Photographs of ganja bags Ex.P3: Signature of PW2 on Ex.P1 report,dt.28-10-2010 Ex.P4: Signature of PW3 on Ex.P1 report,dt.28-10-2010 Ex.P5: Signature of PW4 on Ex.P1 report,dt.28-10-2010 Ex.P6: Notice U/sec.50 of NDPS Act Ex.P7: Occurrence report, dt.28-10-2010 Ex.P8: FIR in Cr.No.23/2010, dt.28-10-2010 Ex.P9 : Letter of Advice Ex.P10: REL report Ex.P11: Proceedings U/sec.52-A of NDPS Act. For defense: NIL-- No. of Material Objects

MO.1: Sample packet MO.2: Sample packet 8 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.39 /2011

MO.3: Sample packet MO.4: Sample packet MO.5: Sample packet MO.6: Sample packet MO.7: Sample packet MO.8: Sample packet MO.9: Sample packet MO.10: Sample packet MO.11: Sample packet MO.12: Sample packet MO.13: Sample packet MO.14: Sample packet MO.15: Sample packet MO.16: Sample packet MO.17: Sample packet MO.18: Sample packet MO.19: Sample packet MO.20: Sample packet MO.21: Sample packet MO.22: Sample packet MO.23: Sample packet MO.24: Sample packet MO.25: Sample packet MO.26: Sample packet MO.27: Sample packet MO.28: Sample packet MO.29: Sample packet MO.30: Sample packet MO.31: Sample packet MO.32: Sample packet MO.33: Sample packet MO.34: Sample packet MO.35: Sample packet MO.36: Sample packet MO.37: Sample packet MO.38: Sample packet MO.39: Sample packet MO.40: Sample packet MO.41: Sample packet MO.42: Sample packet MO.43: Sample packet MO.44: Sample packet MO.45: Sample packet MO.46: Sample packet MO.47: Sample packet MO.48: Sample packet MO.49: Sample packet MO.50: Sample packet MO.51: Sample packet MO.52: Sample packet MO.53: Sample packet MO.54: Sample packet MO.55: Sample packet MO.56: Sample packet MO.57: Sample packet MO.58: Sample packet MO.59: Sample packet MO.60: Sample packet

Sd/- Guttala Gopi

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER N.D.P.S ACT

-cum- METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

1 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.101 /2009

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

ACT

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

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri Guttala Gopi Spl. Judge to try Offences under NDPS Act -cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge

Tuesday, the 18 th day of April, 2017.

N.S.C.No.101/2009.

a)The serial number of the case:NSC.No.109/2009.

b) Date of commission of offence:26-04-2009

c)Name of the Complainant, if any:State represented by the Inspector of Police, Chinthapalli Circle, Visakhapatnam District.

d)Name of the accused person, his A1Nunna Venkata Ramana, S/o. parentage and residence, if anyRamayya, aged 41 years, Chowdary, Uyyalavadavillage,Domakalu Mandal, Warangal District .

A2Pilla Atchimnaidu @ Naidu, S/o. Nagaraju, aged 33 years, Gavara by casteBoddavaramvillage, Kotananduru Mandal of E.G. District, R/o. Narsipatnam.

e)Offences complained of or proved :U/ss.20(b) of NDPS Act,1985.

f)Plea of the accused and his :A1 & A2 pleaded not guilty. examination, if any

This case has come up on 23-03-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Prudvi Raj, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri K. Siva, advocate for the A1 and Smt R. Krishna Kumari, Advocate for A-2, and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Chintapalli Circle, Visakhapatnam District filed charge sheet against the above named accused in Crime No.53/2009 for the offence punishable U/s.20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances

Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act).

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case, as unfolded in charge-sheet are that on 26-04-2009 at about 20-00 hours on reliable information about the illegal transport of Ganja, the above noted accused were caught hold by 2 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.101 /2009 the Circle Inspector of police, Chintapalli Circle and his staff while conducting vehicle checking. The accused transporting of ganja in four bags under the 10 bags of husk in a goods Mahindra truck bearing No.AP 16 Y 1149 from G.K.

Veedhi side towards Narsipatnam for sale. The accused along with their vehicle with a load of bags, and mediators were brought to Chintapalli PS keeping view of security of Police party and mediators and as the area is highly infested by the CPI Maoists, after drafting mediators report, verifying by the Gazetted Officer as per law. The Gazetted Officer found 4 bas of ganja in the presence of mediators and weighed about 27kgs under the 10 bags of husk. On interrogation, both the accused confessed their commission of offence in the presence of Gazetted officer and mediators. On that the police prepared the mediators report and handed over to LW13 for investigation.

LW13 seized Cell phone Nokia model No.6233. Cell No.9441143656 from A2 and Cell phone Nokia Model No.62030, Cell No.9490075427 and cash

Rs.500/- from Ramana A1, and Rs.400/- from Pilla Atchiyya Naidu and also the Mahindra Truck bearing No. AP 16 1149 under the cover of mediators report dt.26-04-2009, the police registered the case in Cr.No.53/2009 of

Chinthapalli and after completion of all formalities the Circle Inspector of police Chinthapalli Circle filed charge sheet.

3.The case was taken on file as NSC.No.109/2009 and after secure the presence of the accused, copies of documents were furnished, under section 207 Cr. P.C.

4.After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, the accused was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C., a charge U/s.8© r/w Sec.20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act,1985 was framed, by explaining the acquisition against them. A1 & A2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Accordingly, trial scheduled was fixed and trial was conducted.

5.To ground the case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 6, though they cited LWs.1 to 14 and Exs.P1 to Ex.P5 and MOs.1 to MO.12 got marked on behalf of the prosecution.

3 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.101 /2009

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused examined U/s.313

Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence available in the record, but the A1 & A2 denied the entire evidence and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard for both the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and defence.

8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would argued that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused with support of the PW1 to

PW6 and Ex.P1 to P5 and material objects, beyond all reasonable doubt and the quantity of ganja of 27kgs a commercial quantity in nature and prayed the court to convict the accused as per law.

9.The learned counsel for the accused would argued that the entire prosecution case is riddled with several contradictions and omissions and there is a inconsistency of statements of PW.1 to PW6 and no corroboration of evidence .Since the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and prayed the court to acquit the accused.

10.Upon hearing both sides and after gone through the entire material available on the record, the following points emerged for consideration:

1. Whether the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt that 27kgs of Ganja was seized from the possession of Accused 1 and A2?

2. Whether the mandatory provisions governing the search and seizure under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 have been complied with in this case?

11.POINT Nos.1 and 2 :The specific case of the prosecution is that on 26-04-2009 at about 20-00 hours on reliable information about the transportation of ganja the accused were caught hold by the Circle Inspector of police, Chinthapalli Circle while conducting vehicle checking the accused transporting the ganja in four bags under the 10 bags of husk in a goods

Mahindra truck bearing No.AP 16 Y 1149 from G.K. Veedhi side towards

Narsipatnam for sale. The accused along with their vehicle with a load of bags, and mediators brought to the Chinthapalli PS keeping view of security of 4 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.101 /2009

Police party and mediators and as the area is highly infested by the CPI

Maoists.

12.To ground the case, one Immanthi Veeravenkata Satyanarayana VRO of Chinthapalli examined as PW1 who acted as a mediator in this case. During the chief-examination the PW1 failed to identify the accused and also stated that he cannot identify the vehicle and the bags due to afflux of time. And also stated he do not know whether the Gazetted Officer in terms of Sec.42 of

NDPS Act or not, since the PW1 fails to identified the crime vehicle and the bags which were alleged to be seized by the police by the time of search, the evidence of the PW1 is not helpful to the prosecution case.

13.Now coming to the evidence of the PW2, who is another mediators he also reiterated the averments of the charge-sheet in his chief-examination.

But during chief-examination he also failed to identify the accused and van as it was night time when he saw it. But he identifies the bag shown by the

Additional Public Prosecutor in Ex.P3. But however, the PW2 also failed to

identify the bags and the van, hence the evidence of the PW2 is also not helpful to the prosecution case.

14. Now coming to the evidence of PW3, who is Gazetted Officer by the time of seizure of the property, he worked as Civil Assistant Surgeon,

UGPHC,Chinthapalli. By the time of occurrence, he deposed that police came to his house and given requisition and informed that they caught hold some ganja and he has to come to police station, and shown ganja in some sacks and two persons. There were two cell phones and cash of less than Rs.1000/-.

But he deposed he cannot say whether the cell phones and cash produced

before the court are ones and the same. And also deposed that he was asked

to wait and some statements were written and obtained his signatures on it.

His signature is thereon Ex.P2. and he was also categorically deposed that he cannot identify the person due to afflux of time, and also clearly stated his signature is not there on the bags shown in photographs. So even the PW3 5 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.101 /2009 who is said to be Gazetted Officer also not supported the case of the prosecution.

15. Now coming to the evidence of the PW.4 who alleged to be weighed the ganja. He also deposed that the police came to him around 9-00 PM and asked to weighed the four bags of ganja, but he was asked to sign and he signed on Ex.P2. So it is clear that the PW4 was planted witness by the police to suit their case. If really the PW4 weighed the ganja the police must be obtained written receipts.

16.Now coming to the evidence of the PW5 who investigated the case and most important witness to this case. The PW5 reiterated the averments of the charge-sheet but during the cross-examination several discrepancies are elicited by the learned counsel with regard to the information received by him and informed to his superior officer. As per the provisions of the NDPS Act whenever any police officer received any information regarding the committing of offence under the NDPS Act. The Officer must entered the same into the general dairy, should intimated the same to his superior in writing.

But in the instant case, the PW5 testified that he informed the information with regard to the illegal transportation of Ganja to his superior officer but no any documents produced.

17.PW5 also deposed that the MRO office, hospital and JFCM Court at

Chinthapalli he sent a letter to the Doctor at 8-00 PM. The distance between the police station and place of offence is about 5km and he do not know whether the PW4 is an authorized officer to search the accused under the

NDPS Act, since the PW5 Senior Officer in the Department. He must have known who came under the provisions of a Gazetted Officer under this act.

But he admitted that he cannot say whether the Doctor is an authorized officer U/sec.42 of NDPS Act.

18.Moreover, the entire incident said to be accrued on 26-04-2009 but this

PW5 scribed his signature on MO.5, MO.6 and MO.8 as a 27-04-2009 but he put date on MO7 26-04-2009. Since he is being a senior officer and also 6 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.101 /2009 investigated the case right from the beginning he should have act carefully and conduct the raid. But surprisingly the PW5 put the date as 27-04-2009 on

MO.5, MO.6 and MO.8 but the entire prosecution witnesses and this PW5 also testified that the offence was occurred on 26-04-2009. So the putting date 27-04-2009 on MO.5 and MO.9 are raised doubt about the occurrence of the offence whether it was occurred on 26-04-2009 or 27-04-2009. If the offence was occurred on 26-04-2009, no possibility of scribing signature by PW5 as 27-04-2007 on MO.5, MO.6, MO.8 and MO.9 is doubtful about the occurrence of the incident. Moreover, no explanation from the PW5 why he mentioned the dt.27-04-2009 on MO.5,MO.6 and MO.8.

19.It is the evidence of the PW5 that the currency notes which were seized by the police at the time of offence on 26-04-2009, but the years mentioned

as 2012 to 2016 also clearly shows that the offence occurred in the year 2009

but the currency notes which were alleged to be seized on the date of the offence was appears to be years pertaining to the 2012,2013,2014,2015 and 2016. So the amount which was produced by the prosecution is not an amount seized by the police at the time of seizing of the property from the accused.

20.The PW5 further testified that the serial number of the currency notes were not mentioned in the mediators report and further testified that he do not remember whether he follow the section 52-A of NDPS Act. He conducted search proceedings without following the NDPS Act. Moreover, no notice was issued to the accused asking them whether they have consented for the search of PW3 or not, without any consent from the accused the search was conducted. Hence the search conducted by the police is vitiated.

21.In the above foregoing discussions, in point No.1, the entire prosecution evidence not corroborated with the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses. And the signatures on MO.5, Mo.6 and MO.8 were mentioned as a dt.27-04-2009 but the offence alleged to be occurred on 26- 04-2009. So the prosecution case is doubtful whether the offence took place 7 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.101 /2009 on 26-04-2009 or 27-04-2009. Hence the accused entitled for benefit of doubt.

22.In the result, A1 & A2 are found not guilty and they are acquitted

U/sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the offence U/sec.8©, r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of NADPS

Act. A1 & A2 shall execute a personal bond of Rs.10,000/-each (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of this

Court within seven days from the date of the Judgment, as security for his appearance before any higher Court as and when such higher Court issue summons in respect of any appeal or revision filed against the judgment of this Court, as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., after appeal time is over. The MOs.1 to MO.8 shall be destroyed and MO.9 to MO.12 shall be confiscated to the State, after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Superintendent, V AJCJ), transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 18 th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- Guttala Gopi

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

N.D.P.S ACT-cum- METROPOLITAN SESSIONS

JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Prosecution: For Defense: PW-1: I.V. Satyanarayana, Sr. Assistant, Revenue Dept., - NONE- PW-2: T. Venkata Ramana, Panchayath Secretary PW-3 : Dr.N.C. Parankusa, Asst. Professor, RMC, Kakinada PW-4 : Gaddam Sathibabu, Vegetable vendor PW-5 : R. Govinda Rao, Inspector of police, Anandapuram PS PW-6 : S. Tata Rao, Inspector of police, CID

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Mediators report, dt.26-04-2009 at 8-00 PM Ex.P2: Mediators report, dt. 26-04-2009 at 21-00 hours Ex.P3: Photograph of Ganja property Ex.P4: FIR in Cr.No.53/2009, dt.26-04-2009 Ex.P5: REL Report

For defense: --NIL— No. of Material Objects

MO.1: Sample packet MO.2: Sample packet MO.3: Sample packet MO.4: Sample packet MO.5: Sample packet MO.6: Sample packet MO.7: Sample packet MO.8: Sample packet MO.9: Mahindra truck bearing No.AP 16Y1149 8 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.101 /2009

MO.10: Nokia Cell phone MO.11: Nokia Cell phone MO.12: Cash of Rs.900/-

Sd/- Guttala Gopi

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER N.D.P.S ACT

-cum- METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

1 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.102 /2012

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

ACT

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

METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM

Present: Sri Guttala Gopi Spl. Judge to try Offences under NDPS Act -cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge

Thursday, the 13 th day of April, 2017.

N.S.C.No.102/2012.

a)The serial number of the case:NSC.No.102/2012.

b) Date of commission of offence:20-08-2012

c)Name of the Complainant, if any:State represented by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Ananthagiri Police Station, Visakhapatnam District.

d)Name of the accused person, his A1Pradeep Kumar Dalai, S/o. Krushna parentage and residence, if anyDas Dalai, aged 36 years, Christian, Thalada village, Chaligad(Head Post) via R.Udaygir, Gajapathi State, Odisa. A2Bharth Sahu, S/o. Parameswar Sahu, aged 24 years, Hindu, Gandipalli village, Noyabajar Post, Cuttack Distict, Odisa State.

Giridar Thorai, S/o. Kusiya Thorai, A3 aged 29 years, Fisher man caste Gandipalli village, Noyabajar Post, Cuttack District, Odisa State.

e)Offences complained of or proved :U/ss.20(b) of NDPS Act,1985.

f)Plea of the accused and his :A1 to A3 pleaded not guilty. examination, if any

This case has come up on 06-04-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Prudvi Raj, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Smt R. Krishna Kumari, Advocate for Accused 1 to A3, and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Ananthagiri Police Station, Visakhapatnam

District filed charge sheet against the above named accused in Crime

No.33/2012 for the offence punishable U/s.20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs &

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act).

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case as unfolded in charge-sheet are that on 20-08-2012 at 06-00 hours LW.12 along with his staff LW.1 to 2 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.102 /2012

LW6 conducted vehicle checking at Main road Ananthagiri, in front of the

Ananthagiri PS in the presence of mediators LW7&LW8, during the vehicle checking, LW12 stopped Maruthi Suzuiki Omini van bearing registration No.OR 05 H 6248 driven by A2 which is proceeding towards S.Kota from Arakuvalley side then LW12 found the A1 to A3 sat in the Maruthi Suziki Omini van with luggage bags, containing ganja. The LW12 caught hold of them with the assistance of LW1 to LW6 and questioned about their identity as noted above.

And further disclosed that they collected ganja from the unknown persons at

Padwa village of Odisa State and it’s surrounding village and kept the ganja in 4 luggage bags and were proceeding in the Maruthi Suziki Omini van to sell it to ganja business people at cuttack but caught by the police. Then LW12 verified the van and found 4 luggage bags in it and when he opened them, he found some packets smelling like ganja. Then LW12 identified the packets as

Ganja. The Notice U/Sec.50 of NDPS Act was served to the accused and they were produced before the LW.10 who is the Gazetted Officer, for questioning and verifying the ganja packets.

On verification LW.10 found 4 packets of ganja in 4 luggage bags and when LW10 questioned the accused in the presence of mediators. A1 confessed that they collected ganja from the unknown persons at Padwa village of Odisa State and mediators report drafted. Basing on the mediators report a case was registered in Cr.No.33/2012 U/s.20(b) of NDPS Act. After completion of required formalities and investigation, the Sub Inspector of

Ananthagiri PS filed charge sheet.

3.The case was taken on file as NSC.No.102/2012 and after secure the presence of the accused, copies of documents were furnished, under section 207 Cr. P.C.

4.After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, the accused was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C., a charge U/s.8© r/w Sec.20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act,1985 was framed, and explained the 3 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.102 /2012 acquisition against them, but the A1 to A3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, trial scheduled was fixed and trial was conducted.

5.To ground the case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 4, though cited

LWs.1 to 14 and Exs.P1 to Ex.P7 and MOs.1 to MO.9 got marked. During the cross-examination Ex.D1 to D8 marked through PW1 & PW4.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused examined U/s.313

Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence available in the record, but the A1 to A3 denied as false and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard for both the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and defence.

8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would argued that though the

PW1 & PW2 turned hostile. The main prosecution witnesses PW3&PW4 categorically testified that the A1 to A3 illegally transporting the ganja with the support of the Ex.P1 to P7 and MO.1 to 9. It is sufficient to convict the accused as the prosecution established the case beyond all reasonable doubt and prayed the court to convict the accused.

9.The learned counsel for the accused would argued that the prosecution examined PW1 to 4, but PW1&PW2 turned hostile. PW3 and PW4 are Gazetted and investigation officers. But during the chief and cross-examination of PW4 it was stated that he himself checked the vehicle and opened the bags and later he brought the accused and the material before the PW3, only for certifying. And further stated that the mandatory provisions of Sec.42, 50 and 52-A of the NDPS Act did not complied , hence the accused entitled for benefit of doubt and prayed the court to acquit the accused under law.

10.Upon hearing both sides and after gone through the entire material available on the record, the following points emerged for consideration:

1. Whether the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt that 30kgs of Ganja was seized from the possession of Accused 1 to A3?

4 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.102 /2012

2. Whether the mandatory provisions governing the search and seizure under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 have been complied with in this case?

11.POINT Nos.1 and 2 :It is the specific case of the prosecution that on reliable information to the PW4, he along with his staff conducted vehicle checking at Main road Ananthagiri, in front of the Ananthagiri PS in the presence of mediators LW7& PW.1 and caught hold the A1 to A3 with Maruthi

Suzuiki Omini van bearing registration No.OR 05 H 6248 driven by A2 which is proceeding towards S.Kota from Arakuvalley side but as per the Section-42 of

NDPS Act, it was clearly emphasized when any officer received information it shall take down in writing Under sub Section(1) of Sec.42, and records the grounds for his belief under the proviso there to he shall within 72 hours send a copy furnished thereof to his superior officers. But in this case it was silent whether the PW4 who checked the vehicles had credible information that the ganja was transporting illegally, was reduced into writing and sent to its important superior officers. Even he did not depose in his chief-examination that he was sent the copy of the information which he had, to his officer superior. Since U/sec.42 of NDPS Act is mandates to follow by the officers who are having credible information with regard to the offence under Sec.

NDPS Act. But nowhere in the proceedings that he had followed the Sec.42 of

NDPS Act.

12.It is further case of the prosecution that in the presence of the

PW1&PW2 the vehicle checking was conducted, but the PW1&PW2 turned hostile and they cannot identified the bags and they did not see any accused.

At this stage the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor sought permission to declare both the PW1&PW2, as hostile witness, and examined them by suggesting the averments of the mediators report but nothing was elicited against the accused and the attempt made by the Addl. Public Prosecutor is proved futile.

13.The learned counsel for the defence also cross-examined the PW1, and elicited that the signatures on the mediators report was signed at the police 5 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.102 /2012 station. So it is clear, the PW1&PW2 had no any personal knowledge about the checking of the vehicles and found the ganja in the possession of the A1 to A3 in the MO.9 Maruthi Suzuki Omini Van bearing registration No. OR 05 H 6248. So it is also clear that the signatures of the PW1 & PW2 were obtained at police station.

14.Now the only witnesses left for prosecution is PW3 & PW4. The PW3 is a

Gazetted Officer he testified that in his presence samples were drawn for chemical examination and other formalities were conducted in the presence of

PW4 and his staff. But the LW.3&PW4 forget to mention, the issuing of notice

U/sec.50 of NDPS Act to the accused before conducting personal search of the

A1 to A3. Surprisingly before brought the accused and the material to the

PW3, the PW4 himself conducted the search and opened the box, and then only he brought the accused and the material to the PW3. So the main sprit of

Sec.50 of NDPS Act is defeated, as per Sec.50 of NDPS Act, there shall be a condition which a search of person shall be conducted. Accordingly if such person so requires take such person without un-necessary delay to the next

Gazetted Officer of any of the Department mentioned in or to the Magistrate

Sec.42. After produced the accused and the material before such a Gazetted

Officer with the written requisition to the Gazetted Officer.

15.But in the instant case the PW4 directly brought the accused and the materials before the Gazetted Officer without any written requisition to him (PW3) even the PW3 did not deposed whether he had any requisition either oral or written to search the accused. Furthermore he was not issued any notice U/sec.50 to the accused A1 to A3 separately on their native language, as the A1 to A3 are belongs to Odissa State.

16.Moreover, whatever the averments under Ex.P1 to P4 are drafted in

Telugu, which is not known to the A1 to A3 and it can be presume that what are the proceedings conducted by the PW4 or his staff members are not know to the accused. Moreover, no any translator was employed by the PW4 or any other officers to explain the search proceedings to the accused. Hence 6 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.102 /2012 whatever the search alleged to be conducted and whatever the exhibits drafted in the presence of PW3 and 4 is violation of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. Moreover, the material objects produced before the court are not tallied with the Ex.P1, P4 reports. It is clearly shows that the entire alleged proceedings are prepared or fabricated at police station without following the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act.

17.The PW3 also stated, the Ex.P3 occurrence report was not contained black bag had letters JK Tyre on it, likewise red bags have letter NIKE and

Puma. It is further admitted that in ExP3 contains black bag was Adidas, but there is no letters on MO.3. The PW3 signatures were not there on MO.1 to

MO.4. But it is the case of the PW4 the entire proceedings was conducted in the presence of the PW3 who is said to be a Gazetted Officer but the PW4 failed to prove the signatures of the PW3 on MOs.1 to 4 which is fatal to the case of the prosecution whey because MO.1 to 4 are the main incriminating material to establish the case of the prosecution. So whatever the allegations leveled against the A1 to A3 and not supported by any of the prosecution witnesses and a search was conducted by the PW3&PW4 not according with the proceedings of the NDPS Act. Moreover, the language used for drafting of

Ex.P.1 to P.4 are not known to the A1 to A3 and no notice U/sec.50 of NDPS

Act issued and PW4 not followed the Sec.42 of NDPS Act.

18. In the above foregoing discussions, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt as the main prime witnesses PW.1 & PW2 who are the independent witnesses turned hostile, hence the accused entitled for acquittal.

19.In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty and they are acquitted

U/sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the offence U/sec.8©, r/w 20(b)(ii)(c) of NADPS

Act. A1 to A3 shall execute a personal bond of Rs.10,000/-each (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of this

Court within seven days from the date of the Judgment, as security for his appearance before any higher Court as and when such higher Court issue summons in respect of any appeal or revision filed against the judgment of 7 I ADJ COURT, VSP NSC No.102 /2012 this Court, as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., after appeal time is over. The Mos.5 to MO.8 shall be destroyed, and MO.1 to 4 & 9 shall be confiscated to the State, after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Superintendent, V AJCJ), transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 13 th day of April, 2017.

Sd/- Guttala Gopi

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER

N.D.P.S ACT-cum- METROPOLITAN SESSIONS

JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Prosecution: For Defense: PW-1: Annu Raghava Rao, Attander MRO Office - NONE- PW-2: Amara Tirupati Rao, Kirana Business PW-3 : Dr. S.L. Ganeswara Rao, Animal Husbandry Officer PW-4 : L. Rama Krishna, SI of police

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on Occurrence report, dt.20-08-2012 Ex.P2: Signature of PW1 on Confessional statement Ex.P3: Confessional statement, dt.20-08-2012 Ex.P4: Occurrence report, dt.20-08-2012 Ex.P5: FIR in Cr.No.33/2012, dt.20-08-2012 Ex.P6: REL Report, dt.23-08-2012 Ex.P7: Rough sketch, dt.20-08-2012

For defense: Ex.D1: Signature of PW4 on property form Ex.D2: Property form, dt.20-08-2012 Ex.D3: 161 statement of LW1, dt.20-08-2012 Ex.D4: 161 statement of LW2, dt.20-08-2012 Ex.D5: 161 statement of LW3, dt.20-08-2012 Ex.D6: 161 statement of LW4, dt.20-08-2012 Ex.D7: 161 statement of LW5, dt.20-08-2012 Ex.D8: 161 statement of LW6, dt.20-08-2012

No. of Material Objects MO.1: J.K. Tyre MO.2: Red fast rack MO.3: black and khaki MO.4: Red fast rack MO.5: Sample packet MO.6: Sample packet MO.7: Sample packet MO.8: Sample packet MO.9: Maruthi Suzuki Omini Van bearing No.05 H 6248

Sd/- Guttala Gopi

SPECIAL JUDGE TO TRY OFFENCES UNDER N.D.P.S ACT

-cum- METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE

VISAKHAPATNAM

1

PDJC, VSKP

TOP 10/2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: VISAKHAPATNAM

PRESENT: Sri G. Gopi

Principal District Judge

Wednesday, the 26 th day of April, 2023.

T.O.P.No.10/2023

Between: A.R.K.Infra Avenues India Private Limited, formerly known as M/s.Sri Sai Srinivasa Enterprises Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director, P.R.Subrahmanyam Raju, s/o late Appalaraju, Hindu, aged 61 years, having its office at D.No.50-96-12/C, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam. ….Petitioner And:

1. Neeli Apparao, s/o late N.Prakasharao, aged about 62 years, Hindu, r/o D.No.10-13, Srinivasa Nagar, Kommadi Junction, Visakhapatnam.

2. Neeli Bangarraju, s/o late N.Prakasharao, aged about 60 years, Hindu, r/o D.No.20-113, Swatantra Nagar, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam.

3. Neeli Tatarao, s/o late N.Prakasharao, Hindu, aged about 56 years, r/o D.No.10-67/4/1, Sairam Colony, Madhurawada, Visakhapatnam.

4. Moturi Ramayyamma, w/o Baburao, Hindu, aged 65 years, r/o D.No.18-34- 26/1, Tadi Veedhi, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam.

5. Jakkalanki Rajeswaramma, w/o Sanyasirao, Hindu, aged about 50 years, r/o D.No.44-34-60, Nandagiri Nagar, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam. ….Respondents

This Petition has come up on 17.04.2023 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri B.Jagadeeswara Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri K.V.Srihari, Advocate for Respondents 1 to 5 and upon hearing, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This petition has been filed under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to transfer the suit in O.S.55/2020 along with interlocutory applications numbered and unnumbered from the II Additional District Judge,

Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to any other District Court within the territorial jurisdiction of the court for speedy disposal of the matter according to law.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that the petitioner herein is aged above 60 years and he is being a senior citizen and frequently requested the II

Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam to take up the matter for trial on

priority basis and filed an application but that petition was not even registered so far and informed upon that the petitioner can move transfer of the suit from that 2

PDJC, VSKP

TOP 10/2023 court to any other court. The petitioner further submitted that the respondents/defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC to reject the plaint only to delay the process of trial. It is further submitted that in the above said circumstances, the petitioner/plaintiff through their counsel requested the court time and again on each and every adjournment to number the application and frame the issues and to takeup the trial of the suit but the court on various reasons adjourning the matter time and again. It is further submitted that by virtue of the delaying the matter in taking up for trail sustaining huge loss and hardship having invested more than Rs.12crores for obtaining permissions and such permission for being lapsed by time lag, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The petitioner reported ready for enquiry in all dates as well as insisting for trial of the suit, there is no use.

2(2).It is further submitted that the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam informed to the parties and respective advocates in open court that there was a direction from the Hon’ble High Court to give priority for the matters pending which were filed prior to 2018, hence, the court cannot give priority to takeup trial. The court expressed from the bench to the advocates and the parties that there is heavy pendency of the matters before the court and it is not possible for the officer to takeup the matter on priority basis.

2(3).The petitioner further submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application to takeup the matter on priority basis as he is a senior citizen and entitled to request for speedy disposal basing on the judgment of Honourable

Supreme Court and even that application is not even registered though filed under GR No.2542, dt.23.08.2022 and the court returned the petition without numbering by informing that the officer cannot entertain the said application.

2(4). The petitioner further submitted that he filed an application to receive the rejoinder for the written statement filed by the respondents/defendants under

GR NO.2543, dt.23.08.2022 which was not even numbered so far. The petitioner also submitted that the respondents taking advantage of all the aspects with a 3

PDJC, VSKP

TOP 10/2023 view to drag on the proceedings seeking adjournments time and again and the court granting time. The petitioner further submitted the petitioner with a fond hope to obtain necessary direction from the Honourable Court filed copy applications for the proceedings pending before the court under CA

Nos.651/2023, 818/2023, 1525/2023, DT.08.01.2023 and the court did not even comply the application for the issuance of certified copies to the petitioner. In and around among the other grounds, the petitioner prays the court to transfer the suit in O.S.55/2020 to any other Additional District Judge’s Court,

Visakhapatnam for speedy disposal according to law.

3.After receiving the notices, respondents 1 to 5 filed a detailed counter consisting of nearly 34 pages and contents of the counter extracted the entire written statement filed by them in the main suit but upon perusing the counter, nowhere the respondents resisted the petition and also grounds of the petition.

They only submitted that this petitioner was not co-operating with the II

Additional District Judge for disposal of interlocutory applications pending before

that court. Further submitted that some of the interim reliefs are pending before the court and the respondents insisting the petitioner so also before this court that the petitioner is not co-operating with disposal of I.As and pray the court, since there was no merits in the petition and the matter is being 2020, there was no urgency for disposal of the same but the learned counsel for the respondents filing the petition has to co-operate for disposal of the I.As and finally the respondents pray the court to dismiss the petition.

4.Heard both sides.

5.Now the point that arises for consideration is :

Whether the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the suit in O.S.55/2020 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and transfer the same to any other Additional District Judge’s Court at Visakhapatnam?

6.POINT : At the outset, it is the discretion of the District Judge to transfer the matters from any court to any other court where the subject matters having 4

PDJC, VSKP

TOP 10/2023 jurisdiction under Section 24 of CPC, on application filed by the parties are suomoto. The extract of provision under Section 24 of CPC vested with the discretion of the District Judge to transfer the suits or the matters pending in the district. This is a petition filed to transfer the suit in O.S.55/2020 from the II

Additional District Judge to any other Additional District Judge by explaining the

urgency in that matter. As per the contention of the petitioner, this petitioner is aged about 60 years and suffering with aliments and he entered into memorandum of understanding with the respondents for development of property and he invested more than Rs.12crores for development of the property covered in O.S.55/2020 but unfortunately, there rift arises between the petitioner and the respondents so that the petitioner/plaintiff approached the court and filed the suit in O.S.55/2020 for specific performance of memorandum of understanding but the matter was posted from time to time. He further submitted that if the matter was not disposed off expeditiously whatever the permissions obtained from the concerned authorities going to be lapsed as a result, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money.

7.Per contra, the respondents seriously resisted the petition by filing 34 pages of counter which is exactly extracted from the written statement but nowhere they submitted the grounds to resist the petition because if anything happens ultimately the petitioner is the only person to suffer with irreparable loss because he categorically stated that he invested more than Rs.12crores for development of the property as per memorandum of understanding dated 02.10.2011. When the memorandum of understanding was pertaining to the year 2011 and this is the year 2023. If the suit was not disposed expeditiously the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money because delayed justice is a denied justice. Whenever the matter is not disposed within the stipulated period certainly the permissions obtain for development of the property which is subject matter of O.S.55/2020 the petitioner sustained heavy loss as he invested Rs.12crores.

5

PDJC, VSKP

TOP 10/2023

8.Moreover, the respondents also have to co-operate with the petitioner for disposal of the suit expeditiously but strenuously they are resisting the petition, is nothing but to drag on the matter years together and put the petitioner in loss which is nothing but abuse of process of law and taking advantage of this petitioner, the respondents categorically delaying the proceedings and even not co-operating with the petitioner and also to the court and always insisting the petitioner for disposal of the interim applications which is not just and reasonable. Moreover, respondents also filed a petition under Order 7 Rule 11 of

CPC for rejection of plaint when the petition was disposed certainly, the matter automatically will be disposed off. So, this court is of the firm opinion that the learned II Additional District Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam is a heavy pendency court with old matters as rightly expressed by the learned II Additional District

Judge that the Honourable High Court issued circulars for giving priority to pre-

2018.

9.Whenever there is heavy pendency in the said court with pre-2018 matters, it will not be possible to the II Additional District Judge to give priority to the matter pertaining to the year 2020, moreover, the learned Judge openly expressed her inability to give priority to O.S.55/2020 for disposal. Hence, it is just and necessary to meet the ends of justice for speedy disposal of the suit in

O.S.55/2020, to withdraw the same from the II Additional District Judge’s Court,

and transfer the same to any other District Court, Visakhapatnam.

10.Now coming to the aspect that which court has jurisdiction to try the said suit in O.S.55/2020. The present matter is pending before II Additional District

Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam which is having heavy pendency of pre-2018

matters. It is not possible to that court to dispose the matter pertaining to the year 2020 as early as possible. Coming to I Additional District Court,

Visakhapatnam which is also heavy pendency court having jurisdiction of Special

Acts i.e., NDPS and Drugs and Cosmotics and also Human Rights Act, hence, it is not possible to the I Additional District Judge to dispose the matter pertaining to the year 2020. Now coming to the III Additional District Judge’s court which is a 6

PDJC, VSKP

TOP 10/2023 designated court as special court for disposal of the cases under Prevention of

Anti-Corruption Act and III Additional District Court is only for trial of cases under

ACB Act, this district court has not made over the regular matters to the III

Additional District Judge’s Court as it is designated for ACB Cases, hence, this

court has also no discretion to try the suit in O.S.55/2020. Now coming to the IV

Additional District Judge’s Court, which is also having heavy pendency but this

court has a feasibility to dispose the matter pertaining to the year 2020 inspite of that the IV Additional District Court is designated as court for disposal of cases under economical offences, the matter pertaining to the Act is only limited, hence, this court is of the firm opinion that IV Additional District Judge’s Court is only feasible for disposal of O.S.55/2020 apart from all the courts, hence,

O.S.55/2020 is hereby withdrawn from the court of II Additional District Judge,

Visakhapatnam and transferred the same to the IV Additional District Judge’s

Court, Visakhapatnam to dispose the matter according to law along with interlocutory applications. The IV Additional District Judge, is hereby directed to consider the request of the petitioner/plaintiff and dispose the matter expeditiously as early as possible according to law. Point is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner.

11.In the result, petition is allowed and the suit in O.S.55/2020 on the file of II

Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam is withdrawn and transferred to the IV

Additional District Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam for trial and disposal in

accordance with law expeditiously as early possible.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade I and transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court dated, this the 26 th day of April, 2023.

Sd/- G.Gopi

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

Copies to :

1. The II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam

2. The IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam