Be liberal in appreciating and be a miser in judging
IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS: SESSIONS DIVISION:
SRIKAKULAM.
Before the I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam.
Present: Sri I. Ramesh, B.Sc., B.L.,
I Addl. District & Sessions Judge,
Srikakulam.
Thursday, the 25 th day of July, 2013.
SESSIONS CASE NO.1/2012
(Crime No.6/2012 of Kasibugga Police Station)
Between:
The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Kasibugga.
And
Bharath Aliyana, S/o Bhibhi Aliyana, aged 40 years, Pydi by
Caste, Bommika Village, Gajapathi District, Orissa State.
... Accused.
Prosecution was conducted by:Sri K. Jeevaratnam.
Addl. Public Prosecutor,
Srikakulam.
Accused was defended by:Sri T. Khagendranath,
Advocate,
Srikakulam.
Offence: Under Section 8 (c), read with Section 20 (b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985.
2
Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty.
Finding of the Judge:A). The accused is found not guilty for the charge levelled against him, consequently the accused is acquitted under Section 235 (1), Cr.P.C.
and his bail bonds are hereby cancelled.
B) The accused has not claimed the
Scooty (M.O.3). Hence, it is ordered to sell the same in a public auction and confiscate the amount to the State.
C) The M.Os.1 and 2 the Ganja bags and the unmarked samples, if any, in the case and any other unmarked property are ordered to be destroyed after the Appeal time is over.
D) The Office is directed to transmit a copy of this Judgment to the Superintendent of
Police, Srikakulam, by name cover for consideration and for steps.
This case coming on 18072013 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Jeevaratnam, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the
State and of Sri T. Khagendranath, learned Advocate for the Accused and upon hearing both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following
J U D G M E N T;
The Inspector of Police, Kasibugga laid the chargedsheet against the sole accused under Section 8 (c), read with Section 20 (b) of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act on the file of this Court on 12032012.
02.This Court has taken the case on file under Section 8 (c), read 3 with Section 20 (b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act on 19042012 and ordered summons for appearance of the accused by 01052012. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents are supplied to him. He is represented by an Advocate.
03.On hearing, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the
Counsel for the Accused, a charge under Section 8 (c), read with Section 20 (b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is framed and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
04.The prosecution to prove its charge, examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 and M.Os.1 to 3.
05.On closure of evidence of the prosecution, the accused is examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating circumstances deposed by the prosecution witnesses and stated he mis not having any defence witnesses.
06.In the light of the contentions, the Points that germane for consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge levelled against him?
2. To what findings?
07.The case of the prosecution is that on 06012012
Mr. H. Malleswara Rao, Inspector of Police, Kasibugga received reliable information at about 250 p.m. about transporting of Gajna. He informed the same to the SubInspector of Police, Kasibugga over by phone and a made a requisition to Sri P. Veerabhadra Rao, Tahsildar, Palasa (P.W.1) to 4 accompany the Police Party along with Village Revenue Officer. On that the said Inspector of Police, Sri H. Malleswara Rao (P.W.7), along with his staff Sri Y. Gavaraiah (P.W.3), Sri G. Syamalarao (P.W.4), Sri K. Govinda
Rao (P.W.5) and Sri K. Bhavani Prasada Rao (P.W.6) on securing the presence of P.W.1, Village Revenue Officer, Palasa Mr. L. Duryodhana
Naidu (L.W.2 give up) at Katammathalli Temple at about 400 p.m. noticed the accused coming from Goppili side on the Scooty (M.O.3) with two bags tied to it. The accused on seeing the Police personnel is in dress, tried to turn back. Then he was apprehended to the Police Party and questioned the accused in the presence of P.W.1 and Mr. L. Duryodhana Naidu. Then the accused disclosed his identity and gave a statement about the contents of the two bags as Ganja. Then P.W.7 and P.W.1 informed their designation as Gazetted Officer and the right the accused is having under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act. P.W.7 served notice on the accused and obtained consent from the accused. P.W.7 got verified the two bags (M.Os.1 and 2) by P.W.1 and the said Village Revenue Officer
Mr. L. Duryodhana Naidu (L.W.2). On such search they noticed the two bags contain Ganja. Then P.W.7 deputed Mr. G. Syamala Rao (P.W.4) to secure a person to weigh the Ganja. He brought Mr. R. Dharma Rao (P.W.2) to weigh the Ganja of two bags. This P.W.2 weighed the two bags (M.Os.1 and 2) and they contain Ganja of 13.24 Kgs and 10.98 Kgs.
Respectively. Thereafter P.W.7 drawn two packs of 35 and 30 Grams from each bag as sample and got affixed the identity slips on M.Os.1 and 2 and as well as the two samples lifted thereof with the signatures of P.W.1,
Village Revenue Officer Mr. L. Duryodhana Niaudu (L.W.2) and of the 5 accused. The identity slips so also affixed on the Scooty (M.O.3). Then a mediators report is prepared for that occurrence as in Ex.P.2. The occurrence also got photographed as Ex.P.3 with C.D. P.W.7 alsos got prepared rough sketch of that scene of offence as per Ex.P.6.
08.P.W.7 on returning to Police Station with the contraband seized and M.O.3, registered Ex.P.2 mediators report as a case in Crime
No.6/2012 of Kasibugga Police Station under Section under Section 8 (c), read with Section 20 (b) of N.D.P.S. Act. And submitted original F.I.R. as in Ex.P.4. Subsequently the part of seized contraband, samples are sent for R.F.S.L. He received R.F.S.L. As in Ex.P.5 with the material seized is
Ganja.
09.Thus, the accused without having any licence, permit, etc., found in possession of Ganja being transported on M.O.3 Scooty bearing registration No.AP 30L 9962. Thus, on completion of investigation, the chargesheet is laid by P.W.7.
10.The defence of the accused is total denial.
11.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued referring the evidence of P.W.1 and the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 7 that their evidence proved the accused apprehended while transporting the Ganja. He also argued the evidence of P.W.2 lend corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1,
P.Ws.3 to 7 and proved the Ganja that was seized in possession of the accused was weighed by him. In that process he referred the photos
Ex.P.3 with C.D. prove that aspect.
12.Thus, he canvassed the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge levelled against the 6 accused.
13.On the mother hand, the Counsel for the accused argued that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.7 did not make out they have followed the procedure before seizure and the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 6 which demonstrates the seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 cannot be believed and accepted by us. Thus, he contended the evidence placed by the prosecution itself proved the accused has not committed any offence.
14.Thus, he contended the accused is entitled for acquittal.
15.In the light of the enlightened arguments, we have to answer the Point.
16.POINT NO.1:
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge levelled against him?
Before adverting into the factual side of the matter, while
appreciating the evidence, some of the points of N.D.P.S. Act needs reference. The necessity of referring the procedure is the Act contemplates certain specific procedure to be followed.
17.As per Section 41 of N.D.P.S. Act the concerned official can obtain warrant for search. This Section 41 reds about authorised officer he can search and seize the material. The search may in a building or open place. So, as per Section 41, the officer who wanted to conduct search can obtain warrant of such search and to proceed. But where the circumstances are so exigence under Section 42 of the Act the officer concerned can make search and seize the contraband without warrant of authorisation. In the nature of these type of search a duty is cast upon the 7 concerned officer to submit a report to his immediate official superior within seventytwo hours. The proviso of Section 42 and Section 42 (2) of the Act needs reference for better understanding. They reads as follows:
“Section 42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation: (1).....
(2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under subsection (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall forthwith send a
copy thereof to this immediate official superior.”
18.Section 43 of the Act says seizure and arrest in public place.
Section 49 of the Act speaks of search and seizure of conveyance.
19.All these Sections are controlled by Section 50 which speaks of the procedure to be followed. This Section 50 reads as follows:
“Section 50. Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted:
(1)When any officer duly authorised under Section 42 is about to
search any person under provisions of Section 41, Section 42, or
Section 43 he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 or to the nearest
Magistrate.
(2) If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the Gazetted officer or the
Magistrate referred to in subsection (1).
(3)The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such
person is brought shall if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made.
(4)No female shall be searched by any one excepting a female.”
8
20.It mandates the accused shall be informed about his right of being search before a Gazetted Officer and it also mandates obtaining of the consent of the accused for such search before a Gazetted Officer a serving a notice to the accused. The Section 50 reads the procedure to be followed when search of persons.
21.As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ruling reported in
AIR 2000 SC 402 in Kalema Thmba Vs. State of Maharashtra.
When the search of bags involved requirement of inform the accused about his right to be searched in the presence of Gazetted Officer enumerates the
Section 50 of the Act will not arise. It is referred by me in the light of
Section 49 of the Act.
22.Section 50 says and refers Section 41, and 42 only and it did not say about Section 49 which reads about search of conveyance. So, on analysing these sections what I want to emphasis is there is difference of search of a person and search of conveyance, etc. If search of person is to be made then the procedure has to be followed in the light of Section 41 by obtaining warrant of search etc. If in the case of extraneous circumstances without obtaining any search warrant, the officer authorised enumerates
Section 42 can conduct a search of a person, but in such case he has to submit a report.
23.Section 42 enumerates about the authorised persons who can conduct such search. So, the conditions enumerates under Section 50 are applicable where the cases comes within the purview of Sections 41, 42 and 43. Hence, the conditions enumerates under Section 50 of the Act will not applicable of the case comes within the purview of section 49 of the 9
Act, i.e. search of conveyance.
24.This is all explained by me as in the case on hand is not search of person, it is of search of conveyance and baggage thereof. So, the procedure mandate Section 50 of the Act needs no compliance. So, it is to be proved by the prosecution that the search is made while the accused transporting the Ganja on his Scooter (M.O.3) in the bags covered by
M.Os.1 and 2. so, the case in hand is conveyance and baggage thereof.
25.The other provision which is mandatory is Section 57.
26.It is to be said whether the search is of person or a conveyance and whether the case within the purview of Section 50 of the Act, it is the duty of the Officer, who conducted such search and seizure has to submit a report to his Superior Officer. So, this Section 57 reads as follows:
“Section 57. Report of arrest and seizure: Whenever any
person makes any arrest or seizure under this Act, he shall,
within fortyeight hours next after such arrest or seizure make a
full report of the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his
immediate official superior”.
So, what may be the nature of the search Section 57 is mandates sending of report.
27.The noncompliance of submitting the report as per Section 57 of the Act vitiate the trial and the accused is entitled to be benefit of doubt.
This is the proposition of Law laid down reported in 1997 (2) ALT (Crl.)
Page 840 (A.P.) and as well as in the Ruling reported in 1997 (2) ALT (Crl.) 821 (A.P.).
28.Section 60 of the Act speaks of presumption as to documents during the course of seizure, arrest, etc.
10
29.With this background of legal provisions under the Act, let us consider the evidence.
30.If a repeat in the case on hand the seizure of contraband is covered by baggage (M.Os.1 and 2) and which are being transported under
M.O.3Scooter. So, the case on hand comes under Section 49 of the Act.
So, the mandatory provision enumerated under Section 50 of the Act needs for compliance, but at the same time the compliance Section 57 is mandatory.
31.P.W.1 is the Tahsildar, who participated as one of the mediator.
Before referring his evidence, let us first consider the evidence of P.W.7 the
Investigating Officer.
32.It is the evidence of P.W.7 on 06012012 he received a credible information regarding transportation of Ganja. Then he made a requisition to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Palasa. P.W.1 deposed on 06 012012 he received a letter of requisition to act as a mediator as Ganja has been transporting on that date in Palasa to Goppili road. As per his evidence the information received by him is entered in the General Diary of
Police Station, but it is not filed into the Court.
33.So, the first and foremost information alleged to have been received by this P.W.7 which made entry in the General Diary of the Police
Station has not filed. There is no explanation from P.W.7.
34.So, the very evidence of P.W.1 that he received information and on that he made a requisition to Mandal Revenue Officer became doubtful.
35.We can analyse this aspect while going to the other part of the 11 evidence. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the Inspector of Police and Sub
Inspector of Police came to his office about 430 p.m. and letter of requisition Ex.P.1 is served on him and on that he and Village Revenue
Officer, Mr. L. Duryodhana Naidu accompanied them and went to
Katammathalli Temple of Loddabadra Village. Whereas P.W.7 deposed that he sent the requisition to the Mandal Revenue Officer well in advance and after sending the requisition only, he and SubInspector of Police and others went to Mandal Revenue Office and by that time the Mandal
Revenue Officer is ready as he already received the requisition.
36.So, the evidence of P.W.1 and the evidence of P.W.7 is not corroborating on the aspect of requisition Ex.P.1. One says on coming the
Circle Inspector and SubInspector requisition was served, the other say it was sent in advance. This Ex.P.1 cannot be arrived by us, whether it is served in advance by P.W.7 or it was served when P.W.7 and Sub
Inspector of Police went to Mandal Revenue Office and then served.
37.The endorsement of P.W.1 on this Ex.P.1 did not refer the time of receipt of it. P.Ws.3 to 5 who accompanied the Inspector of Police from the Police Station to the Mandal Revenue Office deposed the Mandal
Revenue Officer and Village Revenue Officer boarded the jeep with him.
They have not deposed that a requisition is made by P.W.7 to P.W.1.
38.P.W.6 then SubInspector of Police deposed the Inspector of
Police informed to the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer with a request to act as mediator while searching the suspect. He too has not deposed making of requisition Ex.P.1 at any point of time. So, making of Ex.P.1 became doubtful.
12
39.The other important factor to be noted by us right from P.W.1,
P.Ws.3 to 7 deposed that P.W.7 has got knowledge of transporting of
Ganja. In such circumstances it is unknown why this P.W.7 has not made efforts to take the weigh man along with him. If he has no information then during the course of routine check if it is found transporting of Ganja, then
P.W.7 can say he deputed his Constable and secure the presence of weigh man to weigh Ganja. But, it is not so in the case on hand. The evidence of
P.W.1, P.Ws.3 to 7 categorically shows they have not taken a person to weigh the Ganja.
40.As per the evidence of P.W.1, when they are waiting at
Katammathalli Temple, about 500 p.m. they noticed the accused coming on Scooty and on seeing the Police, he tried to change his direction, then he was apprehended. At that time he was travelling on the Scooty and there are two bags in his Scooty. It is not in his evidence that a search was made of these two bags and serving notice to the accused informing his right to have search before Gazetted Officer and disclose his identity that he mis a Gazetted Officer and searching of the bags and noticing of Ganja.
41.P.W.3 is the Police Constable, who participated in the raid. He deposed that they went to Katammathalli Temple and when they are proceeding, a Scooty was coming from their opposite direction and the driver of the said Scooty turned back and on that they have apprehended, then that person is having two bags and when the Circle Inspector of Police asked to verify the bags, they have verified the same and noticed Ganja.
Thus, he also not deposed that the search of was conducted by Mandal
Revenue Officer and Village revenue Officer, muchless by serving a notice 13 to the accused informing the right to have search before the Gazetted
Officer. He also has not deposed serving of any notice to the accused.
42.As per his evidence, in his presence the documents relating to the Scooty are also seized. It is also the evidence of this P.W.3 the
Photographer was called by phone and he came there and took the photographs (Ex.P.3).
43.Ex.P.3 photographs discloses the accused, Police Party,
Mandal Revenue Officer and others. It is not deposed by P.W.3 lifting of any samples from the two bags. M.Os.1 and 2 available on the Scooty (M.O.3).
44.P.W.4 the Police Constable deposed that they have stopped the Scooty and there are bags on the Scooty and on verification of bags, they have noticed Ganja. As per the evidence of this P.W.4, the
Photographer is not called and those photographs (Ex.P.3) are taken with the camera available in their Police Station which is carried by them. This
P.W.4 is also not deposed the conducting of search by Mandal Revenue
Officer and Village Revenue Officer, muchless of serving a notice and informing the same to the accused about his right nto have search before the Gazetted Officer. This P.W.4 also not deposed any lifting of samples (M.Os.1 and 2).
45.It is most unfortunate to note this P.W.4 noted down the
Scooter Number, the date and time and the place and mother material aspects on his left hand palm and on perusing them, he gave the same. It is needless to say this type of practice is most deplorable one. If he is not able to give the particulars like numbers, etc., this P.W.4 as a witness is 14 having all the liberty to say that aspect and obtain a permission he can.
But, it is not expected from a Police Constable of noting the particulars on his palm and giving the evidence.
46.P.W.5 is the other Police Constable deposed that his Inspector of Police checked the two bags available in the Scooty. He for the first time deposed lifting of two samples and affixing of identity slips on the samples so taken. But, we do not find this aspect in the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4.
This P.W.5 deposed they have taken the camera for photographs and one of their Constables took the photographs, but the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 discloses a Photographer came there and took the photography (Ex.P.3).
47.P.W.6 then SubInspector of Police, who accompanied P.W.7 that the accused was apprehended and produced before Mandal Revenue
Officer and Inspector of Police and before search the Mandal Revenue
Officer (P.W.1) and Inspector of Police (P.W.7) informed to the accused that they are Gazetted Officers and a notice was served on to them and the signature of the accused was obtained thereof and thereafter Mandal
Revenue Officer, Village Revenue Officer and Inspector of Police searched the vehicle and found the Ganja in two bags.
48.What all deposed by this P.W.6 is not there in the evidence of
P.Ws.2 to 5. Even the Mandal Revenue Officer (P.W.1) has not deposed these aspects.
49.It is unfortunate to note the prosecuting agency has not made efforts to produce the notice served on the accused on which his signature is obtained informing the right to have search before Gazetted Officers and disclosing the status of P.W.1 and P.W.7. It is unknown why the 15 prosecuting agency has not got marked the same. So, for that laches of the prosecution also, the case became weak.
50.As per the evidence of P.W.6 also one of the staff has taken the photographs at the scene of offence with the Police Station digital camera which is running contra to the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3.
51.It is not in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 that the accused gave a confession and it was reduced into writing and it is prepared from 400 p.m.
to 600 p.m. It is not the evidence of this P.W.6 lifting of any samples and affixing of identity slips on M.Os.1 and 2 Ganja bags or on the sample packets or on the M.O.3.
52.As per the evidence of this P.W.6 from the vehicle the driving licence, 'C' book and another connected records are seized. But, the evidence of P.W.1 shows no such record is available and no such seizure was took place. We find the same version in the evidence f P.W.7.
53.P.W.2 deposed that he was called by Kasibugga Police and he went to Katammathalli Temple with weighing machine, there the Inspector of Police, SubInspector of Police, Tahsildar and others are present and he weighed the Ganja and in his presence two samples are lifted from the respective bags. It is not in his evidence affixing of identity slips on the
Ganja bags (M.Os.1 and 2) and on the Scooty (M.O.3) or on the samples lifted by them.
54.As stated by me supra, as per the evidence of P.W.6, there is prior information to P.W.1 about the transporting of Ganja and in that process only he went Mandal Revenue Officer and picked up Mandal
Revenue Officer and Village Revenue Officer to act as mediators. With 16 such situation it is unknown why he has taken the weighing person also with him.
55.To accept the presence of this P.W.2, we do not find the signature on Ex.P.2 mediators report, nor his presence is referred to in
Ex.P.3 photographs by these above other witnesses.
56.The case of the prosecution is the samples so lifted are not produced before the Court. It is not explained why they could not be produced either by the investigating agency or by the prosecution agency.
So, for these laches also the case of the prosecution became doubtful.
I have no hesitation to say it is the prosecution agency has to take steps for getting the samples produced before the Court before the commencement of trial or on the date of commencement of trial and get the samples marked through the concerned. But, that little exercise has not made by the agency. So, as deposed by P.W.6 and P.W.7 are not before the Court.
57.It is not in the evidence of P.W.7 that in the light of Section 57 of N.D.P.S. Act, he submitted a report to his superior officers within the time prescribed therein. That aspect is not elicited from the mouth of P.W.7 by the prosecuting agency. It is said by me, because with all my restraint the record discloses a document styled as “information” as contemplated under Section 57 of N.D.P.S. Act signed by the Inspector of Police,
Kasibugga Circle on 07012012 with endorsement of receiving of copy by the concerned officials of Dy.S.P. Office with stamp of D.S.P. Office,
Kasibugga with date as 07012012. The prosecuting agency has not got marked this document to prove the compliance of Section 57 which is mandatory as discussed supra, in the light of Law laid down.
17
58.In the same passion the P.W.7 has not deposed submitting this kind of report so. In the eye of Law, there is no proof that P.W.7 has complied with the provisions of Section 57 of N.D.P.S. Act.
59.It is not the evidence of P.W.6 or P.W.1 that P.W.7 prepared rough sketch as in Ex.P.6. This Ex.P.6 did not contain the signature of the accused.
60.This is all to prove that such an occurrence took place and the accused apprehended and a mediators report as in Ex.P.2 is prepared on seizure of M.Os.1 and 2 and M.O.3. We do not find the signature of the accused prior to the signatures of Mandal Revenue Officer and Village
Revenue Officer and the Police Officers. We find the signature of the accused in Page 3 only at the margin. If really Ex.P.2 was prepared at the scene of offence, certainly the signature of this accused will be obtained on
Page 1 and 2 and also on Page 3. His signature will be first one followed by Mandal Revenue Officer and another officials. As it is not took so, his signature is there on the margin. This has to be viewed by us in the light of lack of signature of accused on Page Nos.1 and 2.
61.Thus, the Ex.P.2 also became doubtful. Ex.P.4 is the First
Information Report registered basing on Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.5 is R.F.S.L.
Report to the effect that the samples sent are of Ganja, but the remaining part of samples are not placed before the Court. So, the prosecuti8on cannot gain any helping hand from this R.F.S.L. ReportEx.P.5 or from
Ex.P.4First Information Report.
62.Thus, the prosecution failed to prove that mandatory provisions enumerates Section 57 has not complied with and nonproduction of 18 samples and by virtue of my discussion supra, any amount of doubt will arise about the version of the prosecution, the accused is entitled for that benefit of doubt.
63.Hence, I answer this Point holding that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge levelled against him.
64.POINT NO.2:
To what findings?
A) By virtue of my discussion on Point No.1, the accused is found not guilty for the charge levelled against him, consequently the accused is acquitted under Section 235 (1), Cr.P.C. and his bail bonds are hereby cancelled.
B) The accused has not claimed the Scooty (M.O.3). Hence, it is ordered to sell the same in a public auction and confiscate the amount to the State.
C) The M.Os.1 and 2 the Ganja bags and the unmarked samples, if any, in the case and any other unmarked property are ordered to be destroyed after the Appeal time is over.
D) The Office is directed to transmit a copy of this Judgment to the Superintendent of Police, Srikakulam, by name cover for consideration and for steps.
Dictated to the Superintendent (who is discharging his duties as
Personal Assistant), transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 25th day of July, 2013.
Ist ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
SRIKAKULAM.
19
Appendix of Evidence
Witnesses Examined
For Prosecution:
P.W.1:Sri Pagadala Veerabhadra Rao.
P.W.2:Sri Ronanki Dharama Rao.
P.W.3:Sri Yendava Gavarayya.
P.W.4:Sri Gorla Syamala Rao.
P.W.5:Sri Kancharapu Govinda Rao.
P.W.6:Sri Kumili Bhavani Prasada Rao.
P.W.7:Sri H. Malleswara Rao.
For Defence:
NONE.
Documents Marked
For Prosecution:
Ex.P.1. dt.06012012: Letter of requisition by P.W.7 to P.W.1.
Ex.P.2. dt.06012012: Mediators report
Ex.P.3. dt. : Four positive photographs with C.D.
Ex.P.4. dt.06012012: Original First Information Report in Crime No.6/2012 of Kasibugga Police Station.
Ex.P.5. dt.01022012: R.F.S.L. Report.
Ex.P.6. dt.06012012: Rough sketch of the scene of offence.
For Defence:
NIL.
Material Objects Marked
M.Os.1 & 2:Two bags with Ganja.
M.O.3:A.P.30L 9962 Scooty.
Ist ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
SRIKAKULAM.