Sri. K.A.P. Swamy

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF NDPS CASES

(I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE) WARANGAL

Friday, this the 29th day of June, 2012

PRESENT: Sri K.A.P.Swamy, I-Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal.

SESSIONS CASE NO.14 OF 2010

(Cr.No.13/2004 of P.S. Regonda)

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

2.Name and description of the :A1. Bojjam Narsaiah (case against accusedhim was acquitted vide S.C.No.250 of 2004)

A2. Anbalgan, s/o P.Karupan (Died, case against him was abated)

A3. Ponnaiah Moorthy, s/o Ponnaiah (case against A3 is separated vide S.C.No.1/2012)

A4. Ponnaiah Moorthy, s/o Ponnaiah, Age: 30 years, Thever, R/o Thevaram(V), Uottampalym Theni Dist. of Tamilnadu.

3.Offence charged:Sec.8(c) r/w 20 of NDPS Act

4.Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

5.Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

6.Conviction, sentence or acquittal:A4 is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/S.8(c) r/w 20 of NDPS Act and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same u/S.235(1) of Cr.PC. A4 shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

Since the case against A3 is pending vide S.C.No.1/2012, no property order is passed.

7.Name of the Counsel for the :Sri J.Prasangi, prosecutionAddl.P.P.

8.Name of the counsel for accused:Sri B.Venkatram, Advocate 2S.C. No.14 of 2010

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and of Sri B.Venkatram,

Advocate, for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T : :

: :

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Shayampet, filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20 of N.D.P.S. Act.

2.The prosecution case, as in the charge sheet, is that on 16.2.2004 in the morning hours, PW2-S.V.Raghavendra Rao, SI of Police, Regonda, along with

G.Laxmipathi and N.Krishna Naik (LWs 2 and 3), Police Constables, P.S.

Regonda, organized vehicle checking at Ravulapally Bus Stage. While checking, they noticed four persons, containing suit-cases and bags in their hands and moving suspiciously. On suspicion, they rushed there and apprehended those four persons at 12.00 noon. Immediately, PW2 summoned two mediators, i.e.

LW4- Poteti Mahender and PW3-Rontala Chiranjeevi. Before interrogation, PW2 enquired them whether they required the presence of a gazetted officer for search. On their consent, those four persons along with the mediators were brought before PW1-M.Nagaiah, MRO, Regonda and interrogated them before the said mediators. During investigation, those four persons revealed their names and identity. Later, PW2 along with PW1, recorded their confessional statement and recovered from the possession of A1-one hand bag, containing 5kgs of ganja, packed in polythene cover; from A2-one suit-case, containing 8kgs of ganja, packed in polythene cover; from A3-one suit-case, containing 5kgs of ganja, packed in polythene cover and from the possession of A4-one hand bag, containing 8kgs of ganja packed in polythene cover, respectively, totalling to 26kgs of dry ganja from all. Further, PW2 collected samples from the said containers for chemical examination and report in the presence of the said mediators. Thereafter, interrogated all the accused, who voluntarily confessed 3S.C. No.14 of 2010 that they used to visit Gorikothapally Village, to purchase dry ganja. Accordingly, on 16.02.2004, A2 to A4 purchased 26kgs of dry ganja from A1 @ Rs.200/- per kg and packed it in polythene covers and were planning to go to Warangal and from there to go to Madurai, to sell the same @ Rs.1,000/- per kg. In the meantime, they were apprehended. Subsequently, in accordance with the orders of S.D.P.O, Parkal, LW10-G.Madhu, SI of Police, Shayampet, who took up the investigation, examined and recorded the statements of PW2, LWs 2 and 3.

Later, the arrested accused were brought to P.S. at 03.00 p.m. Then they were produced before the JFCM, Parkal, for judicial remand. Consequently, LW7-

B.Srinivas Rao, Chemical Examiner, who examined the samples, issued his report stating that the samples were ‘ganja.’ Thereafter, as per the orders of

LW8-K.Narsimha Chary, JFCM, Parkal, the seized contraband was destroyed in his presence by taking photographs. Thus, on completion of investigation,

LW11-N.Chaitanya Chander, SI of Police, P.S. Shayampet, filed charge sheet against A1 to A4 for the offence punishable u/S.8(c) r/w 20 of N.D.P.S. Act.

3.On appearance of A4, copies of the documents were furnished u/s. 207,

Cr.P.C. and after hearing, a charge u/S. 8(c) r/w 20 of N.D.P.S. Act was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 3 and marked Exs-P1 to P5. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of defence.

5.On completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused No.4 was examined u/S. 313, Cr.P.C. with material circumstances appearing against him.

He denied the same. The accused did not propose to lead any evidence on his behalf and hence, the arguments were heard.

6. Point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused 4S.C. No.14 of 2010 beyond reasonable doubt?”

7.POINT:Fair trial is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution to every accused. The emphasis on need to conduct fair trial can be culled out from the observation of the Supreme Court, while dealing with Section 50 of N.D.P.S.

Act, in the case of State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 as follows:- “... The duty to inform the suspect of his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted officer or a Magistrate is a necessary sequence for enabling the persons concerned to exercise that right u/S. 50 because after Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 it is no longer permissible to contend that the right to personal liberty can be curtailed even temporarily, by a procedure which is not 'reasonable, fair and just' and when a statute itself provides for a 'just' procedure, it must be honoured. Conducting a search u/S. 50, without intimating to the suspect that he has a right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a magistrate, would be violative of the 'reasonable, fair and just procedure' and the safeguard contained in Section 50 would be rendered illusory, otiose and meaningless. Procedure based on systematic and unconscionable violation of law by the officials responsible for the enforcement of law cannot be considered to be a 'fair', just or reasonable procedure”.

8.The importance of compliance of procedural safeguards has been observed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 held para 28 as follows: “This Court cannot overlook the context in which the NDPS Act operates and particularly the factor of wide spread illiteracy among persons subject to investigation for drug offences. It must be borne in mind that severe the punishments, greater has to be the care taken to see that all the safeguards provided in a statute are scrupulously followed”.

5S.C. No.14 of 2010

Referring to the decision in this case, the apex Court, in its later decision in the case of Sarju @ Ramu v. State of U.P., 2009 (2) ALD (Crl.) 822. (SC), observed at para 15 that it is now also well settled that the provisions of the NDPS Act being harsh in nature, the procedural safeguards contained therein must scrupulously be complied therewith. Yet in another decision in the case of UOI v. Balmukund and others, 2009 (2) ALD (Crl.) 41 (SC), the Supreme Court made the same observation that the NDPS Act provides for stringent punishment and that where a statute confers drastic powers and seeks to deprive a citizen of its liberty for not less than 10 years, and making stringent provisions for grant of bail, scrupulous compliance of the statutory provisions must be insisted upon.

9.The purpose of procedural safeguards has been explained by the

Supreme Court in Baldev Singh case (supra) at para 28 as follows while dealing with Section 50 of N.D.P.S. Act.

“As already observed the compliance with the procedural safeguards contained in Section 50 are intended to serve a dual purpose – to protect a person against false accusation and frivolous charges as also to lend creditability to the search and seizure conducted by the empowered officer”.

10.The Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh (supra), rejected the arguments that keeping in view of the gravity of drug menace, insistence on compliance with all the safeguards u/S. 50 N.D.P.S. Act may result in more acquittals. The Supreme Court reiterated the need for fair trial as follows:- “Indeed in every case, the end result is important but the means to achieve it must remain above board. The remedy cannot be worse than the disease itself. The legitimacy of the judicial process may come under a cloud if the court is seen to condone acts of lawlessness conducted by the investigating agency during search operations and may also undermine respect for the law and may have the effect of unconscionably compromising the administration of justice. That cannot be permitted”.

In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, 1997 SCC (Crl) 92 the Supreme Court 6S.C. No.14 of 2010 while noticing the difficult situation in which police are working, observed the need to follow fair procedure, as follows” “We are conscious of the fact that the police in India have to perform a difficult and delicate task, particularly in view of the deteriorating law and order situation, communal riots, political turmoil, student unrest, terrorist activities, and among others the increasing number of underworld and armed gangs and criminals. Many hard-core criminals like extremists, terrorists, drug peddlers, smugglers who have organized gangs, have taken strong roots in the society. It is being said in certain quarters that with more and more liberalization and enforcement of fundamental rights, it would lead to difficulties in the detection of crimes committed by such categories of hardened criminals by soft peddling interrogation. It is felt in those quarters that if we lay too much of emphasis on protection of their fundamental rights and human rights, such criminals may go scot-free without exposing any element or iota of criminality with the result, the crime would go unpunished and in the ultimate analysis the society would suffer. The concern is genuine and the problem is real. To deal with such a situation, a balance approach is needed to meet the ends of justice. This is all the more so, in view of the expectation of the society that police must deal with the criminals in an efficient and effective manner and bring to book those who are involved in the crime. The cure cannot, however, be worse than the disease itself.”

11.In the case of Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, 2009 (10) SCALE 255, the Supreme Court held as follows with regard to Section 42 of the NDPS Act.

“(a) The officer on receiving the information (of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 42) from any person had to record it in writing in the concerned register and forthwith send a copy to his immediate official superior, before proceeding to take action in terms of clauses (1) to (d) of Section 42(1).

(b) But if the information was received when the officer was not in the police station, but while he was on the move either on patrol duty or otherwise, either by mobile phone, or other means, and the information calls for immediately action and any delay would have resulted in the goods or evidence being removed or destroyed, it would not be feasible or practical to take down in writing the information given to him, in such a situation, he could take action as per clauses (a) to (d) of Section 42(1) and thereafter, as soon as it is practical, record the information in writing and forthwith inform the same to the official superior.

(c) In other words, the compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) in regard to writing down the information received and sending a copy thereof to the superior officer, should normally precede the entry, search and seizure by the officer. But in special circumstances involving emergent situations, the recording of the information in writing and sending a copy thereof to the official superior may get postponed by a reasonable period, that is after the search, 7S.C. No.14 of 2010 entry and seizure. The question is one of urgency and expediency.

(d) While total non-compliance of requirements of sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance of Section 42. To illustrate, if any delay may result in the accused escaping or the goods or evidence being destroyed or removed, not recording in writing the information received, before initiating action, or non-sending a copy of such information to the official superior forthwith, may not be treated as violation of Section 42. But if the information was received when the police officer was in the police station with sufficient time to take action, and if the police officer fails to record in writing the information received, or fails to send copy thereof, to the official superior, then it will be a suspicious circumstance being a clear violation of Section 42 of the Act. Similarly, where the police officer does not record the information at all, and does not inform the official superior at all, then also it will be a clear violation of Section 42 of the Act. Whether there is adequate or substantial compliance with Section 42 or not is a question of fact to be decided in each case. The above position got strengthened with the amendment to Section 42 by Act 9 of 2001”. Following this decision, the Supreme Court in a later case of Sarju @ Ramu (supra), acquitted the accused for non compliance of Section 42 of the Act.

12.As per the case of the prosecution as reflected in the charge sheet and the evidence of PW2, the raiding party proceeded to the scene of offence and checking the vehicles.

13.Since, it is not the case of the prosecution, that there was any prior information about transportation of ganja, there is no necessity to observe the procedure u/S. 42 of the Act. It is the case of the prosecution indicated in the charge sheet as well as the evidence of PW2 and his team that they nabbed the accused as they noticed them under suspicious circumstances, while conducting vehicle checking. Therefore, the accused cannot claim violation of u/S. 42 of the

Act in any perspective.

14.It is the case of the prosecution that panchanama was conducted in the presence of two panch witnesses, i.e. PW3 and LW4, besides the presence of

PW1. But PW3 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution 8S.C. No.14 of 2010 and the other panch witness is not examined in spite of several adjournments. It is contended by the defence counsel that the panch witnesses are stock witnesses and are not residents of the scene of offence. Since the offence occurred in 2004 and the evidence was recorded during the years 2010 and 2011, there is every possibility of fading away of memory regarding some minor particulars.

15.As per Section 51 of NDPS Act r/w 100(4) of Cr.P.C., which is necessary for the authorized officer to conduct search and seizure before two independent witnesses from the locality of the scene of offence. Moreover, the evidence of

PW2 is not corroborated with the evidence of other witnesses. In the light of the above circumstances, the prosecution failed to establish proper compliance of

Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is another lapse on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.

16.That apart, there is no evidence that PW2 properly drew samples and kept in proper sealed covers. Had it been really done, PW2 who stated to have collected the samples cannot miss such a material fact in his evidence. Any one of such sample was not brought in evidence to corroborate the evidence of PW2 that the samples were duly sealed with wax. PW1 deposed his evidence in brief.

PW1 did not specifically state, as to how the contraband and samples were weighed, he has not described the contents of panchanama and he has not specifically mentioned the names of the panch witnesses who were present there at the time of alleged panchanama. He did not know when exactly the accused were apprehended by the police. No alleged requisition given by the SI to PW1, was not filed. There is no clear corroboration to the version of PW1 with that of the version of PW2. Further, this Court noted several contradictions in the versions of PWs 1 and 2. The descriptive particulars of the accused were also not given. Since the prosecution failed to bring in best piece of evidence, available with it, mere oral statement of PW2 un-corroborated by the evidence of 9S.C. No.14 of 2010

PW1, cannot be taken as gospel truth.

17.However, there is a delay of more than 10 days in forwarding the samples to the Chemical Examiner. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish that the samples were duly drawn and safely kept in custody. Moreover, no list of properties was prepared and the properties were not entered in any register in the station.

18.In the light of such defence, the prosecution is required to place all the material evidence to establish guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. There is no reason for the prosecution in filing its application to place such material evidence. Therefore, the accused No.4 is entitled to benefit of doubt in this regard. The prosecution has not even placed credible evidence to prove the guilt against A4 regarding the contraband alleged to have been seized.

19.Thus, for all the above reasons, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt against A4 beyond reasonable doubt and he is entitled to an acquittal.

20. IN THE RESULT, A4 is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/S.8(c) r/w 20 of N.D.P.S. Act, and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same u/S. 235(1),

Cr.P.C. A4 shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.

Since the case against A3 is pending vide S.C.No.1/2012, no property order is passed.

(Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 29th day of June, 2012)

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1:M. Nagaiah - None - PW2:S.V.Raghavendra Rao 10S.C. No.14 of 2010

PW3:Rontala Chiranjeevi

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex-P1 :Confession and seizure panchanama of A1. Ex-P2 :Confession and seizure panchanama of A2. Ex-P3 :Confession and seizure panchanama of A3. Ex-P4 :Confession and seizure panchanama of A4. Ex-P5 :Signature of PW3 on Ex-P4.

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES,

WARANGAL.

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIM 

TRIBUNAL – CUM – I. ADDITIIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT WARANGAL.

Wednesday, this the 29th day of February, 2012.

Present : Sri K.A.P. Swamy, Chairman, M.V. Accidents Claims Tribunal, (I­Addl. District Judge) Warangal.

M.V. O.P.NO. 961 OF 2006

Between:

1. Mamidala Kavitha.

2. Mamidala Sruthi.

3. Mamidala Harinath.

4. Mamidala Rajyalaxmi 

5. Mamidala Venkataiah. (Reported died on 14.07.2008. Memo filed on 19.07.2011 and allowed) (Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 are minors, rep. by their natural Mother and guardian Mamidala Kavitha i.e., petitioner

No.1.….. Petitioners.

And 

1. A. Gattaiah.

2. The New India Assurance Company Limited, repp. by its Divisional Manager, Hanamkonda.

3. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. (Impleaded as per I.A. Orders 1433/07, dt:05.02.2008).

….. Respondents.

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 11­01­2012 in the presence of Sri S. Narsimha Swamy, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri Ch. Linga Murthy, Advocate for Respondent No.2, Sri B. Ramesh Goud, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 and the respondent 1 remained ex parte and having heard them and having perused the material papers and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:­ : : A W A R D : :

2O.P. No. 961 of 2006

This is a petition filed u/S.166 (i) (c) of M.V. Act claiming compensation of

Rs.7,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident till the realization of the compensation, for the death of Mamidala

Satyanarayana S/o. Venkataiah (in short 'the deceased') in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows:-

The 1st petitioner is the wife, 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the children and 4th and 5th petitioners are the parents of the deceased Mamidala Satyanarayana. On 12.05.2006, the deceased along with his wife and children went to his mother-in-law’s house at

Kamareddypalli Village, Parkal Mandal. On the next day, i.e. on 13.05.2006 in the afternoon, the deceased along with his family members in order to return to his residence, came to the Bus Stand of Kamareddypalli Village and while the deceased was stopping the APSRTC hired bus bearing No. AP 36W 0673 which was coming from Hanamkonda to Parkal. In the meanwhile, its driver came in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed the deceased. As a result, the deceased head was broken and died on the spot. On the complaint made by the 1st petitioner, wife of the deceased, the Police, Parkal, registered a case in Cr.No.62/2006 u/S.304-

A, I.P.C. and filed charge sheet against the driver of the APSRTC hired bus. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 24 years and was hale and healthy.

He was working as Power Looms Machine Operator and was drawing salary of

Rs.7,000/- per month. The deceased was the only earning member of the petitioners.

Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners lost their source of dependency, guidance, love and affection. The deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC hired bus bearing No. AP 36W 0673, belonged to the respondent No.1. As such, he is vicariously liable to pay the compensation and the respondent No.2, who is the insurer of the said vehicle vide insurance policy No. 610900/31/05/00921 valid from 26.05.2005 to 25.05.2006, valid at the time of accident and the respondent No.3 is hirer of the said bus.

3O.P. No. 961 of 2006

Therefore, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

3.The 1st respondent remained ex parte.

4.The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments of the petition and contended as follows:-

The occurrence of the accident and alleged involvement of the deceased are denied in toto by this respondent. The 2nd respondent does not admit the allegations made in the petition relating to the owner in which the accident described to have been taken place. The occurrence of the accident and alleged involvement of the deceased are also denied in toto. This respondent does not admit that the APSRTC hired bus bearing No. AP 36W 0673 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, as alleged by the petitioners. This respondent even does not admit the age, income, avocation and health condition of the deceased at the time of the accident.

As per the claim petition, the age of the deceased was mentioned as 24 years. But as per the P.M.E. report, his age was 27 years. The petitioners even did not file any documentary proof or salary certificate to show his monthly salary as Rs.7,000/-.

That as per Section 134(c) of the M.V.Act, it is mandatory on the part of the driver or the insured to give information to the insurer about the alleged accident and the particulars of the persons involved in that accident. In the present case, the accident was not reported to the insurer either by the insured or the driver to the insurer in collusion with the petitioners with a view to cause loss to this respondent. As such, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the above petitioners.

However, the compensation along with the interest claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive, exorbitant and out of proportions, for which, the petitioners are not entitled. This respondent sought protection u/S. 147, 149 and 170 of the M.V. Act and Sec. 64(v) (B) of Insurance Act, 1938 and prayed for a dismissal.

4O.P. No. 961 of 2006

5.The 3rd respondent filed counter denying the averments of the petition in toto.

This respondent denied the accident as narrated by the petitioners, as the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased, who did not observe the coming hired bus, and all of a sudden, came on to the road without observing the traffic on the road. Despite the driver taking all precautions to avert the accident, the deceased fell on the road and received fatal injury and succumbed to head injury on the spot. It is stated that no part of the hired bus hit the deceased. Hence, the driver of the bus is no way responsible for the accident. Whereas, the petitioners managed the police concerned and with a malafide intention foisted this false case to claim compensation. Hence, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. This respondent submitted that R1 being the owner of the hired bus bearing No. AP 36W 0673 entered into hire agreement with the respondent corporation on 02.07.2004, which is valid from 07.07.2004 to 06.07.2007 for three years, and as per the terms,

R1 has to provide to the drivers of the hired buses and the owner shall be responsible for all the claims that arise due to the statutory violations, payable under the provisions of the M.V. Act/Rules, and in view of such terms and conditions of the said agreement, this respondent claimed that under no circumstances, responsible to pay the compensation, and thus, prayed for a dismissal.

6.R2 was permitted to take defences available to the owner of the insured vehicle vide orders dated: 27.01.2009 in I.A. No. 56/2011.

7.The following issues were settled for trial.

i) Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus bearing No. AP 36 W 0673?

ii) Whether the petitioners entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount?

iii) To what relief?

5O.P. No. 961 of 2006

8.The 1st petitioner was examined as PW.1 and the eye witness to the accident as PW. 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. The respondents got examined RWs. 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.B1 and B2.

6O.P. No. 961 of 2006

9. ISSUE NO.1:- The 1st petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased, was examined as witness for the petitioners and the eye witness to the accident was examined as PW. 2. As can be seen from the cross examination of PWs. 1 and 2, there is no dispute about the occurrence of the accident, its place, time, death of the deceased, in that accident and the involvement of the APSRTC hired bus bearing No. AP 36W 0673. The only disputed aspect is about the rashness and negligence of the driver of the APSRTC. But the petitioners relied on the documentary evidence under Ex.A1, C.C. of F.I.R., Ex.A4, C.C.

of charge sheet, registered basing on complaint lodged by the wife of the deceased.

10. All the above referred documents would support the contention of the petitioners. Nothing was elicited in the evidence on record to suspect the contents of any of these documents. As per Rule 476(7) of A.P. Motor

Vehicles Rules, 1989, the claim under the M.V. Act shall be adjudicated basing on the documents, such as F.I.R, inquest report, post mortem examination report, charge sheet, M.V.I. report and crime details form vide

Exs.A1 to A6. Therefore, keeping in view of these rules, upon consideration of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and these documents, it is held that it is duly established by the petitioners that the accident was caused due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of the 1st respondent while driving the offending vehicle.

11. ISSUE NO.2:- There is no dispute about the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased. Evidence does not disclose that there are any other legal representatives of the deceased entitled to the compensation. Hence, these petitioners are entitled to compensation, in view of the finding in issue No.1.

7O.P. No. 961 of 2006

12.The contesting respondents have not denied the correctness of the evidence regarding the policy issued by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 1st respondent for the offending vehicle and its subsistence at the relevant period of the accident. As such, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

13.To award compensation, the petitioners have to prove the age of the deceased, earnings of the deceased and dependency of the petitioners on the deceased. PW1 stated that the deceased was aged about 24 years. As per Ex.A3,

P.M.E. Report, the deceased was 27 years. On considering the same, it is proved that the deceased was aged about 27 years by the time of his death.

14.The petitioners contended that the deceased was working as Power Looms

Machine Operator and used to earn Rs.7,000/- per month. In support of it, he got examined PW2. He supported the same and it is proved that the deceased used to earn Rs.7,000/- per month.

15.PW1, who is the 1st petitioner and wife of the deceased stated that the 4th petitioner is the mother of the deceased. On considering the evidence of PW1, it is proved that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased.

16.The petitioners contended that the deceased was aged 24 years at the time of his death and the same is not disputed. His age was referred as 24 years in the complaint under Ex.A1 given by the wife of the deceased, i.e. 1st petitioner. Even the post mortem examination report, Ex.A3 also disclosed the approximate age of the deceased as 27 years. The same age is mentioned in the inquest report vide 8O.P. No. 961 of 2006

Ex.A2. Therefore, as these documents were filed by the petitioners themselves and the age referred therein was not disputed by them and there is no other evidence of his correct date of birth or age, for the purpose of choosing the relevant multiplier, the age of the deceased can be considered as 27 years. In the case of Sarla Varma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC), the Supreme Court gave a list of multipliers to be adopted by all Tribunals uniformly. As per the list, ‘18’ is the multiplier to be adopted in this case.

17.Though the petitioners claimed that the deceased was earning more than

Rs.7,000/- per month by working as Power Looms Machine Operator, no document was filed in proof of it. His age according to the P.M.E. report and other records is shown as 27 years. Therefore, it can be safely presumed that such Power Looms

Machine Operator, can easily earn Rs.100/- per day i.e. 3,000/- per month.

Therefore, I feel that his earnings will be minimum of Rs.100/- per day and I take such income as a day’s income of the deceased as Operator of Power Looms

Machine. Therefore, the best alternative method available is to reckon to the notional annual value of the income provided in the Second Schedule to M.V. Act.

As per the same, Rs.3,000x12= 36,000/- per annum is such income. The Supreme

Court, in the case of Sarla Varma (supra) observed about the percentage of deduction to be made from the personal income of the deceased, depending on the number of dependents on such income. Since, there are five dependents (the 5th petitioner, who reported died) in the present case, 1/4th shall be deducted out of such income. Hence, Rs.2,250/- per month shall be considered as his contribution to the members of his family.

18.Thus, the total compensation for loss of dependency is calculated at

Rs.2,250/-x12x 18=4,86,000/-. As such, Rs.4,86,000/- is arrived as per the above calculation.

9O.P. No. 961 of 2006

19.Since the 1st petitioner is the wife of the deceased, she is further entitled to compensation for loss of consortium. As such, she is entitled to Rs.15,000/-.

20.All the petitioners are further entitled to compensation for loss of estate. In the case of Sarla Varma (supra), the Supreme Court also observed that a lump-sum amount shall be awarded under this head. Keeping in view the rise in value in all fields, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is granted for loss of estate.

21.Irrespective of heads of compensation claimed by the petitioners, it is for the

Tribunal to award just and reasonable compensation which the petitioners are entitled to. As such, since the petitioners would necessarily incur expenses for transportation of the dead body and funeral ceremonies, a reasonable amount of compensation can be awarded under these heads. As there is no evidence of actual expenses under these heads, a reasonable amount can be granted as these expenses are indispensable. Hence, an amount of Rs.15,000/- is granted under these heads.

Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.5,36,000/-.

22.The petitioners claimed interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. As per Section 171 of the M.V. Act, the petitioners are entitled to interest from the date of the petition. It is settled law that the rate of interest to be awarded must be on par with the rate of interest prevailing in the nationalized banks as per the guidelines of R.B.I., at the relevant period of the accident. Since the accident occurred in 2006, when the rates of interest were very low for about one decade, but comparatively slightly increased for past few years, 7% per annum is the appropriate rate of interest in this case.

10O.P. No. 961 of 2006

In the result, the petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs 23.

directing the respondents to pay the petitioners a sum of Rs.5,36,000/­ with subsequent interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization with joint and several liability. The amount shall be deposited within 30 days from the date of this order. The 1st petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,36,000/­ and costs. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are entitled to 

Rs.1,25,000/­ each and 4th petitioner is entitled to Rs.50,000/­. The 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw Rs.86,000/­ costs and interest accrued on the total share. 

The balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/­ shall be separately deposited in ICICI Bank, 

Hanamkonda for a period of 3 years. Since both the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are minors, their entire principal amount shall be separately kept in F.D.Rs. in any nationalized banks till they attained majority. The interest so far accrued on their shares is permitted to be withdrawn by the 1st petitioner. The 4th petitioner being the mother of the deceased is permitted to withdraw her entire share of compensation with accrued interest thereon at one time.

The petition against 5th petitioner is dismissed, as reported died. 

Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/­. 

­­Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after his transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 29th day of February, 2012. 

Sd/­(K.A.P.Swamy)

CHAIRMAN

M.V.ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(I­ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE) WARANGAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS:

11O.P. No. 961 of 2006

PW.1. Mamidala Kavitha. PW.2. Dommati Rajaiah.

FOR RESPONDENTS: ­

RW.1. G. Krupakar Rao. RW.2. Y. Ramakanth.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS:

Ex.A.1. Certified Copy of First Information Report, dt. 13.05.2006. Ex.A.2. Certified copy of Inquest Report, dt. 13.05.2006. Ex.A.3. Certified copy of Post Mortem Examination Report, dt.13.05.2006. Ex.A.4. Certified Copy of Charge sheet, dt. 20.05.2006 Ex.A.5. Certified copy of Motor Vehicles Inspector Report, dt. 15.05.2006. Ex.A.6. Certified Copy of Crime Details Form, dt.13.05.2006.

FOR RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B.1. Copy of Policy. Ex.B.2. Hire Agreement.

Sd/­(K.A.P.Swamy)

CHAIRMAN

M.V.ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

(I­ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE) WARANGAL. 

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF NDPS CASES

( I-ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE) : : WARANGAL

Tuesday, the 28th day of February, 2012.

Present: Sri K.A.P. Swamy, I-Addl. Sessions Judge, Warangal.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 23 OF 2006

(C.O.R. No. 643/2005-06 of Proh. & Excise Station, Mahabubabad)

1. Name and description of the : The State of A.P. rep. by the complainant Proh. and Excise Inspector, Mahabubabad.

2. Name and description of the : Banoth Sangiya, S/o. Pedda Lingiya, Accused. Aged: 46 years, Caste: Lambada, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Pedda Lingya Thanda, H/O. Vemnoor, Mahabubabad Mandal.

3. Offence charged : Sec.8 (b) r/w. 20 N.D.P.S. Act

4. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty

5. Finding of the Court : Found not guilty.

6. Conviction, sentence or : The accused is found not Acquittal guilty for the offence punishable u/S. 8(b) r/w 20 of N.D.P.S. Act and he is acquitted of the same u/S.235(1), Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, shall stand cancelled.

The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

7. Name of the counsel for : Sri J. Prasangi, the prosecution Addl. P.P.

8. Name of the counsel for : Sri N. Narender, accused Advocate.

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and of Sri N. Narender, Advocate

for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court

delivered the following:

: : J U D G M E N T : :

The Proh. and Excise Inspector, Station Mahabubabad, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/S. 8 (b) r/w 20 of N.D.P.S. Act.

2S.C. No. 23 of 2006

2.The prosecution case, as in the charge sheet, is that on 21.11.2005, on reliable information that there is rampant cultivation of ganja by the accused, (LW3)

N. Srinivasa Rao, P&E S.I., and (PW2) K. Varaprasad, P&E Inspector,

Mahabubabad along with the Staff proceeded to Pedda Lingya thanda, H/o.

Vemnoor Village by securing the presence of mediators (PW1) Swargam

Venkatram Narsaiah, Village Secretary and (LW2) Kalvala Seshagiri Rao, Addl.

Revenue Inspector of Mahabubabad. They reached near to the land of the accused and found cotton crop in the field and found nobody. Then, the officers and staff searched the cotton crop before the above mediators and found some different kind of plants mixed with cotton crop. Then, the officers picked up some leaves and squeezed them and identified them as ganja on whiff and smell, which were grown upto five to six feet in height. With the help of staff and labourer, the entire ganja plants were plucked out. Counted the found to be 450 ganja plants and destroyed them by pouring kerosene oil, after drawing two samples, each sample about 100grams for chemical analysis, under a cover of panchanama, scribed by LW3, duly signed by the mediators. On further enquiry, PW1, Village Secretary, after verifying the record available with him, identified that the land to an extent of

Ac.2.00 guntas bearing Survey No. 55 belongs to the accused. The officers and staff made efforts to apprehend the accused, but he was found absconding from the village. On return to the Proh. and Exicse Station, Mahabubabad, PW2 registered a case in C.O.R.No.643/2005-06 u/S.8(b) r/w 20 of N.D.P.S. Act and submitted the original C.O.R. to the Court and its copies to the concerned. Subsequently on 02.12.2005, the accused was arrested by the Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, Station

Mahabubabad and produced him before the concerned Court for remand to judicial custody. During the course of investigation, a certificate of pahani was obtained from the Village Secretary of Vemnoor Village, which shows about the possession and cultivation of the land by the accused. During the course of investigation, out of two samples, one sample was forwarded to the Government Chemical Examiner of

Proh. and Excise, Warangal for chemical analysis, through a letter of advice. After 3S.C. No. 23 of 2006 examining the sample, (LW5) issued his report vide C.E.No. 1015/2005, Sl.No.

18363, dated: 28.12.2005 stating the sample was ‘ganja’. Thus, after completion of the investigation, PW2, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/S.8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act.

3.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished u/S. 207,

Cr.P.C. and after hearing, a charge u/S. 8(b) r/w 20 of N.D.P.S. Act was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

PWs. 1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. No documents were marked on behalf of the accused.

5.On completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/S.

313, Cr.P.C. with material circumstances appearing against him. He denied the same. The accused has not proposed to lead any evidence on his behalf and hence, the arguments were heard.

6. Point for determination is:-

Whether the guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt?”

7.POINT:­ As per the case of the prosecution as reflected in the charge sheet, the raiding party proceeded to the scene of offence on prior information. 

Therefore, it is essential for the authorized officer referred u/S. 42 of the N.D.P.S. 

Act to record such information and sent its copy to the superior officer within next 72 hours. But, except the oral testimony of PW.2, there is no documentary proof. 

4S.C. No. 23 of 2006

 8.In the light of the non­compliance of provision u/S. 42 of the Act is impermissible and the benefit should go in favour of the accused and entitled the accused for acquittal. More particularly when the accused as in this case denied his total case of the prosecution. 

9.Since the provisions of NDPS Act are harsh in nature with regard to gravity of the offence and severity of the punishment, strict compliance of mechanism of safeguards incorporated in the Act is much more required.

10.The Supreme Court observed in the case of State of Punjab v. Baldev 

Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 that the procedural safeguards are meant for dual purpose of safeguarding the interest of the accused against false accusation and to ensure veracity of the evidence collected by following the safeguards laid down in the Legislation. Section 51 of the NDPS Act provides that the provisions of 

Cr.P.C. shall comply in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of 

NDPS Act with regard to all warrants issued and arrests, searches and seizures made under that Act. Therefore, the requirement u/S.100(4), Cr.P.C. to make search in the presence of two respectable independent inhabitants of the locality of the scene of offence are necessary and their deviation meant per­say vitiate the trial, but in each case, the prejudice occurred thereby must be taken into consideration and the same shall also be borne in mind while evaluating the evidence. 

5S.C. No. 23 of 2006

11.The prosecution examined one panch witness, out of the two panch witnesses present at the time of the alleged search and seizure, who partly supported the case of the prosecution and partly supported the defence of the accused. Therefore, his evidence is not reliable to base conviction on the accused. 

The prosecution also failed to examine (LW3) N. Srinivasa Rao, P&ESI, Station 

Mahabubabad in spite of giving ample opportunity. His non examination is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 

12.But the other evidence on record also does not corroborate the evidence of 

PW2, apart from the circumstances already noted above. A copy of pahani Ex.P2 was filed to show that the accused was cultivator of the land in Sy.No. 55. But it does not bear the date on which it was issued. That apart, the relevant column in pahani intended to note the nature of the crop raised in that land is left blank. 

Therefore, it does not lend support to the prosecution to prove the nature of the crop raised in that particular period of the alleged search. Absence of the date in the said pahani on which date it was issued shows non­application of mind and diminishes credibility of the evidence sought to be established by this document. 

The accused has taken a specific defence that he had not cultivated such land. In the light of the defence, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove with credible evidence that he cultivated ganja crop during that relevant period. The best evidence to lend support to the oral evidence of eye­witnesses could be the relevant entries in the revenue record. But, in the absence of such material evidence, there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW2 from independent credible source of evidence. Further in this case, PW2, registered the case, 6S.C. No. 23 of 2006 forwarded the sample to the Chemical Examiner through Assistant Excise 

Superintendent, with a letter of advice and received the analysis report confirming that the sample sent was ganja, arrested the accused and produced before the 

JFCM for remand to judicial custody and filed charge sheet against the accused, which is not proper as per procedure. He admitted in his cross examination that he has not collected nor filed any document to show that land wherein they found ganja plants belongs to the accused and that the description of the ganja plants like its size and nature was not mentioned in panchanama. There is also difference that as per the panchanama, the weight of the sample is mentioned as 100gms and as per the analysis report, they received 30gms. Thus, his evidence also not believable to prove the case of the prosecution. Further Ex.P2 copy of pahani was issued by the Village Secretary of Vemnoor Village. But neither it was issued nor attested by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Therefore, it does not lend support to the case of the prosecution.

13.Further, the prosecution failed to examine the neighbouring land owners of the accused. Non­examination of the neighbouring land owners is fatal to the case of the prosecution. There is an abnormal delay in sending the sample to the 

Chemical Examiner. The offence detected on 21.11.2005, whereas the Chemical 

Examiner, issued his opinion on 28.12.2005. Thus, there is a delay of more than 37 days in examining the sample. 

14.In the above circumstances, the evidence placed by the prosecution does 7S.C. No. 23 of 2006 not establish guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But on the other hand, it provides ample scope for the accused to get benefit of doubt. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish guilt against the accused. 

 15.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/S. 

8(b) r/w 20 of N.D.P.S. Act and he is acquitted of the same u/S.235(1), Cr.P.C. 

The bail bonds of the accused, shall stand cancelled. 

The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

 (Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after his transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of February, 2012)

Sd/- (K.A.P. Swamy)

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGEFOR NDPS CASES,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE :

PW.1. Swargam Venkatram Narsaiah. -NONE- PW.2. K. Varaprasad.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P.1. Panchanama. - Nil – Ex.P.2. Pahani. Ex.P.3. Crime and Occurrence Report.

Ex.P.4. Letter of Advice. Ex.P.5. Analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil - .

Sd/- (K.A.P. Swamy)

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES,

WARANGAL.

8S.C. No. 23 of 2006

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF NDPS CASES

( I-ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE) : : WARANGAL

Tuesday, the 28th day of February, 2012.

Present: Sri K.A.P. Swamy, I-Addl. Sessions Judge, Warangal.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 24 OF 2006

(C.O.R. No. 706/2005-06 of Proh. & Excise Station, Mahabubabad)

1. Name and description of the : The State of A.P. rep. by the complainant Proh. and Excise Inspector, Mahabubabad.

2. Name and description of the : Guguloth Seeri, S/o. Bhadru, Accused. Aged: 52 years, Caste: Lambada, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Pedda Thanda, H/O. Gundrathimadugu, Mahabubabad Mandal.

3. Offence charged : Sec.8 (b) r/w. 20 N.D.P.S. Act

4. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty

5. Finding of the Court : Found not guilty.

6. Conviction, sentence or : The accused is found not Acquittal guilty for the offence punishable u/S. 8(b) r/w 20 of N.D.P.S. Act and he is acquitted of the same u/S.235(1), Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, shall stand cancelled.

The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

7. Name of the counsel for : Sri J. Prasangi, the prosecution Addl. P.P.

8. Name of the counsel for : Sri N. Narender, accused Advocate.

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and of Sri N. Narender, Advocate

for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court

delivered the following:

: : J U D G M E N T : :

The Proh. and Excise Inspector, Station Mahabubabad, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/S. 8 (b) r/w 20 of N.D.P.S. Act.

2S.C. No. 24 of 2006

2.The prosecution case, as in the charge sheet, is that on 15.12.2005, on reliable information that there is rampant cultivation of ganja by the accused, (LW3)

N. Srinivasa Rao, P&E S.I., (PW1) K. Varaprasad, P&E Inspector and (LW5) P.

Krishna Reddy, P&ESI, Mahabubabad along with the Staff proceeded to Pedda

Lingya thanda, H/o. Gundramatimadugu Village by securing the presence of mediators (PW2), Macha Srinadh, Village Secretary and (PW3) Koluvula Biksham,

Sunkari of the village. They reached near to the land of the accused and found cotton crop in the field and found nobody. Then, the officers and staff searched the cotton crop before the above mediators and found 203 ganja plants, grown upto three to four feet in height, mixed with cotton crop. Then, the officers picked up some leaves and squeezed them and identified them as ganja on whiff and smell.

With the help of staff and labourer, the entire ganja plants were plucked out and destroyed them by pouring kerosene oil, after drawing two samples, each sample about 100grams for chemical analysis, under a cover of panchanama, scribed by

LW3, duly signed by the mediators. On further enquiry, PW2 Village Secretary, after verifying the record available with him, identified that the land bearing Survey

No. 204/233/A belongs to the accused. The officers and staff made efforts to apprehend the accused, but he was found absconding from the village. On return to the Proh. and Exicse Station, Mahabubabad, PW2 registered a case in

C.O.R.No.706/2005-06 u/S.8(b) r/w 20 of N.D.P.S. Act and issued original COR to the concerned Court and copies to the concerned Higher Officers. Subsequently, on 20.12.2005 the Proh. & Excise Sub-Inspector, Station Mahabubabad arrested the accused and produced him before the J.F.C.M. Mahabubabad Court for remand to judicial custody. During the course of investigation, a certificate of pahani was obtained from the Village Secretary of Gundratimadugu Village, which shows about the possession and cultivation of the land by the accused. During the course of investigation, out of two samples, one sample was forwarded to the Government

Chemical Examiner of Proh. and Excise, Warangal, for chemical analysis, through a letter of advice. After examining the sample, (LW6) issued his report vide C.E.No.

3S.C. No. 24 of 2006 1015/2005, Sl.No. 18185, dated: 23.12.2005, stating the sample was ‘ganja’. Thus, after completion of the investigation, PW1, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/S.8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act.

3.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished u/S. 207,

Cr.P.C. and after hearing, a charge u/S. 8(b) r/w 20 of N.D.P.S. Act was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.

1 to 3 and marked Exs.P1 to P6. No documents were marked on behalf of the accused.

5.On completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/S.

313, Cr.P.C. with material circumstances appearing against him. He denied the same. The accused has not proposed to lead any evidence on his behalf and hence the arguments were heard.

6. Point for determination is:-

Whether the guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt?”

7.POINT:­ As per the case of the prosecution as reflected in the charge sheet and the evidence of PW1, the raiding party proceeded to the scene of offence on prior information. Therefore, it is essential for the authorized officer referred u/S. 

42 of the N.D.P.S. Act to record such information and sent its copy to the superior officer within next 72 hours. But, except the oral testimony of PW.1, there is no documentary proof. 

4S.C. No. 24 of 2006

 8.In the light of the non­compliance of provision u/S. 42 of the Act is impermissible and the benefit should go in favour of the accused and entitled the accused for acquittal. More particularly when the accused as in this case denied his total case of the prosecution. 

9.Since the provisions of NDPS Act are harsh in nature with regard to gravity of the offence and severity of the punishment, strict compliance of mechanism of safeguards incorporated in the Act is much more required.

10.The Supreme Court observed in the case of State of Punjab v. Baldev 

Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 that the procedural safeguards are meant for dual purpose of safeguarding the interest of the accused against false accusation and to ensure veracity of the evidence collected by following the safeguards laid down in the Legislation. Section 51 of the NDPS Act provides that the provisions of 

Cr.P.C. shall comply in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of 

NDPS Act with regard to all warrants issued and arrests, searches and seizures made under that Act. Therefore, the requirement u/S.100(4), Cr.P.C. to make search in the presence of two respectable independent inhabitants of the locality of the scene of offence are necessary and their deviation meant per­say vitiate the trial, but in each case, the prejudice occurred thereby must be taken into consideration and the same shall also be borne in mind while evaluating the evidence. 

5S.C. No. 24 of 2006

11.The prosecution examined two panch witnesses, who were present at the time of the alleged search and seizure. They did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. Therefore, their evidence is not reliable to base conviction on the accused. 

12.But the other evidence on record also does not corroborate the evidence of 

PW1, apart from the circumstances already noted above. A copy of pahani Ex.P5 was filed to show that the accused was cultivator of the land in Sy.No. 204/233/A. 

But it does not bear the date on which it was issued. That apart, the relevant column in pahani intended to note the nature of the crop raised in that land is left blank. Therefore, it does not lend support to the prosecution to prove the nature of the crop raised in that particular period of the alleged search. Absence of the date in the said pahani on which date it was issued shows non­application of mind and diminishes credibility of the evidence sought to be established by this document. 

The accused has taken a specific defence that he had not cultivated such land. In the light of the defence, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove with credible evidence that he cultivated ganja crop during that relevant period. The best evidence to lend support to the oral evidence of eye­witnesses could be the relevant entries in the revenue record. But, in the absence of such material evidence, there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW1 from independent credible source of evidence. Further in this case, PW1, registered the case, forwarded the sample to the Chemical Examiner through Assistant Excise 

Superintendent, with a letter of advice and received the analysis report confirming that the sample sent was ganja, arrested the accused and produced before the 6S.C. No. 24 of 2006

JFCM for remand to judicial custody and filed charge sheet against the accused, which is not proper as per procedure. He admitted in his cross examination that he has not collected nor filed any document to show that land wherein they found ganja plants belongs to the accused and that the description of the ganja plants like its size and nature was not mentioned in panchanama. There is also difference that as per the panchanama, the weight of the sample is mentioned as 100gms and as per the analysis report, they received 50gms. Thus, his evidence also not believable to prove the case of the prosecution. Further Ex.P5 copy of pahani was issued by the Village Secretary of Gundrathimadugu Village. But neither it was issued nor attested by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Therefore, it does not lend support to the case of the prosecution. 

13.Further, the prosecution failed to examine the neighbouring land owners of the accused. Non­examination of the neighbouring land owners is fatal to the case of the prosecution. There is an abnormal delay in sending the sample to the 

Chemical Examiner. The offence detected on 15.12.2005, whereas the Chemical 

Examiner, issued his opinion on 23.12.2005. Thus, there is a delay of more than 8 days in examining the sample after detecting the case. 

14.In the above circumstances, the evidence placed by the prosecution does not establish guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But on the other hand, it provides ample scope for the accused to get benefit of doubt. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish guilt against the accused. 

7S.C. No. 24 of 2006

 15.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/S. 

8(b) r/w 20 of N.D.P.S. Act and he is acquitted of the same u/S.235(1), Cr.P.C. 

The bail bonds of the accused, shall stand cancelled. 

The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

 (Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after his transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of February, 2012)

Sd/- (K.A.P. Swamy)

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGEFOR NDPS CASES,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE :

PW.1. K. Varaprasad. -NONE- PW.2. Macha Srinadh. PW.3. Koluvula Biksham.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P.1. Panchanama. - Nil – Ex.P.2. Crime and Occurrence Report.

Ex.P.3. Copy of Letter of Advice. Ex.P.4. Analysis Report. Ex.P.5. Pahani. Ex.P.6. Signature of PW2 on panchanama.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil - .

Sd/- (K.A.P. Swamy)

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES,

WARANGAL.

8S.C. No. 24 of 2006

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF NDPS CASES

( I-ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE) : : WARANGAL

Tuesday, the 28th day of February, 2012.

Present: Sri K.A.P. Swamy, I-Addl. Sessions Judge, Warangal.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 22 OF 2006

(C.O.R. No. 637/2005-06 of Proh. & Excise Station, Mahabubabad)

1. Name and description of the : The State of A.P. rep. by the complainant Proh. and Excise Inspector, Mahabubabad.

2. Name and description of the : Banoth Pedda Malu, S/o. Chandiya, Accused. Aged: 66 years, Caste: Lambada, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Chinna Lingya Thanda, H/o. Vemnoor, Mahabubabad Mandal.

3. Offence charged : Sec.8 (b) r/w. 20 N.D.P.S. Act

4. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty

5. Finding of the Court : Found not guilty.

6. Conviction, sentence or : The accused is found not Acquittal guilty for the offence punishable u/S. 8(b) r/w 20 of N.D.P.S. Act and he is acquitted of the same u/S.235(1), Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused, shall stand cancelled.

The unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

7. Name of the counsel for : Sri J. Prasangi, the prosecution Addl. P.P.

8. Name of the counsel for : Sri N. Narender, accusedAdvocate.

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and of Sri N. Narender, Advocate

for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court

delivered the following:

: : J U D G M E N T : :

The Proh. and Excise Inspector, Station Mahabubabad, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/S. 8 (b) r/w 20 of N.D.P.S. Act.

2S.C. No. 22 of 2006

2.The prosecution case, as in the charge sheet, is that on 21.11.2005, on reliable information that there is rampant cultivation of ganja by the accused, (LW3)

N. Srinivasa Rao, P&E S.I., and (PW2) K. Varaprasad, P&E Inspector,

Mahabubabad along with the Staff proceeded to Chinna Lingya thanda, H/o.

Vemnoor Village by securing the presence of mediators (PW1) Swargam

Venkatram Narsaiah, Village Secretary and (LW2) Kalvala Seshagiri Rao, Asst.

Revenue Inspector of Mahabubabad. They reached near to the land of the accused and found chilly crop in the field and found a person in the field. On enquiry, he revealed his identity and further revealed that the chilly crop belongs to him. Then the officers and staff searched the chilly crop before the above mediators and found 200 ganja plants, grown upto five to six feet in height, mixed with chilly crop. Then, the officers picked up some leaves and squeezed them and identified them as ganja on whiff and smell. With the help of staff and labourer, the entire ganja plants were plucked out and destroyed them by pouring kerosene oil, after drawing two samples, each sample about 100grams for chemical analysis, under a cover of panchanama, scribed by LW3, duly signed by the mediators and apprehended the accused. On further enquiry PW1, Village Secretary, after verifying the record available with him, identified that the land bearing Survey No. 47/A belongs to the accused. On return to the Proh. and Exicse Station, Mahabubabad, PW2 registered a case in

C.O.R.No.637/2005-06 u/S.8(b) r/w 20 of N.D.P.S. Act and produced him before the concerned Court for remand to judicial custody. During the course of investigation, a certificate of pahani was obtained from the Village Secretary of

Vemnoor Village, which shows about the possession and cultivation of the land by.

the accused. During the course of investigation, out of two samples, one sample was forwarded to the Government Chemical Examiner of Proh. and Excise, Warangal, for chemical analysis, through a letter of advice. After examining the sample, (LW5) issued his report vide C.E.No. 1015/2005, Sl.No. 18357, dated: 28.12.2005, stating the sample was ‘ganja’. Thus, after completion of the investigation, PW2, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/S.8(b) r/w 20 of NDPS Act.

3S.C. No. 22 of 2006

3.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished u/S. 207,

Cr.P.C. and after hearing, a charge u/S. 8(b) r/w 20 of N.D.P.S. Act was framed against the accused, read over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.

1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. No documents were marked on behalf of the accused.

5.On completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/S.

313, Cr.P.C. with material circumstances appearing against him. He denied the same. The accused has not proposed to lead any evidence on his behalf and hence, the arguments were heard.

6. Point for determination is:-

Whether the guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt?”

7.POINT:­ As per the case of the prosecution as reflected in the charge sheet, the raiding party proceeded to the scene of offence on prior information. 

Therefore, it is essential for the authorized officer referred u/S. 42 of the N.D.P.S. 

Act to record such information and sent its copy to the superior officer within next 72 hours. But, except the oral testimony of PW. 2, there is no documentary proof. 

 8.In the light of the non­compliance of provision u/S. 42 of the Act is impermissible and the benefit should go in favour of the accused and entitled the accused for acquittal. More particularly when the accused as in this case denied 4S.C. No. 22 of 2006 his total case of the prosecution. 

9.Since the provisions of NDPS Act are harsh in nature with regard to gravity of the offence and severity of the punishment, strict compliance of mechanism of safeguards incorporated in the Act is much more required.

10.The Supreme Court observed in the case of State of Punjab v. Baldev 

Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 that the procedural safeguards are meant for dual purpose of safeguarding the interest of the accused against false accusation and to ensure veracity of the evidence collected by following the safeguards laid down in the Legislation. Section 51 of the NDPS Act provides that the provisions of 

Cr.P.C. shall comply in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of 

NDPS Act with regard to all warrants issued and arrests, searches and seizures made under that Act. Therefore, the requirement u/S.100(4), Cr.P.C. to make search in the presence of two respectable independent inhabitants of the locality of the scene of offence are necessary and their deviation meant per­say vitiate the trial, but in each case, the prejudice occurred thereby must be taken into consideration and the same shall also be borne in mind while evaluating the evidence. 

11.The prosecution examined one panch witness, out of the two panch witnesses present at the time of the alleged search and seizure, who partly supported the case of the prosecution and partly supported the defence of the 5S.C. No. 22 of 2006 accused. Therefore, his evidence is not reliable to base conviction on the accused. 

12.But the other evidence on record also does not corroborate the evidence of 

PW2, apart from the circumstances already noted above. A copy of pahani Ex.P2 was filed to show that the accused was cultivator of the land in Sy.No. 47/A. But it does not bear the date on which it was issued. That apart, the relevant column in pahani intended to note the nature of the crop raised in that land is left blank. 

Therefore, it does not lend support to the prosecution to prove the nature of the crop raised in that particular period of the alleged search. Absence of the date in the said pahani on which date it was issued shows non­application of mind and diminishes credibility of the evidence sought to be established by this document. 

The accused has taken a specific defence that he had not cultivated such land. In the light of the defence, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove with credible evidence that he cultivated ganja crop during that relevant period. The best evidence to lend support to the oral evidence of eye­witnesses could be the relevant entries in the revenue record. But, in the absence of such material evidence, there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW2 from independent credible source of evidence. Further in this case, PW2, registered the case, forwarded the sample to the Chemical Examiner through Assistant Excise 

Superintendent, with a letter of advice and received the analysis report confirming that the sample sent was ganja, arrested the accused and produced before the 

JFCM for remand to judicial custody and filed charge sheet against the accused, 6S.C. No. 22 of 2006 which is not proper as per procedure. He admitted in his cross examination that he has not collected nor filed any document to show that land wherein they found ganja plants belongs to the accused and that the description of the ganja plants like its size and nature was not mentioned in panchanama. There is also difference that as per the panchanama, the weight of the sample is mentioned as 100gms and as per the analysis report, they received 32gms. Thus, his evidence also not believable to prove the case of the prosecution.

13.Further, the prosecution failed to examine the neighbouring land owners of the accused. Non­examination of the neighbouring land owners is fatal to the case of the prosecution. There is an abnormal delay in sending the sample to the 

Chemical Examiner. The offence detected on 21.11.2005, whereas the Chemical 

Examiner, issued his opinion on 28.12.2005. Thus, there is a delay of more than 37 days in examining the sample. 

14.In the above circumstances, the evidence placed by the prosecution does not establish guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. But on the other hand, it provides ample scope for the accused to get benefit of doubt. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish guilt against the accused. 

 15.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/S. 

8(b) r/w 20 of N.D.P.S. Act and he is acquitted of the same u/S.235(1), Cr.P.C. 

7S.C. No. 22 of 2006

The bail bonds of the accused, shall stand cancelled. 

The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

 (Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after his transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of February, 2012)

Sd/-(K.A.P.Swamy)

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGEFOR NDPS CASES,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE :

PW.1. S. Venkatram Narsaiah. -NONE- PW.2. K. Varaprasad.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE

Ex.P.1. Panchanama.- Nil – Ex.P.2. Pahani. Ex.P.3. Crime and Occurrence Report.

Ex.P.4. Letter of Advice. Ex.P.5. Analysis Report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil - .

Sd/-(K.A.P.Swamy)

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR NDPS CASES,

WARANGAL