1 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE:
AT: SANGAREDDY
(Friday, on this the 10 th day of April, 2026)
Present: Smt. K. Jayanthi, I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.
NDPS SC No. 34 of 2022
(COR No. 105 of 2021 of Prohibition and Excise Station Sangareddy)
Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through the Prohibition and Excise Inspector of Prohibition and Excise Station Sangareddy.
Description of the accused1. Tellapuram Sainath Reddy, S/o T. Jairam Reddy, Aged:21 years, Occ: Student, R/o H.No.4-62, Cheriyal village, Kandi Mandal.
2.Eaga Rajashekar Reddy, S/o late E. Krishna Reddy, Aged: 26 years, Occ: Private employee, R/o H.No.8-55, Bhanur village, Patancheru Mandal.
ChargeUnder Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Crime No. and Name of PSCOR No. 105 of 2021 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Sangareddy.
Plea of accusedAccused pleaded Not guilty
Finding of the JudgeAccused Nos. 1 and 2 are found Not guilty
Sentence or orderIN THE RESULT, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Bail bonds of Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall remain in force for a period of six (06) months in view of provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
2 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
MO.1/Sample-I;MO.2/Sample-II;MO.3/Sample- III; MO.4/remaining 73 Hashish oil boxes (each box weighing 05 grams) shall be forwarded to the DrugsDisposalCommitteefor destruction/disposal as per Section 52-A of NDPS Act after expiry of appeal time. MO.5/motorcycle bearing No.TS 15 EV 5247 and MO.6/Honda Dio Scooty bearing No.TS 15 EZ 1610 already returned to it’s respective owners on interim custody is hereby made absolute, after lapse of appeal time.
Prosecution conducted bySri . T. Rajeshwar ,
Additional Public Prosecutor
Accused defended by Sri. A.M.Janardhan Goud, Defence counsel for accused Nos. 1 and 2.
This case came up before me for final hearing on dt. 31.03.2026 in the
presence of Sri. T. Rajeshwar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State; Sri.
A.M.Janardhan Goud, Rahul, le arned Advocate for the accused Nos. 1 and 2,
having perused the material on record; having heard arguments on either side
and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the
following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.The Prohibition and Excise Inspector of Prohibition and Excise Station
Sangareddy filed charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.O.R.No.105 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”).
3 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
2. The brief facts of the Prosecution case are as follows:-
(i)On dt.05.12.2021, PW.5 received reliable information about illegal possession and transportation of Hashish Oil by one person from Hyderabad, on that he intimated the same to his higher officials, obtained permission to conduct route watch. At about 4.00 p.m, PW.5 secured the presence of PWs.1 and 2 at
Grampanchayath office of Cheriyal village and proceeded along with staff to road on
NH-65, Cheryal village gate of Kandi Mandal and started conducting vehicle checking, after 30 minutes, PW.5 noticed that one person was coming on his bike towards the excise officials, the staff stopped him, on enquiry he revealed his name as Tellapuram Sainath Reddy, S/o T. Jairam Reddy, age 21 years, Occ:Student, r/o
H.No.4-62, Cheriyal village, Kandi Mandal. Then PW.5 recorded Search Memo and issued to him. On search found ten (10) small boxes under the seat of the vehicle, upon opening one of the boxes, PW.5 experienced pungent smell like ganja. Then on enquiry, he confessed that he had brought 500 grams of Hashish Oil from Vizag,
Araku and was selling it by making small boxes to the students and consumers.
Then PW.5 informed that illegal possession, sale and transportation of ganja/Hashish oil is an offence under the NDPS Act, 1985 and also informed about his right to get personal search before nearest Magistrate or a Gazetted officer of his choice. PW.5 recorded Personal search option notice to the Accused No.1 and he opted to get search before PW.5. During personal search, no other incriminating material was found from the possession of Accused No.1. Then PW.5 weighed small boxes and
4 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
found each box is weighing 05 grams, totally 50 grams. Further, on questioning about remaining suspected Hashish oil, Accused No.1 stated that remaining material is in his room, where he was living in a rented house at Rudraram village of
Patancheru Mandal. Then the officers seized vehicle KTM RC 200 BS-VI black and orange colour bike and ten (10) small boxes of suspected Hashish oil and drawn two samples with set of two boxes, each sample is about 10 grams and sealed the articles in a plastic cover as per procedure, marked as ‘I’ under cover of panchanama and took the custody of Accused No.1.
(ii)In pursuance of confessional statement, Accused No.1 lead PW.5 along with staff to his rented house, and on the way at Grampanchayath office of Rudraram,
PW.5 secured the presence of LW.3/Ch.Srinivas and LW.4/Neerudi Deenamma as mediators. At about 04.50 p.m., they had reached the house of Accused No.1 and it was Ground +2 building and went to the pent house of the building and noticed that the door was locked. PW.5 recorded Search Memo and issued to Accused No.1, entered into the house, during search found one black colour plastic cover containing few small boxes, upon opening one of the boxes, PW.5 experienced pungent smell like ganja. Later on counting total 55 boxes found and on weighing the small boxes and found each box is about 05 grams, totally 275 grams. Further, on questioning about remaining suspected Hashish Oil, Accused No.1 stated that he had sold the boxes to his friend, by name, Rajashekhar Reddy, S/o late Krishan Reddy, R/o
Bhanur village, Patancheru Mandal at a cost of Rs.2000/- per box. Then the officers
5 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
seized all the boxes and drawn two sample packets with set of two boxes, each sample is about ten (10) grams and sealed the articles in a plastic cover as per procedure, marked as ‘II’ under cover of Panchanama.
(iii)It is further case of Prosecution that in pursuance of confessional statement,
Accused No.1 lead PW.5 along with staff to the house of Rajashekar Reddy, and on the way at Grampanchayath office of Bhanur, PW.5 secured the presence of PWs.3 and 4 as mediators. At about 06.20 p.m., the excise officials reached the house and noticed that the doors of the house were closed and upon knocking the door, one person came out of the room. Then PW.5 introduced himself and enquired about his particulars. He revealed his name as Rajashekar Reddy, S/o late Krishan Reddy, age 26 years, Occ:Private employee, r/o H.No.8-55, Bhanur village, Patancheru Mandal, who is Accused No.2 herein. Then PW.5 issued Search Memo to him, entered into the house, during search nothing was found inside the house. Then PW.5 explained that he has got a right to get personal search before nearest Magistrate or a Gazetted officer of his choice. Then PW.5 recorded personal search option to the accused, on personal search before PW.5, no incriminating substance was found. Later, PW.5 enquired about one black colour Scooty, which was parked in front of the house, he stated that it belongs to him. During search in Scooty dickey, PW.5 found one black colour plastic cover containing few small boxes, upon opening one of the boxes,
PW.5 experienced a pungent smell like Ganja. On enquiry, A.2 confessed that these boxes are Hashish oil boxes and had bought these boxes from Accused No.1 at a cost
6 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
of Rs.2000/- per box. Then PW.5 informed him that illegal possession, sale and transportation of Hashish oil is an offence under the NDPS Act and later on counting total 20 boxes found and on weighing small boxes found each box is about 05 grams, totally 100 grams. Then the officers seized vehicle, viz., Black colour Honda Dio
Scooty bearing No.TS 15 EZ 1610 and twenty (20) small boxes of suspected Hashish oil and drawn two sample packets with set of two boxes, each sample is about 10 grams and sealed the articles in a plastic cover as per procedure, marked as ‘III’ under cover of panchanama and took the custody of Accused No.2.
(iv)It is further case of the Prosecution that basing on Panchanamas, PW.5 registered a case against Accused Nos.1 and 2 in COR.No.105 of 2021, dt.05.12.2021 under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985. During the course of investigation, A1 and A2 were produced before the concerned JFCM to remand them for judicial custody. During the course of investigation, PW.7 deposited seized case property, three sets of sample packets along with letter of advice, with a request to send each one set of samples to the Government Chemical Examiner, Nizamabad for chemical analysis. The Government Chemical Examiner, who analyzed the sample vide his report CE.No.35/2022, dt.28.01.2022 opined that the samples in Sl.Nos.163, 164 and 165 contain ganja. After completion of investigation, PW.5 filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the
NDPS Act, 1985.
7 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
3. This case was taken cognizance of the offence under Section 8(c) read with
Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 against Accused Nos.1 and 2.
4.On appearance of Accused persons, case copies and documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
5.After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the
Prosecution and the learned counsel for Accused and upon considering the material on record, a charge under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 has been framed against Accused, read over and explained to them, for which they denied the allegations, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.During the course of trial, in order to substantiate it’s case against the accused, on behalf of the Prosecution, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to
P.34 among MO.1 to MO.6. PW.1/Sri.S.Ramchandraiah; PW.2/Sri.Mohammad;
PW.3/Sri.M.Chennaiah and PW.4/Sri.P.Srikanth are the Panch Witnesses. PW.5/Sri.
J.Madhu Babu is the detecting-cum-investigating officer.
7.After closure of Prosecution evidence, Accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, for which they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.
8 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
8.This Court heard arguments on either side and perused the entire record.
Now, the point for determination is:
Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the Accused for the offence under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 beyond all reasonable doubt?
POINT:
9.As seen from the record, it is the brief case of the Prosecution that basing on reliable information about illegal possession and sale of Hashish oil, on dt.05.12.2021, at 04.00 p.m., PW.5 and staff conducted route watch on the road NH- 65, near Cheryal gate, Cheriyal village, Kandi Mandal, Sangareddy and apprehended
Accused No.1 who was proceeding on bike bearing No.TS 15 EV 5247 and on search in seat dickey of vehicle found ten (10) small boxes of Hashish oil, each box weighing 05 grams, totally 50 grams and on enquiry, Accused No.1 confessed that he purchased 500 grams of Hashish oil from Araku, Vizag and brought the same here for the purpose of sale to students and consumers to gain money illegally. Then
PW.5 conducted Panchanama-I, collected four boxes as two samples each sample consisting of two boxes, out of ten boxes, seized samples, remaining Hashish oil boxes and motor bike No.TS 15 EV 5247 under cover of panchanama. In pursuance of his confessional statement, Accused No.1 lead PW.5 and staff to his house at
H.No.5-99/1, pent house at Rudraram village, Patancheru at 4.50 p.m., on search in house one black colour plastic cover containing 55 boxes of Hashish oil each box
9 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
weighing 05 grams, totally 275 grams, seized the same along with two samples (i.e., four boxes prepared as two samples, each sample consisting of two boxes) under cover of panchanama and Accused No.1 further confessed that he sold the remaining
Hashish oil boxes out of 500 grams to his friend Rajashekar Reddy/Accused No.2,
S/o Krishan Reddy, R/o Bhanur village, Patancheru at the rate of Rs.2000/- per box.
In pursuance of the said confessional statement, Accused No.1 lead PW.5 and staff to
H.No.8-55, Bhanur village, Patancheru around 6.20 p.m., on knocking the door,
Accused No.2 came out, served Search Memo to him, the said house is consisting of two rooms, on search in the house, nothing was found, in front of his house Accused
No.2 parked his black colour Honda Dio Scooty bearing No.TS 15 EZ 1610, on search in seat dickey of that scooty found one black colour plastic cover containing 20 small boxes of Hashish oil, each box weighing 5 grams, totally 100 grams, out of that four boxes prepared as two samples, each sample consisting of two boxes, seized sample packets, remaining contraband and Honda Dio Scooty bearing No.TS 15 EZ 1610 under cover of Panchanama-III. Thus, PW.5 and team seized 50 grams + 275 grams + 100 grams, totally 425 grams of Hashish oil under three separate
Panchanamas on dt.05.12.2021 at three different places, samples marked as I, II, III respectively. Thus, as per the version of prosecution, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 committed an offence punishable under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS
Act, 1985.
10 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
10.In order to prove the same, the initial burden lies on the Prosecution. It is a settled law that the NDPS Act provides for a reverse burden of proof upon the accused, contrary to normal rule of Criminal Jurisprudence as to presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, unless proved guilty. This however does not dispense with the requirement of Prosecution to first establish a prima-facie case.
But, only thereafter the burden will be shifted to the accused.
11.In the case on hand, the Prosecution alleged that the accused Nos.1 and 2 were possessing Hashish oil weighing 425 grams, which is less than commercial quantity and the relevant provision punishable under the NDPS Act is Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)
(ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985, which reads as under:-
Section 8:-Prohibition of certain operations.—No person shall—
(a) cultivate any coca plant or gather any portion of coca plant; or
(b) cultivate the opium poppy or any cannabis plant; or
(c) produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or transship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance………
Section 20: Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis—
Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of license granted thereunder,—
(a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or
(b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable,—
(i) where such contravention relates to clause (a) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; and
11 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
(ii) where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b) — (A) and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both; (B) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity, but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; (C) and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years, but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees, but which may extend to two lakh rupees:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.
12.In order to prove the allegations, the Prosecution has relied upon the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 5, documentary evidence under Exs.P.1 to P.34 and Material
Object, MOs 1 to 6.
13.PWs.1 to 4 being panch witnesses did not support the case of prosecution except admitting their signatures on relevant documents on behalf of prosecution as
Ex.P.1 to P.16 respectively. It is their evidence that no Panchanama was conducted nor anything was seized in their presence.
14.PW.5 being the detecting-cum-investigating officer supported the case of prosecution and Ex.P.17 to P.34 are marked through PW.5.
15.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that though PWs.1 to 4 have not supported the case of prosecution, but they have categorically admitted their respective signatures on relevant documents on behalf of prosecution and to that
12 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
extent their evidence is corroborating with the evidence of PW.5. He would further submit that PW.5 being the detecting-cum-investigating officer duly followed the mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act, 1985 and there are no grounds to disbelieve his evidence. Due to some minor lapses on the part of prosecution, the entire evidence given by PW.5 cannot be thrown away and his evidence is cogent, trustworthy and believable to connect the accused and to prove the guilt of accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. The identification of accused Nos.1 and 2 is also duly proved with the evidence of PW.5, the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt and prayed to convict the accused persons in accordance with law.
16.Per contra, the learned defence counsel filed Written arguments and submitted that PWs.1 to 4 being material witnesses did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile. He would further submit that PW.5 is not reliable witness as he acted as detecting-cum-investigating officer in this case, apart from Gazetted officer, which is against principles of natural justice. His evidence is not corroborating with any other witnesses, more particularly independent witnesses. No requisition was given to the MRO to secure the presence of panch witnesses. The sampling was not done in accordance with law. The samples have been tampered with and were never taken from the alleged contraband. There is delay of 43 days to forward samples to FSL and to deposit seized property before the court, for which no satisfactory explanation was given. He would further submit that three different panchanamas were held at
13 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
three different places and three different samplings were done, but in COR, it was mentioned that six samples were drawn and marking of samples was not given in accordance with law. The samples were not drawn as per prescribed procedure. The learned defence counsel submitted that the location of scene of offence is not proved,
PW.5 did not draw rough sketch map nor examined the neighbors/independent witnesses at all the three scene of offences and he did not collect house ownership certificate/rental deeds to prove that A.1 and A.2 were residing in the respective addresses. He would further submit that serial numbers are not given to each box, specific marking is not given to the alleged remaining contraband seized at first, second and third scene of offence places respectively. Material objects produced
before the court does not sealed with wax, no specimen seal and no panch slips were
affixed, these are procedural lapses on the part of PW.5. There is no Inward/Outward number, office seal/stamp on intimation letter and raid report. PW.5 admitted that samples are not collected randomly, which violates the mandatory provisions of the
Act. The learned defence counsel further submitted that 2nd and 3rd scene of offences comes within the limits of Patancheru and PW.5 did not give any prior intimation to the Prohibition & Excise Station, Patancheru before conducting raids. PW.5 is not authorized to conduct raid at 2nd and 3rd scene of offence places. None of the staff members/excise officials were examined as witnesses. PW.5 did not conduct inventory, which is mandatory under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, 1985. He would further submit that the prosecution has violated the provisions under Section 42(2), 50, 52-A, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and Standing Orders 1/89,
14 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
dt.13.06.1989 issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue),
Government of India and also Standing Order No.1 of 88 issued by Narcotics
Control Bureau in Clause 1.13. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt and prayed to acquit the accused persons in accordance with law.
17.The learned defence counsel relied upon the following citations:-
(a) Mangilal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No.1651 of 2023, decided on dt.12.07.2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is a mandatory rule of evidence which requires the physical presence of a Magistrate followed by an order facilitating his approval either for certifying an inventory or for a photograph taken apart from list of samples drawn. When there is non-compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, where a certification of a Magistrate is lacking any inventory, photograph or list of samples would not constitute primary evidence.
(b) Mohammed Khalid and another Vs. The State of Telangana in Criminal Appeal No.1610 of 2023, decided on dt.01.03.2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that where no proceedings under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act were undertaken by the Investigating officer for preparing an inventory and obtaining samples in the presence of jurisdictional Magistrate, the FSL Report is nothing but a wast paper and cannot be read in evidence.
(c) Chandrashekhar Shivhare and another Vs. Intelligence Officer, Intelligence Directorate (DRI), Nagpur Regional Unit and batch cases in Criminal Appeal Nos.808 of 2023, 1028 of 2023 and 1294 of 2023, decided on dt.26.06.2024, the Hon’ble High Court of Chattisgarh, Bilaspur observed the Standing Orders bearing No.01/1988 and 01/1989 mandate that where more than one container/package is seized, the respondent is required to draw a sample from each of the individual container/package and test each of the sample with the ‘field testing kit’. Before drawing of representative samples, in case of seizure of more than one package, one sample in duplicate from each package is to be drawn mandatorily. If the seized container/packages are identical in shape, size and weight then lots of 10 or 40 containers/packages may be prepared and thereafter representative samples from each container/package in a particular lot are to be drawn, mixed and sent for testing. Mixing of the contents of container/package (in one lot) and then drawing
15 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
the representative samples is, therefore, not permissible under the Standing Orders and rightly so as such a sample would cease to be a representative sample of the corresponding container/package.
(d) Arif Khan @ Agha Khan Vs. The State of Uttarakhand, reported in AIR 2018 SC 2123, wherein it was held that the procedure prescribed under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is mandatory.
(e) Beckodan Abdul Rahiman Vs. State of Kerala, reported in AIR 2002 SC 1810, wherein it was held that the provisions of Sections 42 and 50 are mandatory and their non-compliance would render the investigation illegal.
18.As seen from the evidence, the entire case of prosecution is basing upon sole testimony of PW.5, who is detecting-cum-investigating officer as well as acted as
Gazetted officer. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act clearly says that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.
The Hon’ble Supreme court in number of cases sustained convictions on the basis of the testimony of a sole witness. Value is always given on the quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses, if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence. In Bhimappa
Chandappa Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2006)11 SCC 323, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that testimony of a solitary witness can be made the basis of conviction. The credibility of the witness requires to be tested with reference to the quality of his evidence which must be free from blemish or suspicion and must impress the Court as natural, wholly truthful and so convincing that the court has no
16 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
hesitation in recording a conviction solely on his uncorroborated testimony. Now it has to be seen whether the evidence given by PW.5 is free from blemish or suspicion to prove the case of Prosecution.
19.It is pertinent to mention here that PW.1 received reliable information, reduced the same into writing as Intimation letter under Ex.P.17, submitted to his higher officials, i.e., Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendence, Sangareddy stating that on dt.05.12.2021, at about 3.20 p.m., he received reliable information regarding illegal transportation of Hashish oil by one person from Hyderabad to Cherial
Village, so he intended to conduct route watch on NH-65, at Cheriyal gate of
Cheriyal village of Kandi Mandal and requested to grant permission to him to verify the veracity of information and conduct search of vehicles and place and personal search option to the person(s) in the presence of two mediators under Section 42 of
NDPS Act, 1985. On Ex.P.17, permission was accorded by by the Assistant
Prohibition and Excise Superintendence, Sangareddy. It is the contention on behalf of the learned defence counsel that Section 42 of the NDPS Act is not complied with in strict sense, thus the prosecution has violated mandatory provision under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, 1985. He would further contend that there is no
Inward/Outward or Dispatch number and office seal/stamp on Ex.P.17 and that it is created for the purpose of this case. It is pertinent to mention here that whenever any reliable information is received, it should be kept as secret information not to give any alert to the offender to escape. Under those circumstances, as it is confidential
17 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
information to be communicated to the higher officials to obtain permission for conducting raid or route watch, there is no need to give any Inward/Outward or dispatch number to such type of confidential letters and it should be kept within the knowledge of reliable staff. If Inward/Outward or dispatch number is allotted as a routine manner, it would be disclosed to everyone in the office, so that there is possibility to pass on such information to the offender in order to escape. Hence, the contention raised by the learned defence counsel is not sustainable.
20.It is mandatory as per Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985 that Personal Search
Option notice has to be issued to the accused person for causing personal search intimating him about his right to get search before nearest Magistrate or any
Gazetted officer of his choice. In this case, PW.5 issued Personal Search Option notice under Ex.P.25 to Accused No.1 in the presence of mediators explaining his right to get personal search before nearest Magistrate or any other Gazetted officer of his choice and also intimated that PW.5 himself is a Gazetted officer in the raid team, on that the Accused No.1 gave his consent and willingness to get search before PW.5.
Similarly, PW.5 also issued Personal Search Option notice under Ex.P.26 to Accused
No.2 in the presence of panch witnesses explaining his right to get personal search
before nearest Magistrate or any other Gazetted officer of his choice and also
intimated that PW.5 himself is a Gazetted officer in the raid team, on that the
Accused No.2 gave his consent and willingness to get search before PW.5. In view of this piece of evidence coupled with Ex.P.25 and 26, the prosecution has complied
18 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
with the mandatory provision under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985. However, as per Panchanamas under Ex.P.19 and P.23, nothing was found during personal search of Accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively. But for the first time during evidence, it is the evidence of PW.5 that during personal search of Accused Nos.1 and 2, he seized copies of their respective Aadhar cards under P.27 and P.28, which version is against the contents of panchanamas.
21.It is the evidence of PW.5 that immediately after receiving information and
before proceeding to the scene of offence, he made GD entry, but the GD entry
extract was not filed along with charge sheet as admitted by him. Even GD entry number is also not mentioned in COR under Ex.P.24. Further, PW.5 admitted that in first Panchanama under Ex.P.19, he did not mention specific location of the scene of offence. It is admitted by PW.5 that apart from the vehicle of this case, he also checked some other vehicles, but he did not file extract of Vehicle Movement
Register along with charge sheet. PW.5 could not say as to how many vehicles were checked by them on that day at first scene of offence. PW.5 admitted that he did not file any proof before this Court with regard to checking of other vehicles.
22.Another important contention on behalf of the counsel for accused is that sampling was not done as per procedure and that the samples are tampered. In this regard, PW.5 admitted that he did not give serial numbers to each box of contraband.
PW.5 further admitted that he did not specifically mention in panchanama whether the alleged contraband boxes are in open condition or in sealed condition. PW.5
19 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
admitted that he did not mention in panchanama about the description of contraband boxes/bottles whether they are transparent bottles or in opaque and also not disclosed about colour and capacity of the bottles. PW.5 admitted that he did not give specific marking to the alleged remaining contraband boxes/bottles seized at first, second and third scene of offence places respectively. PW.5 further admitted that the remaining contraband was not sealed with Wax, no specimen seal and no panch slips affixed.
When a question was asked to PW.5 as to how he weighed the contraband, he replied that he weighed the contraband with box. It is the explanation given by PW.5 that the liquid contained in the box is like tar and it is not possible for him to weigh the contraband exclusively, which means that the weight of 05 grams including the weight of box/bottle with contraband and PW.5 did not give explanation as to what is the actual weight of the contraband alone. PW.5 did not prepare separate weighing report.
23.It is contended by the learned defence counsel that as Standing Orders bearing
No.01/1988 and 01/1989 mandate that where more than one container/package is seized, the respondent is required to draw a sample from each of the individual container/package and test each of the sample with the ‘field testing kit’. Before drawing of representative samples, in case of seizure of more than one package, one sample in duplicate from each package is to be drawn mandatorily. If the seized container/packages are identical in shape, size and weight then lots of 10 or 40 containers/packages may be prepared and thereafter representative samples from
20 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
each container/package in a particular lot are to be drawn, mixed and sent for testing.
But in the case on hand, PW.5 merely collected four boxes/bottles and prepared two samples, each sample containing two boxes/bottles, which is against the procedure.
In view of clear admissions on the part of PW.5, as discussed above, the prosecution has failed to prove that sampling was done in accordance with law.
24.Further, as seen from the cross-examination of PW.5, several lapses were pointed out, which would amounts to procedural lapses. PW.5 admitted that in
Panchanama-II under Ex.21, no boundaries are mentioned, he did not examine the owner/neighbors of that building. He did not collect any documentary evidence at the second scene of offence in respect of ownership or rental information of pent house of that building. He did not draw rough sketch map of scene of offence places.
He did not take the photographs at first, second and third scene of offence places.
PW.5 further admitted that he did not collect ownership documents/rental deed in respect of third scene of offence. It is admitted by him that 2nd and 3rd scene of offence places comes under the limits of Patancheru, but he did not give any prior intimation to the Prohibition and Excise officials of Patancheru before conducting raid. PW.5 did not examine the staff members who participated in raid. He did not examine any independent witnesses/neighbors at the third scene of offence. PW.5 admitted that he deposited case property before this court on dt.11.01.2022 though crime was detected on dt.05.12.2021. It is the explanation given by PW.5 that on dt.06.12.2021, he produced case property before JFCM Court and taken back for safe
21 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
custody. But no proof is filed before this court that he had taken back for safe custody and he did not file any documentary evidence or Malkhana register extract to prove as to where he kept seized property and samples during the period from 06.12.2021 till 11.01.2022. Under these circumstances, the delay in depositing case property is fatal to the case of prosecution. Further, it is evident from record that samples were forwarded to the Government Examiner, Nizamabad with delay of about 43 days, for which no satisfactory explanation was given by PW.5, which is fatal to the case of prosecution.
25.As seen from the record, PW.5 admitted that soon after completion of three panchanamas, he did not prepare separate inventory. He further admitted that he did not file any application before the Magistrate for conducting inventory. It is evident that the alleged seized property was not produced before the concerned Magistrate or
before this Court soon after it’s alleged seizure which is mandatory under Section
52-A of the NDPS Act, 1985 which reads as follows:
Section 52-A : Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances
(1) The Central Government may, having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraint of proper storage space or any other relevant consideration, in respect of any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyance or class of narcotic drugs, class of psychotropic substances, class of controlled substances or conveyances, which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed of by such officer and in such manner as that Government may, from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified.
(2) Where any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances has been seized and forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under section 53, the officer referred to in sub-section (1) shall prepare an inventory of such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks, numbers or
22 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
such other identifying particulars of the narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances or the packing in which they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as the officer referred to in sub-section (1) may consider relevant to the identity of the narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances in any proceedings under this Act and make an application, to any Magistrate for the purpose of—
(a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or
(b) taking, in the presence of such magistrate, photographs of such drugs, substances or conveyances and certifying such photographs as true; or
(c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of such
magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn.
(3) Where an application is made under sub-section (2), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1972) Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every court trying an offence under this Act, inventory, the photographs of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled conveyances and any list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) and certified by the primary evidence in respect of such offence.
26.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Mohanlal and another1, while dealing with Section 52A(2) of the NDPS Act and the Procedure for sampling, safe keeping and disposal of the seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic and controlled substances held as under:
“……. No sooner the seizure of any narcotic drugs and psychotropic and controlled substances and conveyances is effected, the same shall be forwarded to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officerempowered under Section 53 of the Act. The officer concerned shall then approach the Magistrate with an application under Section 52-A(2) of the Act, which shall be allowed by the Magistrate as soon as may be required under Sub-Section (3) of Section 52-A, as discussed by us in the body of this judgment under the heading ‘seizure and sampling’. The sampling shall be done under the supervision of the magistrate as discussed in paras 15 to 19 of this order…..” 1(2016) 3 SCC 379
23 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
27.As per the above-said legal principles, it is mandatory for the Investigating
Officer to file an application before the Magistrate soon after seizure of the contraband to certify correctness of the inventory prepared by him to take photographs of the seized drugs/substances and to draw representative samples in the presence of the Magistrate and to obtain certificate of the correctness of the list of the samples so drawn. Section 52-A of the Act mandates for certifying the inventory and drawing the representative samples soon after seizure. Here, in the present case,
PW.5 admitted that he did not conduct inventory before the Magistrate, thus, utterly failed to comply the mandatory provisions under Section 52-A of NDPS Act. Hence, no weight can be attached to the alleged Panchanamas under Ex.P.19, P.21 and P.23 and M.Os.1 to 4 and no presumption can be raised under Section 52-A of NDPS Act in this regard.
28.In order to prove that the seized contraband is of Narcotic Drug, the prosecution has relied upon Ex.P.32/CE report, which shows that the contraband recovered was found to be ganja and Narcotic Drug. The said document is not seriously in dispute. But, as noticed above, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged seizure of contraband itself from the accused. Therefore, the opinion of the
Chemical Examiner vide Ex.P.32 will not in any way prove the case of prosecution.
29.In a case of Gorakh Nath Prasad vs The State Of Bihar 2 , the Hon’ble Apex
Court has observed that 22018(2) SCC 305
24 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
“…... NDPS Act provides for a reverse burden of proof upon the accused, contrary to the normal rule of criminal jurisprudence for presumption of innocence unless proved guilty. This shall not dispense with the requirement of the prosecution to having first establish a prima facie case, only thereafter the burden will shift to the accused.
The mere registration of a case under the Act will not ipso facto shift the burden on to the accused from the very inception. Compliance with statutory requirements and procedures shall have to be strict and the scrutiny stringent. If there is any iota of doubt the benefit shall have to be given to the accused.”
30.There is no dispute about the presumptions contained in Sections 54 and 35 of the NDPS Act. But, those presumptions are rebuttable and further, the said presumptions would come into play only when the prosecution proves it’s case that the accused was found in possession of the contraband. But, as noticed above, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused were found in possession of Hashish oil and the same was seized by PW.5. Therefore, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 cannot be held guilty the offence, with which they are charged, by drawing the presumptions contained in Sections 54 and 35 of the NDPS Act against them.
31.In the light of the above legal position, as the evidence of PW.5 does not inspire much confidence as he failed to follow the mandatory procedure as contemplated in Sections 52-A, 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act. The alleged confessional statements said to have been made by Accused Nos.1 and are inadmissible in law. Further, the lapses pointed out in the evidence of PW.5 create
25 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
any amount of doubt about the alleged Search and Seizure. Moreover, the case of the prosecution is covered with many lapses as discussed above and all these lapses being admitted by the PW.5, which rises suspicion on the case of the prosecution, as such, his evidence looses credibility. Therefore, the alleged search and seizure is viewed with suspicion. Thus, the benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused Nos.1 and 2.
Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the Prosecution failed to prove the seizure of Hashish oil from the possession of the accused Nos.1 and 2. Thus, it can be held that the Prosecution failed to prove the charge for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act against the accused Nos.1 and 2 and they are entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered against the
Prosecution and in favour of the Accused Nos.1 and 2.
32.IN THE RESULT, Accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Bail bonds of
Accused Nos.1 and 2 shall remain in force for a period of six (06) months in view of provisions of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
MO.1/Sample-I; MO.2/Sample-II; MO.3/Sample-III; MO.4/remaining 73
Hashish oil boxes (each box weighing 05 grams) shall be forwarded to the Drugs
Disposal Committee for destruction/disposal as per Section 52-A of NDPS Act after expiry of appeal time. MO.5/motorcycle bearing No.TS 15 EV 5247 and
MO.6/Honda Dio Scooty bearing No.TS 15 EZ 1610 already returned to it’s
26 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
respective owners on interim custody is hereby made absolute, after lapse of appeal time.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10 th day of April, 2026.
Sd/-
(Smt. K.Jayanthi)
I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SANGAREDDY
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION
PW.1. Name of witness Description Number PW.1 Sri S. RamchandraiahPanch witness.
PW.2 Sri Mohammed Panch Witness.
PW.3Sri Muthangi chennaiahPanch Witness.
PW.4Sri Peddamalla SrikanthPanch witness.
PW.5Sri J.Madhu BabuSeizing-cum-Investigating Officer.
DEFENCE
NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
27 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
PROSECUTION
Exhibit Description of document Proved/Attested
Number by Ex.P.1PW.1 Signature of PW.1 on Search Memo
Ex.P.2PW.1 Signature of PW.1 on panchanama of A.1
Ex.P.3PW.1 Signature of PW.1 on Search Option issued to A.1
Ex.P.4PW.1 Signature of PW.1 on panch slip affixed to sample packet.
Ex.P.5PW.2 Signature of PW.2 on Search Memo
Ex.P.6PW.2 Signature of PW.2 on panchanama of A.1
Ex.P.7PW.2 Signature of PW.2 on Search Option issued to A.1
Ex.P.8PW.2 Signature of PW.2 on panch slip affixed to sample packet.
Ex.P.9PW.3 Signature of PW.3 on Search Memo
Ex.P.10PW.3 Signature of PW.3 on panchanama of A.2 at third scene.
Ex.P.11PW.3 Signature of PW.3 on Search Option issued to A.2
Ex.P.12PW.3 Signature of PW.3 on panch slip affixed to sample packet.
Ex.P.13PW.4 Signature of PW.4 on Search Memo
Ex.P.14PW.4 Signature of PW.4 on panchanama of A.2 at third scene.
Ex.P.15PW.4 Signature of PW.4 on Search Option issued to A.2
Ex.P.16PW.4 Signature of PW.4 on panch slip affixed to sample packet.
Ex.P.17PW.5 Intimation letter with permission endorsement
Ex.P.18PW.5 Search Memo, dt.05.12.2021
Ex.P.19PW.5 Pasnchanama, dt. 05.12.2021 at 4:00 p.m.
28 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
Ex.P.20PW.5 Search Memo dt. 05.12.2021 at 4:45 p.m.
Ex.P.21PW.5 Panchanama, dt. 5.12.2021, at 4:50 p.m.
Ex.P.22PW.5 Search Memo issued to A.2 at 6:10p.m.
Ex.P.23PW.5 Panchanama, dt. 05.1.2021, at 6:20 p.m.
Ex.P.24PW.5 COR
Ex.P.25PW.5 Personal Search Option notice given to A.1 and option exercised by him.
Ex.P.26PW.5 Personal Search Option notice given to A.2 and option exercised by him.
Ex.P.27PW.5 Copy of Aadhar card of A.1.
Ex.P.28PW.5 Copy of Aadhar card of A.2
Ex.P.29PW.5 List of proeprty form.
Ex.P.30PW.5 Letter of advice
Ex.P.31PW.5 Requistion for sending sample to chemical examiner.
Ex.P.32PW.5 CE Report.
Ex.P.33PW.5 Lit of property form before JFCM, Prohibition and Excise Court, Sangareddy.
Ex.P.34PW.5 Raid Report
DEFENCE
NIL
29 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022
MATERIAL OBJECTS
Material Object Description of the property Proved by/attested
Number by
MO.1Sample-IPW5
MO.2Sample-IIPW.5
MO.3Sample -IIIPW.5
MO.4Remaining 73 Hashish oil boxes (each box PW.5 weighing 5 grams)
MO.5Motor cycle bearing No.TS 15 EV 5247PW.5
MO.6Honda Dio scooty bearing No.TS 15 EZ 1610PW.5.
Sd/-
(Smt. K.Jayanthi)
I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SANGAREDDY
30 of 30 NDPS SC 34 of 2022