1
FORM -A
[Rule 67 (1) of Criminal Rules of Practice]
BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT, DESIGNATED FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES
UNDER THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT,
1985-cum- I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, EAST GODAVARI AT
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.
Present: Sri.Rayasam Siva Kumar
Special Judge, under Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act-cum- I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram.
Friday, the 20th day of March, 2026.
[NDPS] SESSIONS CASE No. 62 of 2019
Complainant:State:-Inspector of Police, Ravulapalem Circle Represented by :Special Public Prosecutor Names and Description of Accused:A-1) Ponnayya Kumar, S/o.Ponnayya, Age 31 years, C/Devar, D.No.28, Valluri Colony, Kanuvalnayakan patty, Theni Dist., Tamil Nadu State.
A-2) Krishnan Suresh, S/o.Krishnan Suresh, Age 35 years, C/Devar, Singarajupram, Theni District, Tamil Nadu State.
A-3) Ayyangalai Ram Kumar, S/o.Ayyangalai, Age 32 years, C/Devar, Vasavi Colony, Kanuvalnayakan patty, Theni Dist., Tamil Nadu State.
A-4) Rajendran Surendran, S/o.Rajendran, Age 26 years, C/Devar, First Street, Valluri Colony, Kanuvalnayakan patty, Theni Dist., Tamil Nadu State.
A-5) Andavar Dinesh Kumar, S/o.Andavar, Age 24 years, C/Devar, Pallivadaithar, Umekoundanpatti, Theni District, Tamil Nadu State.
A-6) Murugan Ajith, S/o.Murgan, Age 23 years, C/Devar, Kali Amma temple, Singarajapuram, Theni District, Tamil Nadu State.
A-7) Nallapillai Kotasamy, S/o.Nallapillai, Age 36 years, C/Devar, Veerasikkampatti, Dindigal District, Tamil Nadu State.
A-8) Chella Dorai, Paderu
A-9) Ayyar, Paderu
A-10) Prasanth @ Bujjibabu, Paderu,
A-11) Dharman of Tamil Nadu State.
(This Case is against A-1 to A-7 and separate charge sheet will be filed against A-8 to A-11) Represented by :Sri G.S.Prasad, learned counsel for A-1 to A-7
FORM -B
[Rule 67 (2) of Criminal Rules of Practice]
Date of offence 17.07.2019 Date of First Information Report 17.07.2019 Date of Charge sheet 07.12.2019 Date of Framing of Charges 15.12.2023 Date of Commence of Evidence 26.06.2025 Date on which Judgment Reserved 17.03.2026
Date of the sentencing order, if any 20.03.2026
Accused Details
Rank of the accused Accused Nos. 1 to 7
Name of the Accused A-1) Ponnayya Kumar, S/o.Ponnayya, Age 31 years, C/Devar, D.No.28, Valluri Colony, Kanuvalnayakan patty, Theni Dist., Tamil Nadu State.
A-2) Krishnan Suresh, S/o.Krishnan Suresh, Age 35 years, C/Devar, Singarajupram, Theni District, Tamil Nadu State.
A-3) Ayyangalai Ram Kumar, S/o.Ayyangalai, Age 32 years, C/Devar, Vasavi Colony, Kanuvalnayakan patty, Theni Dist., Tamil Nadu State.
A-4) Rajendran Surendran, S/o.Rajendran, Age 26 years, C/Devar, First Street, Valluri Colony, Kanuvalnayakan patty, Theni Dist., Tamil Nadu State.
A-5) Andavar Dinesh Kumar, S/o.Andavar, Age 24 years, C/Devar, Pallivadaithar, Umekoundanpatti, Theni District, Tamil Nadu State.
A-6) Murugan Ajith, S/o.Murgan, Age 23 years, C/Devar, Kali Amma temple, Singarajapuram, Theni District, Tamil Nadu State.
A-7) Nallapillai Kotasamy, S/o.Nallapillai, Age 36 years, C/Devar, Veerasikkampatti, Dindigal District, Tamil Nadu State.
A-8) Chella Dorai, Paderu
A-9) Ayyar, Paderu
A-10) Prasanth @ Bujjibabu, Paderu,
A-11) Dharman of Tamil Nadu State.
(This Case is against A-1 to A-7 and separate charge sheet will be filed against A-8 to A-11)
Date of Arrest 17.7.2019
Offences charged with Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Whether acquitted or Acquitted
Sentence imposed ----
This case is coming on 17-3-2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Special Public Prosecutor for state and of Sri
G.S.Prasad, learned Counsel for A-1 to A-7 and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
This case arose out of Crime No.221/2019 of Ravulapalem Police
Station against the Accused Nos.1 to 7 and A-8 to A-11 for the offence Under
Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Subsistence
Act, 1985.
2)In a nutshell, the facts of the case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet can be noted as follows:-
a) On 17-07-2019, at about 2:30 PM, L.W.1 Mohammad Nasirulla, Sub-
Inspector of Police and L.W.3 K.V.Satyanarayana, Asst. Sub-Inspector of
Police of Ravulapalem Police Station along with their staff, while checking the vehicles naer Government College, Ravulapalem on NH-16 which is running from Jonnada to Siddhantham side, they intercepted two vehicles i.e.
Mahindra car and an Innova car, A-5 was driving the Mahindra car A-6 and A- 7 sat the said car whereas A-3 was driving Innova car A1, A-2, A-4 sat in the said car, as the accused were speaking in Tamil, LW1 secured L.W.7 Padala
Chandra Sekhar Reddy who knew Tamil and Telugu to tranlate, when questioned them they revealed their particulars as A-1 to A-7, he secured the presence of Gazetted Officer L.W.2 D.Bharathi, Dy.Tahsildar, Ravulapalem
Mandal in whose presence search was conducted and seized 30 packets containing 60 kgs of Ganja from A-1 to A-4, 200 packets containing 400 kgs of
Ganja from A-1 to A-4, Cash of Rs.20,000/- from A-1, Rs.4,300/- from A-2,
Rs.1,300/- from A-3, Rs.3,800/- from A-4, Rs.4,660/- from A-5, Rs.2,000/- from
A-6 and Rs.2,000/- from A-7 and recorded their confessional statements under cover of mediators report got drafted by L.W.s 9 and 10 Kowru Lakshmipathi
Rao, Village Revenue Officer-1, Ravulapalem and Pochiraju Ravi Sankar,
Village Revenue Officer, Ravulapalem.
b) It is emanated from the confession statements of A-1 to A-7 that A-1 is a friend of A-2, A-3, A-5 and A-6. A-4 is his younger brother-in-law and A-7 is his cousin, A-1 owned a Mahindra XUV-500 car bearing Registration No.
TN57-AH-3456, which was purchased through Ganga Finance, Karur, and registered in his name, one Jagadeesh, a lorry driver from Muthalamparai,
Tamil Nadu, used to work as an occasional driver for the said car, the said
Jagadeesh introduced Dharman, a resident of Muthalamparai, Tamil Nadu, who was secretly involved in ganja business. Dharman used to procure ganja from Chella Dorai and Ayyar of Tamil Nadu and sell it on commission basis through Prasanth @ Bujji, a resident of Paderu, Visakhapatnam District, for higher prices in Tamil Nadu. Jagadeesh also provided the mobile number 6304866255 belonging to Prasanth @ Bujji, being attracted by the prospect of easy money, A-1 decided to involve himself in the illegal ganja trade. He contacted A-2 to A-7, who are his friends, brother-in-law and cousin, and informed them about the ganja business, he assured them that he would provide the investment and vehicles, accordingly, all of them agreed to participate in the illegal ganja business. A-5 also stated that he would arrange a vehicle from his acquaintance Bahavuddin, on 12-07-2019, Prasanth @
Bujji contacted A-1 and informed him that ganja was ready for delivery, accordingly, on the night of 13-07-2019, A-1 to A-7 left Kanuvalnayakanpatti in two vehicles, namely a Mahindra car bearing Reg. No. AP23-AM-2777 and an Innova car bearing Reg. No. TN65-E-7000, on the morning of 14-07- 2019, they reached Rajamahendravaram. After contacting Prasanth @ Bujji, he instructed them to come to HP Petrol Bunk, Annavaram, at that place, negotiations took place, and the rate was fixed at Rs.4,000/- per packet, each packet weighing about 2 kilograms, it was agreed that 230 packets would be loaded into the Mahindra car, valuing Rs.9,20,000/- in total. A-1 informed
Prasanth @ Bujji that he had brought only Rs.5,00,000/- as advance and promised to pay the remaining amount after selling the ganja. After contacting
Chella Dorai and Ayyar, Prasanth @ Bujji agreed to the deal, he took the
Mahindra car and returned on the morning of 15-07-2019 with 230 packets of ganja. Meanwhile, A-1 to A-7 stayed at Annavaram, upon verification, some ganja packets were found protruding from the Mahindra car, therefore, 30 packets were shifted and kept in the rear seat of the Innova car. A-1 paid
Rs.5,00,000/- to Prasanth @ Bujji as agreed, thereafter, A-1 removed the number plate AP23-AM-2777 and replaced it with another number plate AP20-
AR-1719 on the Mahindra car, A-5 drove the Mahindra car, with A-6 and A-7 seated inside it. A-1 to A-4 travelled in the Innova car along with Prasanth @
Bujji, which was driven by A-3. Prasanth @ Bujji followed them up to
Pottilanka Village, halting at several places to check for police presence, and thereafter got down and left.
c) Thereafter, the accused and seized property were brought to
Ravulapalem Police Station. Based on the mediators’ report, a case in
Crime No.221/2019 under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the
NDPS Act, 1985 was registered at 7:00 PM on the same day by L.W.1
Mohamad Nasirulla, Sub-Inspector of Police, Ravulapale and L.W.12 Inspector of Police, Ravulapalem circle took up furhter Investigation. During investigation, L.W.2 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, and prepared a rough sketch, and produced the arrested A-1 to A-7 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta, who remanded them to judicial custody. Based on the confessional statements, Chella Dorai, Ayyar, Dharman, and Prasanth @ Bujji were arrayed as accused Nos. 8 to 11. Since accused A-8 to A-11 were absconding, a separate charge sheet will be filed against them.
d)Therefore, A-1 to A-7 were found in possession of 230 packets weighing 460 kilograms of ganja, without any licence or permit, and were transporting the same in two vehicles. Therefore, A-1 to A-7 are liable for punishment under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS
Act, 1985.
3)This case was taken on file for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20 (b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
4)On appearance of the accusedNos.1 to 7 case copies were furnished to them as per section 207 Cr.P.C.
6)On appearance of the accused Nos. 1 to 7 before this court and upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted there with and after hearing the submissions of Learned Counsel for Defence, and Learned Special Public Prosecutor for State, my predecessor in officer did not discharge the Accused Nos.1 to 7 as per Section 227 Cr.P.C., but he framed charge for the offence Under Section under Section 8(c) r/w 20 (b)(ii) (C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act against the Accused
Nos.1 to 4 as per Section 228(1)(C) Cr.P.C. and he read over said charge and explained to the Accused Nos.1 to 7 in vernacular language as per Sec.
228(2) Cr.P.C. but the Accused Nos.1 to 7 pleaded ‘not guilty and claimed to be tried’.
7)According to the dates fixed by me for the examination of prosecution witnesses as per Sec.230 Cr.P.C, the prosecution examined
PWs.1 to 7 and got Exs.P1 to P15 and M.Os.1 to 247marked on its behalf according to Section 231 Cr.P.C.
8) After closure of evidence of prosecution, I examined the Accused
Nos.1 to 7 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by well explaining the incriminating evidence to them in vernacular language. The Accused Nos.1 to 7 denied the evidence of prosecution as being true.
9)On hearing the Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the state and Learned Counsel for defence, posted the case for Section 232 Cr.P.C.
consideration and on consideration, I held that Accused Nos.1 to 7 had not been acquitted Under Section 232 Cr.P.C. for the above noted charged offence.
10)Having been called to enter upon their defence, the Accused
Nos.1 to 7 submitted that they have no defence evidence to adduce on their behalf.
11)Later, I heard the arguments of learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and learned defence counsel and learned counsel for accused also filed written arguments.
12) Now, the points for consideration are:-
1) Whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of Accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offence Under Section under Section 20 (b) (ii)(C) r/w 8(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act beyond all reasonable doubt?
2)To what result?
13) Point No.1: The gravamen of the charge leveled against the accused Nos.1 to 7 that on 17-07-2019, at about 2:30 PM, L.W.1 Mohammad
Nasirulla, Sub-Inspector of Police and L.W.3 K.V.Satyanarayana, Asst. Sub-
Inspector of Polcie of Ravulapalem Police Station along with their staff, while checking the vehicles naer Government College, Ravulapalem on NH-16 which is running from Jonnada to Siddhantham side, they intercepted two vehicles i.e. Mahindra car and an Innova car, A-5 was driving the Mahindra car A-6 and A-7 sat the said car whereas A-3 was driving Innova car A1, A-2,
A-4 sat in the said car, as the accused were speaking in Tamil, LW1 secured
L.W.7 Padala Chandra Sekhar Reddy who knew Tamil and Telugu to tranlate, when questioned them they revealed their particulars as A-1 to A-7, he secured the presence of Gazetted Officer L.W.2 D.Bharathi, Dy.Tahsildar,
Ravulapalem Mandal in whose presence search was conducted and seized 30 packets containing 60 kgs of Ganja from A-1 to A-4, 200 packets containing 400 kgs of Ganja from A-1 to A-4, Cash of Rs.20,000/- from A-1, Rs.4,300/- from A-2, Rs.1,300/- from A-3, Rs.3,800/- from A-4, Rs.4,660/- from A-5,
Rs.2,000/- from A-6 and Rs.2,000/- from A-7 and recorded their confessional statements under cover of mediators report got drafted by L.W.s 9 and 10
Kowru Lakshmipathi Rao, Village Revenue Officer-1, Ravulapalem and
Pochiraju Ravi Sankar, Village Revenue Officer, Ravulapalem.
14) For proving said charge, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of
PWs 1 to 7. Out of them, P.W.1 is Pochiraju Ravi Sanka, Village Revenue
Officer, Ravulapalem who acted as panch witness, P.W.2 is D.Bharathi,
Dy.Tahsildar, Ravulapalem in whose presence search and seizure were conducted, P.W.3 is K.V.S.Satyanarayana, Additional Sub-Inspector of Police,
Ravulapalem P.S. who participated in raid, P.W.4 Rowthu Prasad and P.W.5
Varikuti Prasad are the neighbouring witnesses whose shops are situated near the scene of offence, P.W.6 is Md.Nasirulla, Sub-Inspector of Police,
Ravulapalem who conducted raid, caught hold accused, seized the contraband and happened to register the case as a crime and P.W.7
V.Krishna, Inspector of Police, Ravulapalem Circle is the investigating officer in this case.
15) It is the evidence of PW1, Pochiraju Ravi Sankar, the then Village
Revenue Officer, Ravulapalem that on 17.07.2019 at about 2 PM, while he was in Tahsildar office of Ravulapalem along with LW9, one constable of
Ravulapalem PS came to them and informed them that Sub-Inspector of police of Ravulapalem Police Station was calling for them for the mediation in the case, thereupon they went to Ravulapalem Police Station and Sub-Inspector of police took them to Government Junior Civil Judge situated at NH-16
Junction of Ravulapalem and police started checking vehicles and at that time they noticed one Innova Car bearing registration no. TN 65 E 7000 and one
Mahindra Car bearing registration no. AP 26 AR 1719 XUV 500, in the Innova car found four (4) persons and in the Mahindra Car found three (3) persons, who are A-1 to A-7, when SI of police interrogated the accused 1 to 7, they spoke in Tamil language and therefore the Sub-Inspector of police took the assistance of LW7/ Padala Chandra Sekhar Reddy, who knows Tamil and
Telugu languages, A1 to A7 disclosed that they were carrying Ganja illegally for the purpose of business, the Sub-Inspector of police served Ex.P1 to P7 notices under Section 50 of NDPS Act to A1 to A7 separately, the accused acknowledged the same, thereupon the Sub-Inspector of police called for
Tahsildar / LW2 and also weigher / LW8, the Tahsildar questioned the accused and checked the Innova car in which they found 30 packets of Ganja, when the opened the bags and checked the same, each Ganja packet contained 2 Kgs of Ganja when weighed total into 60 Kgs of Ganja, 50 grams of Ganja was drawn out of each packet into MOs 1 to 30, identity slips containing their signatures and Sub-Inspector of police were affixed over MOs 1 to 30, the Tahsildar questioned the accused and checked the Mahindra car in which they found 200 packets of Ganja, when they opened the bags and checked the same, each packet contained 2 Kgs of Ganja when weighed, total is 400 Kgs of Ganja, 50 grams of Ganja was drawn out of each packet into
MOs 31 to 230, identity slips containing their signatures and Sub-Inspector of police and Dy.Tahsildar were affixed over MOs 31 to 230, MO.231 cash of
Rs.20,000/-, MO.232 Vivo Smart cell phone and MO.233 Lava keypad cell phone were seized from the possession of A1, MO.234 cash of Rs.4,300/-,
MO.235 Oppo cell phone and MO.236 Duos key pad cell phone were seized from the possession of A2, MO.237 cash of Rs.1,300/-, MO.238 Samsung smart cell phone were seized from the possession of A3, MO.239 cash of
Rs.3,800/-, MO.240 Vivo smart cell phone were seized from the possession of A4, MO.241 Rs.4,600/-, MO.242 Oppo smart cell phone and MO.243 Vivo cell phone were seized from the possession of A5, MO.244 cash of Rs.2,000/-,
MO.245 Vivo smart cell phone were seized from the possession of A6,
MO.246 cash of Rs.2,000/-, MO.247 is the Lava key pad cell phone were seized from the possession of A7 and the accused 1 to 7 were arrested under the cover of Ex.P8 seizure panchanama duly attested by him and another witness and signed by Tahsildar, SI of police and all the accused.
16) It is the evidence of PW2, D.Bharathi, the then Dy.Tahsildar,
Ravulapalem Mandal that on 17.07.2019 their Mandal Revenue Inspector received Ex.P9 notice issued by Sub-Inspector of Police, Ravulapalem Police
Station, thereupon she went to Ravulapalem Police Station and Sub-Inspector of police took them to Government Junior Civil Judge situated at NH-16
Junction of Ravulapalem and police started checking vehicles and at that time they noticed one Innova Car bearing registration no. TN 65 E 7000 and one
Mahindra Car bearing registration no. AP 26 AR 1719 XUV 500, in the Innova car found four (4) persons and in the Mahindra Car found three (3) persons, who are A-1 to A-7, when SI of police interrogated the accused 1 to 7, they spoke in Tamil language and therefore the Sub-Inspector of police took the assistance of LW7/ Padala Chandra Sekhar Reddy, who knows Tamil and
Telugu languages, A1 to A7 disclosed that they were carrying Ganja illegally for the purpose of business, the Sub-Inspector of police served Ex.P1 to P7 notices under Section 50 of NDPS Act to A1 to A7 separately, the accused acknowledged the same, thereupon the Sub-Inspector of police called her and also weigher / LW8, she questioned the accused and checked the Innova car in which they found 30 packets of Ganja, when the opened the bags and checked the same, each Ganja packet contained 2 Kgs of Ganja when weighed total into 60 Kgs of Ganja, 50 grams of Ganja was drawn out of each packet into MOs 1 to 30, identity slips containing their signatures and Sub-
Inspector of police were affixed over MOs 1 to 30, she questioned the accused and checked the Mahindra car in which they found 200 packets of Ganja, when they opened the bags and checked the same, each packet contained 2
Kgs of Ganja when weighed, total is 400 Kgs of Ganja, 50 grams of Ganja was drawn out of each packet into MOs 31 to 230, identity slips containing their signatures and Sub-Inspector of police were affixed over MOs 31 to 230,
MO.231 cash of Rs.20,000/-, MO.232 Vivo Smart cell phone and MO.233
Lava keypad cell phone were seized from the possession of A1, MO.234 cash of Rs.4,300/-, MO.235 Oppo cell phone and MO.236 Duos key pad cell phone were seized from the possession of A2, MO.237 cash of Rs.1,300/-, MO.238
Samsung smart cell phone were seized from the possession of A3, MO.239 cash of Rs.3,800/-, MO.240 Vivo smart cell phone were seized from the possession of A4, MO.241 Rs.4,600/-, MO.242 Oppo smart cell phone and
MO.243 Vivo cell phone were seized from the possession of A5, MO.244 cash of Rs.2,000/-, MO.245 Vivo smart cell phone were seized from the possession of A6, MO.246 cash of Rs.2,000/-, MO.247 is the Lava key pad cell phone were seized from the possession of A7 and the accused 1 to 7 were arrested under the cover of Ex.P8 seizure panchanama duly attested by her and another witness and signed by her, SI of police and all the accused.
17) It is the evidence of PW3 K.V.S.Satyanarayana, the then Additional
Sub-Inspector of Police, Ravulapalem Police Station that on 17.07.2019 at about 2 PM, as per instruction of their Circle Inspector he assisted Sub-
Inspector of Police, Ravulapalem Police Station in the raid, he followed him to to Government Junior Civil Judge situated at NH-16 Junction of Ravulapalem and police started checking vehicles and at that time they noticed one Innova
Car bearing registration no. TN 65 E 7000 and one Mahindra Car bearing registration no. AP 26 AR 1719 XUV 500, in the Innova car found four (4) persons and in the Mahindra Car found three (3) persons, who are A-1 to A-7, when SI of police interrogated the accused 1 to 7, they spoke in Tamil language and therefore the Sub-Inspector of police took the assistance of
LW7/ Padala Chandra Sekhar Reddy, who knows Tamil and Telugu languages, A1 to A7 disclosed that they were carrying Ganja illegally for the purpose of business, the Sub-Inspector of police served Ex.P1 to P7 notices under Section 50 of NDPS Act to A1 to A7 separately, the accused acknowledged the same, thereupon the Sub-Inspector of police called for PW2 and also weigher / LW8, PW2 questioned the accused and checked the
Innova car in which they found 30 packets of Ganja, when the opened the bags and checked the same, each Ganja packet contained 2 Kgs of Ganja when weighed total into 60 Kgs of Ganja, 50 grams of Ganja was drawn out of each packet into MOs 1 to 30, identity slips containing their signatures and
Sub-Inspector of police and Dy.Tahsildar were affixed over MOs 1 to 30, the
Tahsildar questioned the accused and checked the Mahindra car in which they found 200 packets of Ganja, when they opened the bags and checked the same, each packet contained 2 Kgs of Ganja when weighed, total is 400 Kgs of Ganja, 50 grams of Ganja was drawn out of each packet into MOs 31 to 230, identity slips containing their signatures and Sub-Inspector of police and
Dy.Tahsildar were affixed over MOs 31 to 230, MO.231 cash of Rs.20,000/-,
MO.232 Vivo Smart cell phone and MO.233 Lava keypad cell phone were seized from the possession of A-1, MO.234 cash of Rs.4,300/-, MO.235 Oppo cell phone and MO.236 Duos key pad cell phone were seized from the possession of A2, MO.237 cash of Rs.1,300/-, MO.238 Samsung smart cell phone were seized from the possession of A3, MO.239 cash of Rs.3,800/-,
MO.240 Vivo smart cell phone were seized from the possession of A4,
MO.241 Rs.4,600/-, MO.242 Oppo smart cell phone and MO.243 Vivo cell phone were seized from the possession of A-5, MO.244 cash of Rs.2,000/-,
MO.245 Vivo smart cell phone were seized from the possession of A6,
MO.246 cash of Rs.2,000/-, MO.247 is the Lava key pad cell phone were seized from the possession of A7 and the accused 1 to 7 were arrested under the cover of Ex.P8 seizure panchanama duly attested by panch witnesses and signed by Tahsildar, SI of police and all the accused.
18) It is in the evidence of PW4 Rowthu Prasad and PW5 Varikuti Ramu that on 17-7-2019 at about 2-00 p.m. in front of their shops at Government
Junior College situated at NH 16 junction of Ravulapalem and police started checking vehicles and at that time one Innova Car bearing registration no. TN 65 E 7000 and one Mahindra Car bearing registration no. AP 26 AR 1719 XUV 500, in the Innova car found four (4) persons and in the Mahindra Car found three (3) persons, who are A-1 to A-7, when SI of police interrogated the accused 1 to 7, they spoke in Tamil language and therefore the Sub-Inspector of police took the assistance of LW7/ Padala Chandra Sekhar Reddy, who knows Tamil and Telugu languages, A1 to A7 disclosed that they were carrying Ganja illegally for the purpose of business, the Sub-Inspector of police served Ex.P1 to P7 notices under Section 50 of NDPS Act to A1 to A7 separately, the accused acknowledged the same, thereupon the Sub-Inspector of police called for PW2 and also weigher / LW8, PW2 questioned the accused and checked the Innova car in which they found 30 packets of Ganja, when the opened the bags and checked the same, each Ganja packet contained 2 Kgs of Ganja when weighed total into 60 Kgs of Ganja, 50 grams of Ganja was drawn out of each packet into MOs 1 to 30, identity slips containing their signatures and Sub-Inspector of police and Dy.Tahsildar were affixed over MOs 1 to 30, the Tahsildar questioned the accused and checked the Mahindra car in which they found 200 packets of Ganja, when they opened the bags and checked the same, each packet contained 2 Kgs of Ganja when weighed, total is 400 Kgs of Ganja, 50 grams of Ganja was drawn out of each packet into MOs 31 to 230, identity slips containing their signatures and Sub-
Inspector of police and Dy.Tahsildar were affixed over MOs 31 to 230,
MO.231 cash of Rs.20,000/-, MO.232 Vivo Smart cell phone and MO.233
Lava keypad cell phone were seized from the possession of A-1, MO.234 cash of Rs.4,300/-, MO.235 Oppo cell phone and MO.236 Duos key pad cell phone were seized from the possession of A2, MO.237 cash of Rs.1,300/-, MO.238
Samsung smart cell phone were seized from the possession of A3, MO.239 cash of Rs.3,800/-, MO.240 Vivo smart cell phone were seized from the possession of A4, MO.241 Rs.4,600/-, MO.242 Oppo smart cell phone and
MO.243 Vivo cell phone were seized from the possession of A-5, MO.244 cash of Rs.2,000/-, MO.245 Vivo smart cell phone were seized from the possession of A6, MO.246 cash of Rs.2,000/-, MO.247 Lava key pad cell phone were seized from the possession of A7 and the accused 1 to 7 were arrested under the cover of Ex.P8 seizure panchanama duly attested by panch witnesses and signed by Tahsildar, SI of police and all the said 7 persons.
18) It is in the evidence of PW6 Md.Nasirulla, the then Sub-Inspector of
Police, Ravulapalem that on 17.07.2019 at about 2 PM, he got credible information in the case about the illegal transportation of Ganja and thereupon he submitted requisition to SDPO, Amalapuramand who issued Ex.P10 proceedings to conduct raid in the case and thereupon he secured the panch witnesses and along with them he went to ‘Govt Jr.college, situated at NH-16
Junction of Ravulapalem’ and they started checking vehicles and at that time one Innova Car bearing registration No. TN 65 E 7000 and one Mahindra Car bearing registration No. AP 26 AR 1719 XUV 500 in the Innova car found four (4) persons and in the Mahindra Car found three (3) persons, who are present
before this court as A1 to A7, he interrogated the accused Nos.1 to 7, they
spoke in Tamil language and therefore he took the assistance of LW7/ Padala
Chandra Sekhar Reddy, who knows Tamil and Telugu languages, A-1 to A-7 disclosed that they were carrying Ganja illegally for the purpose of business, he served Ex.P1 to P7 notices under Section 50 of NDPS Act to A1 to A7 separately, on respective notices, the accused acknowledged the same, thereupon he called for Tahsildar / LW2 and also weigher / LW8, Tahsildar questioned the accused and checked the Innova car in which they found 30 packets of Ganja, when they opened the bags and checked the same, each
Ganja packet contained 2 Kgs of Ganja when weighed total into 60 Kgs of
Ganja, 50 grams of Ganja was drawn out of each packet into MOs 1 to 30, identity slips containing their signatures and himself and Tahsildar were affixed over MOs 1 to 30, the Tahsildar questioned the accused and checked the
Mahindra car in which they found 200 packets of Ganja, when they opened the bags and checked the same, each Ganja packet contained 2 Kgs of Ganja when weighed total into 400 Kgs of Ganja, 50 grams of Ganja was drawn out of each packet into MOs 31 to 230, identity slips containing their signatures and Sub-Inspector of police and Tahsildar were affixed over MOs 31 to 230,
MO.231 cash of Rs.20,000/-, MO.232 Vivo Smart cell phone and MO.233
Lava keypad cell phone were seized from the possession of A1, MO.234 cash of Rs.4,300/-, MO.235 oppo cell phone and MO.236 duos key pad cell phone were seized from the possession of A2, MO.237 cash of Rs.1,300/- and
MO.238 Samsung smart cell phone were seized from the possession of A3,
MO.239 cash of Rs.3,800/-, MO.240 Vivo smart cell phone were seized from the possession of A4, MO.241 cash of Rs.4,600/-, MO.242 Oppo smart cell phone and MO.243 Vivo cell phone were seized from the possession of A5,
MO.244 cash of Rs.2,000/-, MO.245 Vivo smart cell phone were seized from the possession of A6, MO.246 cash of Rs.2,000/- and MO.247 Lava key pad cell phone were seized from the possession of A7, the above said properties and the contraband were seized and the accused 1 to 7 were arrested under the cover of Ex.P8 seizure panchanama duly attested by the panch witnesses and signed by Tahsildar, himself and all the accused, Ex.P11 photos (without
CD) got taken at scene of offence, on the strength of panchanama, he registered a case in Cr.No.221/2019 against the accused Nos.1 to 7 and 3 others for the offence U/Sec.8 (c) r/w20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, 1985 at 19 hours on 17.07.2019 and submitted Ex.P12 FIR to the court. Further investigation took up by my CI of police.
19) It is the evidence of PW7 V.Krishna, the then Inspector of Police,
Ravulapalem circle that on 17.07.2019 at about 7 PM, Sub-Inspector of police / PW6 informed him about the registration of the case, therefore he went to Ravulaplaem PS and received case file and case property, he recorded 161
Cr.P.C. statements of LWs 1 to 3, he visited scene of offence at ‘Govt
Jr.college, situated at NH-16 Junction of Ravulapalem’ along with PW6, he prepared Ex.P13 rough sketch and also recorded 161 Cr.P.C statements of
LWs 4 to 8 and returned back to PS and he produced the accused before the court for judicial custody, Ex.P14 is the letter of advice along with covering letter, Ex.P15 is chemical analysis report and he laid charge sheet in the case.
20)In his cross-examination, P.W.1 states that he did not obtain prior permission from his superiors for mediation, there is no any entry in official record that he acted as panch witness in the case, he himself drafted the panchanma, but there is no such scribing endorsement in the said panchanama. He admitted that drawing of samples out of 30 packets is not noted in the panchanamam, there is no mention in the panchamana about the participation of the translator in the proceedings as deposed to by him, there is no mention of designation, except that of SI in the identity slips of MOs 1 to 247, the identity slips in MOs 1 to 247 are not found affixed as mentioned in the panchanama, the cash and mobiles are not in separate covers as mentioned in panchanama, there is no mention of currency numbers in the panchanama. He further admitted that panchanama does not recite that 500 rupee notes were seized, the colours of the cell phones are not mentioned in the panchanama, there is no endorsement of scribe in the Sec 50 notices (Ex.P1 to P7), the scene of offence is busy locality, the SI of police did not try to secure any local person for mediation and that No photos were got taken at scene of offence in his presence.
19) In the above backdrop of the case, learned counsel for A-1 to A-7 adroitly submits in vehemence that as per their official recordsthere is no mention with regard to acting of PW1 and PW2 as witnesses, signatures and designations of P.W.s 1 and2 were not found place in the panchanama, there is no mention of affixing of slips in MOs 1 to 247 in panchanama which fact clearly proves that the panchanama is not propared at the scene of offence, though the scene of offence is is busy locality, police did not try to secure any loca persons for mediation, no photos were taken at the scene of offence ni the presence of PW1, drawing of samples out of 30 packets is not noted in the panchanama, there is no mention in the panchanama about the participation of the translator in the proceedings, there is no entry in officialrecord that P.W.3 assisted the S.I. of Police in the raid, panchanama does not recite about taking of photos and it does not recite about takinig of photos, Tahsildar did not participate in the raid, though no notice was served on Dy.Tahsildar to participate in the raid, the Dy.Tahsildar participated in the raid without notice, the translator did not endorse that he translated the language of Tamil to
Telugu, there is no explanation for delay caused in sending samples to Analyst and prays to acquit the accused Nos.1 to 7.
21)In her cross-examination, P.W.2 states that she did not obtain prior permission from her superiors for mediation, there is no any entry in official record that she acted as Gazetted Officer in the case, there is no such scribing endorsement in the said panchanama. She admitted that drawing of samples out of 30 packets is not noted in the panchanamam, there is no mention in the panchamana about the participation of the translator in the proceedings as deposed to by her, there is no mention of designation, except that of SI in the identity slips of MOs 1 to 247, the identity slips in MOs 1 to 247 are not found affixed as mentioned in the panchanama, the cash and mobiles are not in separate covers as mentioned in panchanama, there is no mention of currency numbers in the panchanama. She further admitted that panchanama does not recite that 500 rupee notes were seized, the colours of the cell phones are not mentioned in the panchanama, there is no endorsement of scribe in the Sec 50 notices (Ex.P1 to P7), the scene of offence is busy locality, the SI of police did not try to secure any local person for mediation, no photos were got taken at scene of offence in her presence and that notice was not served on her personally.
22)In his cross-examination, P.W.3 states that he has not signed on any case paper proving that he assisted Sub-Inspector of Police in the raid. He admits that he has not stated in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement before Inspector of
Police that he instructed him to assist Sub-Inspector of Police in the raid, there is no entry in the official record that he assisted Sub-Inspector of Police, in the raid. In his cross-examination P.W.4 states that he has not filed license of his shop before the Court or given to police, police did not issue any notice to him, there is no document that police called him and he witnessed the occurrence.
23) In his cross-examination P.W.6 states that he informed his SDPO,
Amalapuram through phone and got Ex.P10 by 2.15 PM, he got copy of
Ex.P10 through e-mail, he has not filed said e-mail copy nor did he mention the same anywhere in case record or in the mediatornama, there is no mention of specific details of information in my 161 cr.p.c statement or in the mediatornama, but Ex.P10 recites the number of crime cars. He admits that the panchanama does not recite about taking of photos, his 161 cr.p.c.
statement also does not recite that he informed the superiors about information got by him in the case and that Ex.P9 was not personally served to Tahsildar. Ex.P9 notice issued to Tahsildar recites that he should come to scene of offence by 2 PM. The Ex.P9 served to Tahsildar after 2 PM. He further admits Tahsildar did not participate in the raid, but Dy.Tahsildar participated, to whom he has not issued any notice and that there is no requisition given to PW2 / Dy.Tahsildar and that he did not choose local persons for the mediation. He further admits that in column no.4 of FIR it is not mentioned that basing on panchanama it was booked, FIR was registered. He also admits that in column no. 13 of FIR receipt that he himself took up further investigation and it does not recite that further investigation taken up by CI of police and that Ex.P1 to P7 notices do not recite that the accused have right to be searched before Gazetted officer and that Translator did not endorse that he translated the language of Tamil into Telugu. He further states that the
Mediatornama does not recite that PW2 informed the accused about his designation and accused have right to be searched before Gazetted officer and that the panchanama does not recite of Translator along with PW2 /
Gazetted officer, the panchanama does not recite about lifting of samples as
MOs 1 to 30 and recite that the cell phones and cash were put into different covers, the panchanama does not recite that MOs 1 to 247 were put into plastic pressing covers, there is no mention of currency numbers.
Panchanama does not recite about taking of Rs.500/- rupees (MOs 244 and
246) from the accused and that there are no signatures of the accused on identity slips of MOs 1 to 247. In his cross-examination P.W.7 admits that there are no seals on M.Os. 1 to 230, there is delay in sending samples to analyst, but there is no explanation for the delay,
25) It is the case of the prosecution that the accused were informed of their right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer and that they are said to have consented to the same. However, the accused are natives of
Tamil Nadu and know only the Tamil language. Though it is the version of the prosecution that they secured the presence of L.W.7, Padala Chandra
Sekhara Reddy, who knows both Tamil and Telugu, to act as a translator, the prosecution failed to examine L.W.7 to prove this fact. Therefore, it can be concluded that the prosecution has not placed any material on record to show that the intimation regarding search and seizure was conveyed to the accused in Tamil or through the assistance of a competent translator. In the absence of such evidence, serious doubt arises as to whether the accused were informed of their statutory right, and consequently, the compliance with the mandatory procedure is doubtful.
20) As is known to all, Hon’ble Apex Court held in a catena of decisions that the object of NDPS Act is to make stringent provisions for control and regulation of operations relating to those drugs and substances and at the same time, to avoid harm to the innocent persons and to avoid abuse of the provisions by the officers, certain safeguards are provided which in the content have to be observed strictly.
21)In the case of in 2006 (II) OLR (SC) 83, Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:
“Section 42 which is applicable and which requires the investigating officer on receipt of any information to reduce the same into writing recording his satisfaction as to the correctness and genuineness of the information received by him, and the same not having been done in this case came to the conclusion that the search and seizure was opposed to the mandatory requirement of Section 42 of the said Act, hence, allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence of the respondent imposed by the trial court.”
22.In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs.Jag Raj Singh alias Hansa reported in 2016(2) ALD (Crl.) 376 (SC), Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:
“What Section 42(2) requires is that where an officer takes down an information in writing under sub-section (1) he shall send a copy thereof to his immediate officer senior. If there is total non-compliance of this provision the same affects the prosecution case. To that extent it is mandatory. But if there is delay whether it was undue or whether the same has been explained or not, will be a question of fact in each case”.
23.In the case of Karnail Sing Vs. State of Haryana 2009 (3) SCC (CRL) 887, Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows:
“Under Section 42(2) as it stood prior to the amendment, such empowered officer who takes down any information in writing or records the grounds under the proviso to Section 42(1) should forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. If there is total non-compliance with this provision the same would adversely affect the prosecution case and to that extent it is mandatory. But if there is delay, whether it was undue or whether the same has been explained or not, will be a question of fact in each case, it is to be concluded that the mandatory enforcement of the provisions of Section 42 of the Act non- compliance with which may vitiate a trial has been restricted only to the provision of sending a copy of the information written down by the empowered officer to the immediate official superior and not to any other condition of the section.”
24)It is not the evidence of PW6 that the information that was received by him was reduced into writing and according to him, he informed the same to
SDPO, Amalapuram who issued proceedings permitting him to conduct raid.
Further the charge sheet or remand report does not reflect the compliance of
Sec.42 of NDPS Act. If at all P.W.6 complied Sec.42 of NDPS Act he would have mentioned in the charge sheet and remand report that PW4 reduced the information that was received by him into writing and sent the copy of the same to his Superior. But, the charge sheet and remand report do not disclose the compliance of Sec.42 of NDPS Act. So, absolutely there is no evidence
before the Court to show that P.W.6 received prior specific information with
regard to the illegal transportation of ganja in the case and he reduced the same in-writing and sent the copy of the same to his superiors as contemplated under Sec.42 of NDPS Act. As per the decision of Hon’ble Apex
Court cited above If there is non-compliance of Sec.42 of NDPS Act and the same affects the prosecution’s case and it vitiates the trial. So in view of the above circumstances, the prosecution miserably failed to establish proper compliance of mandatory provision of Sec.42 of NDPS Act.
25) In this case, the prosecution failed to comply the mandatory provisions of Section57 of NDPS Act. As there is no compliance of Section 57 of NDPS
Act, it creates doubt over search, seizure and arrest of the accused. There is no record that P.W.6 handed over the seized Ganja within 48 hours as mandated by Rule 5 (1) NDPS Rules 2022 and thus, there is clear violation of
Rule 5 (1) NDPS Rules 2022 by the prosecution. The investigating officer (PW7) failed to produce the documentary evidence as to from which place, the alleged offence Ganja was taken out for certification before the Magistrate.
The investigating officer violated the Rule 3 (2) of NDPS Act Rules, 2022 which is mandatory.
26)The learned defence counsel submits that the accused Nos 1 to 7 are liable to be acquitted since the investigating officer did not follow the procedure mandated under Section 52A of the N.D.P.S. Act. This objection of the accused requires serious consideration.
28) In the case of Yusuf @ Asif Vs. State decided on 13-10-2023 by Hon’ble
Apex Court of India in Criminal Appeal NO.3191 OF 2023 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3010 of 2023], it was held as follows:
“Paragraph 11. For the sake of convenience, relevant sub-sections of Section52A of the NDPS Act are reproduced herein below:
“52A. Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.-(1) (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 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 or 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 1872) or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every court trying an offence under this Act, shall treat the inventory, the photographs of [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] and any list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) and certified by the Magistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such offence.” “Paragraph NO.12. A simple reading of the aforesaid provisions, as also stated earlier, reveals that when any contraband/narcotic substance is seized and forwarded to the police or to the officer so mentioned under Section 53, the officer so referred to in sub-section (1) shall prepare its inventory with details and the description of the seized substance like quality, quantity, mode of packing, numbering and identifying marks and then make an application to any
Magistrate for the purposes of certifying its correctness and for
allowing to draw representative samples of such substances in the presence of the Magistrate and to certify the correctness of the list of samples so drawn.” “Paragraph No.13. Notwithstanding the defence set up from the side of the respondent in the instant case, no evidence has been brought on record to the effect that the procedure prescribed under sub- sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act was followed while making the seizure and drawing sample such as preparing the inventory and getting it certified by the Magistrate. No evidence has also been brought on record that the samples were drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and the list of the samples so drawn were certified by the Magistrate. The mere fact that the samples were drawn in the presence of a gazetted officer is not sufficient compliance of the mandate of subsection (2) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.” “Paragraph No.14. It is an admitted position on record that the samples from the seized substance were drawn by the police in the presence of the gazetted officer and not in the presence of the
Magistrate. There is no material on record to prove that the
Magistrate had certified the inventory of the substance seized or of
the list of samples so drawn.” “Paragraph No.15. In Mohanlal’s case, the apex court while dealing with Section 52A of the NDPS Act clearly laid down that it is manifest from the said provision that upon seizure of the contraband, it has to be forwarded either to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 who is obliged to prepare an inventory of the seized contraband and then to make an application to the Magistrate for the purposes of getting its correctness certified. It has been further laid down that the samples drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and the list thereof on being certified alone 3 Union of India vs Mohanlal and Anr(2016) 3 SCC 379 would constitute primary evidence for the purposes of the trial.” “Paragraph No.16. In the absence of any material on record to establish that the samples of the seized contraband were drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and that the inventory of the seized contraband was duly certified by the Magistrate, it is apparent that the said seized contraband and the samples drawn therefrom would not be a valid piece of primary evidence in the trial. Once there is no primary evidence available, the trial as a whole stands vitiated.” “Paragraph No.17. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the failure of the concerned authorities to lead primary evidence vitiates the conviction and as such in our opinion, the conviction of the appellant deserves to be set aside. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court as well as the trial court convicting the appellant and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment of one year is hereby set aside.”
27)The principles laid down in the above noted decisions squarely apply to the facts of the case at hand. In this case also, admittedly, the samples were not drawn before Magistrate by the Investigating Officer. So, this court has no other option except to acquit the accused No.3 for the charged offence.
28) Seal Movement Register is not filed in this court. As there is no physical evidence as to using of the official seal at the alleged preparation time of Panchanama, adverse inference is to be drawn against the case of prosecution as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court the case of Noor Aga v. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 16 SCC 417(at page No. 30 of the judgment).
29)By virtue of my discussion supra, l hold on point No.1 that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the Accused Nos.1 to 7 for the offence under section 20 (b)(ii)(C) r/w 8(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act beyond all reasonable doubt.
30)Point No.2:- In the result, the accused Nos.1 to 7 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) r/w 8(c) of Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and consequently, the Accused
Nos. 1 to 7 are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence under
Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) r/w 8(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985. The bail bonds of Accused Nos.1 to 7 and their sureties shall remain in force for six months as per section 437A Cr.P.C. As A-8 to A-11 are absconding and another charge-sheet has to be filed, there is no order as to the disposal of the case property.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court on this 17th day of February, 2026.
Special Judge for trial of offences under
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-cum- I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram.
FORM -C
[Rule 67 (3) of Criminal Rules of Practice] List of prosecution/defence/court witnesses A. Prosecution: RankNameNature of evidence
PW1 P.Ravi Shankar Panch witness VRO, Ravulapalem PW2D.BharathiGazetted Officer, to speak Dy.Tahsildar o Ravulapalemabout search and seizure conducted in his presence. PW3K.V.S.SatyanarayanaTo speak about his participation Addl. Sub-Inspector of Police in the raid Kothaeta PW4 Rowthu PrasadTo speak about witnessing search and seizure PW5: Varikuti RamuTo speak about witnessing search and seizure PW6: Md.NasirullaTo speak about his conducting Sub-Inspector of Policeraid, search, seizure, arrest Ravulapalemand registration of crime PW7: V.KrishnaInvestigating officer. Inspector of Police
For Defence: None
B. Defence Witnesses, if any:
RankNameNature of evidence Nil. C. Court witnesses, if any:
RankNameNature of evidence Nil.
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS [Rule 67 (3) ] A. Prosecution :
Sl.No.Exhibit No.Description
1.Ex.P1 Notice under Sec.50 of NDPS Act given to A1
2.Ex.P2Notice under Sec.50 of NDPS Act given to A2
3.Ex.P3Notice under Sec.50 of NDPS Act given to A3
4.Ex.P4Notice under Sec.50 of NDPS Act given to A4
5.Ex.P5Notice under Sec.50 of NDPS Act given to A5
6.Ex.P6Notice under Sec.50 of NDPS Act given to A6
7.Ex.P7 Notice under Sec.50 of NDPS Act given to A7
8.Ex.P8Mediators report
9.Ex.P9 Notice given to Gazetted Officer
10.Ex.P10 Search warrant issued by Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Amalapuram 17-7-2019
11.Ex.P11Photos
12.Ex.P12 FIR in Cr.No.221/2019 of Ravulapalem
PS.
13.Ex.P13Rough sketch
14.Ex.P14Letter of advise along with covering letter
15.Ex.P15Chemical Examiner’s report
2. Defence :
Sr.No. RankDescription
NIL
3. Court Exhibits : Sr.No. RankDescription
NIL
Material Objects
M.O.s 1 to 30 : 30 Sample packets of Ganja M.O.s 31 to 230 : 200 sample packets of Ganja
M.O.231: Cash of Rs.20,000/-
M.O.232:Vivo smart cell phone
M.O.233:Lava Key board cell phone
M.O.234: Cash of Rs.4,300/-
M.O.235: Smart cell phone Oppo
M.O.236: Key pad Dyos cell phone (Samsung)
M.O.237:Cash of Rs.1300/-
M.O.238:Samsung smart phone
M.O.239:Cash of Rs.3,800/-
M.O.240:Vivo smart phone
M.O.241:Cash of Rs.4,600/-
M.O.242:Vivo smart phone
M.O.243:Oppo smart phone
M.O.244:Cash of Rs.2000/-
M.O.245:Vivo smart phone
M.O.246:Cash of Rs.2000/-
M.O.247:Lava key pad phone
Special Judge for trial of offences under the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-cum- I Addl. Dist. &
Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram.
C A L E N D A R
BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT, DESIGNATED FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES
UNDER THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT,
1985-cum- I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, EAST GODAVARI AT
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.
Present: Sri.Rayasam Siva Kumar
Special Judge, under Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act-cum- I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram.
Friday, the 20th day of March, 2026.
[NDPS] SESSIONS CASE No. 62 of 2019
Complainant:State:-Inspector of Police, Ravulapalem Circle : Names and Description of AccusedA-1) Ponnayya Kumar, S/o.Ponnayya, Age 31 years, C/Devar, D.No.28, Valluri Colony, Kanuvalnayakan patty, Theni Dist., Tamil Nadu State.
A-2) Krishnan Suresh, S/o.Krishnan Suresh, Age 35 years, C/Devar, Singarajupram, Theni District, Tamil Nadu State.
A-3) Ayyangalai Ram Kumar, S/o.Ayyangalai, Age 32 years, C/Devar, Vasavi Colony, Kanuvalnayakan patty, Theni Dist., Tamil Nadu State.
A-4) Rajendran Surendran, S/o.Rajendran, Age 26 years, C/Devar, First Street, Valluri Colony, Kanuvalnayakan patty, Theni Dist., Tamil Nadu State.
A-5) Andavar Dinesh Kumar, S/o.Andavar, Age 24 years, C/Devar, Pallivadaithar, Umekoundanpatti, Theni District, Tamil Nadu State.
A-6) Murugan Ajith, S/o.Murgan, Age 23 years, C/Devar, Kali Amma temple, Singarajapuram, Theni District,Tamil Nadu State.
A-7) Nallapillai Kotasamy, S/o.Nallapillai, Age 36 years, C/Devar, Veerasikkampatti, Dindigal District, Tamil Nadu State.
A-8) Chella Dorai, Paderu
A-9) Ayyar, Paderu
A-10) Prasanth @ Bujjibabu, Paderu,
A-11) Dharman of Tamil Nadu State. (This Case is against A-1 to A-7 and separate charge sheet will be filed against A-8 to A-11) Nature of Charges:U/s. 8{c} r/w. Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (herein after referred to as “NDPS Act”) Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty. Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty. Date of Offence:17.07.2019 Date of complaint:17.07.2019 Date of apprehension:17.07.2019 Date of commencement of trial:26-06-2025 Date of closure of trial:17-3-2026 Date of sentence or order:20-3-2026
Sentence or order :
The accused Nos.1 to 7 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) r/w 8(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and consequently, the Accused Nos. 1 to 7 are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 20 (b)(ii)(C) r/w 8(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The bail bonds of Accused Nos.1 to 7 and their sureties shall remain in force for six months as per section 437A Cr.P.C. As A-8 to A-11 are absconding and another charge-sheet has to be filed, there is no order as to the disposal of the case property.
Explanation for delay :
On appearance of accused in this case, charges framed on 15.12.2023. The prosecution’s evidence commenced on 26.06.2025 and concluded by 2.07.2025. Accused were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C., on 15.12.2025 and posted for consideration U/s.232 Cr.P.C., to 23.12.2025. Arguments of both sides concluded by 17.03.2026 and posted the matter to 20.03.2026 for Judgment. On 20.03.2026 Judgment pronounced.
Special Judge for trial of offences under the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-cum- I Addl. Dist. &
Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram.
Copy submitted to :
The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,) Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District-522237.
Copies to :
1.The Director of Prosecutions, Vijayawada.
2. The District Collector, Rajamahendravaram.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Rajamahendravaram.