Smt Suneetha Kunchala

1 NDPS.SC.65 OF 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

Present: Smt. Suneetha Kunchala, I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

THURSDAY, THE 11th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

NDPS.SC.No.65 OF 2021

C.O.R. No.131/2020

Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, S.H.O. Narayankhed.

Description of the accusedNavin Nandlal Zangade S/o. Nandlal Zangade, Age: 31 yrs, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Labour, R/o. Gokulnagar, Post. Shivaji Nagar, Nanded Mandal and District, Maharastra State.

ChargeU/S. 8(c) R/w. 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, 1985.

Plea of accusedNot guilty

Finding of the JudgeFound guilty

Sentence or orderIn result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) R/w. 20(b)(ii)(a) of NDPS Act, 1985 and accordingly he is convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. for the said offence and the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period ofSIX MONTHS for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) R/w. 20(b)(ii)(a) of NDPS Act, 1985.

The remand period undergone by the accused from 16-12-2020 to till date shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The M.O.1, M.O.2 shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal period.

2 NDPS.SC.65 OF 2021

The accused is appraised about his right to prefer an appeal before the

Hon'ble High Court and he is further

informed that he will be provided legal-aid counsel, if required. Free copy of Judgment is supplied to him.

Prosecution conducted bySmt. P. Manjula Devi, Addl. Public Prosecutor

Accused defended bySri. C. Vittal Reddy, Legal Aid Counsel.

This case came up before me for final hearing on 08.11.2021 in the presence of Sri. C. Vittal Reddy, Legal Aid

Counsel for accused and Smt. P. Manjula Devi, Addl. Public

Prosecutor for the State; having perused the material on record; having heard both the parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Prohibition & Excise Inspector, S.H.O. Narayankhed laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 8(c) R/w. 20(b)(ii)(c) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substance Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”) in C.O.R. No. 131/2020 with the following averments.

2.That on 16-12-2020 on reliable information about illegal possession and transportation of dry ganja PW2, PW4 after obtaining permission from concerned authority, secured the presence of mediators PW1, PW3 conducted route watch at Polytechnic College,

Main Road, Narayankhed, at about 11:00 AM they found accused moving in suspicious manner and on seeing them he tried to ran way 3 NDPS.SC.65 OF 2021 but they apprehended him, PW2 recorded search memo and served the same on him, on search they found 2 Kgs of dry ganja from his possession, on demand the accused failed to produce any valid license or permit, PW2 drawn two samples of dry ganja 50 grams each and seized the same under cover of panchanama in the presence of above said mediators. Basing on which PW2 registered a case in C.O.R. No. 131/2020 for the offence under Section 8(c)

R/w. 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation PW2 affected the arrest of accused and produced him before the court for judicial remand along with letter of advice to send one of the sample for analysis, the Govt.

Chemical Examiner who analyzed the sample opined that the sample is ganja, after completion of entire investigation PW4 Prohibition &

Excise Inspector, S.H.O. Narayankhed filed the charge sheet. Hence the charge.

3.That on filing of the charge sheet this court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) R/w. 20(b)(ii)(a) of NDPS

Act, 1985 the copies of the case documents were furnished to accused thereby complied Section 207 of Cr.P.C., a charge for the offence under Section 8(c) R/w. 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 was framed, read over and explained to him but he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.The prosecution in order to prove the case examined P.W.1 to

P.W.4, marked Ex.P1 to P11, exhibited M.O.1, M.O.2.

4 NDPS.SC.65 OF 2021

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses but he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides, gone through the entire record of evidence, in view of rival contentions now the point that arises for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the ingredients

for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) R/w. 20(b)(ii)

(a) of NDPS Act, 1985, against the accused or not?

7. POINT:-

The prosecution in order to prove the framed charge examined

PW1 to PW4, marked Ex. P1 to P11, exhibited M.O.1, M.O.2 but except the official witness evidence there is nothing on the record,

PW1, PW3 are the panch witnesses for the search and seizure of the contraband, PW2, PW4 are the excise officials.

8. PW2, PW3 are the panch witness for the search and seizure of the contraband but they did not support the prosecution case as they did not speak anything about conducting panchanama, preparing panchanama and seizure of contraband in their presence. Therefore, their evidence cannot be considered in support of the prosecution case as they turned hostile.

9.Coming to the evidence of PW4 who is the Inspector of Police and the investigating officer of this case, his evidence goes to show that on 16-12-2020 at around 10:45 AM he received information with 5 NDPS.SC.65 OF 2021 regard to the accused carrying ganja at Julkal Road and on that he informed the same to his superior officer over phone and obtained oral permission to conduct raid and subsequently they gave written information/Ex.P9 to the superior authority and proceeded to the spot along with PW2 and other constables, secured the presence of PW1 and PW3 near Mangalpet Bus stand and on reaching the spot they noticed the accused in suspicious condition and the accused tried to escape from there on seeing them but they caught hold the accused and found one white colour cover in his hand and on opening the said cover he found some leaves and fruiting tops and identified it as ganja by smelling it and on that he appraised the accused about his right of being searched by a Gazetted officer and the accused accepted for being searched by him and he also issued search memo/Ex.P10 to the accused. He further, deposed that on enquiry with the accused he informed that the ganja weighs around 2 Kgs and he has drawn 2 samples weighing 50 grams each from the seized ganja, sealed them pasted panch slips with their signatures, prepared confession cum seizure panchanama/Ex.P4 in the presence of PW1 and PW3 and obtained the signatures of PW1,

PW3 and the accused on it, seized the remaining ganja/MO1, sample packet/MO2, PW2 who is the complainant affected the arrest of the accused and who issued COR/Ex.P5 in Cr. No. 131/2020 and produced the accused for judicial custody and further the sample was sent for chemical examination through court and after receiving the

C.E report/Ex.P11 which shows that the seized property was ganja, 6 NDPS.SC.65 OF 2021 he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) R/w. 20(b)(ii)(a) of NDPS Act, 1985.

10.The evidence of PW2 is also on the same lines as that of PW4.

Nothing important was elicited from the cross examination of PW2 and PW4 to disbelieve their evidence. Even though PW1 and PW3 who are the panch witnesses turned hostile, they admitted their signatures on panchanama and sample packet which shows that confession cum seizure panchanama was conducted in their presence. Therefore, PW1 and PW3 turning hostile will not vitiate the evidence of PW2 and PW4. However, the evidence of PW2 and PW4 goes to show that they did not weigh the seized the ganja and the weight of ganja was mentioned as 2 Kgs approximately basing on the information given by the accused. It is the duty of the investigating officer to weigh the seized ganja and to give the exact weight of the seized ganja. In the case on hand, weighing of ganja was not done by the investigating officer. Therefore, it cannot be said that 2 Kgs of ganja was seized from the possession of the accused. However, it is established from the evidence of PW2 and PW4 coupled with Ex.

P4,P5, P9 to P11 and MO1 and MO2 that the accused was found in possession of ganja without any valid license for holding it.

Therefore, this court is of considered opinion the weight of ganja has to be treated as small quantity.

7 NDPS.SC.65 OF 2021

11.In view of the above discussion this court is of considered opinion that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) R/w. 20(b)(ii)(a) of NDPS Act, 1985.

12.In result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) R/w. 20(b)(ii)(a) of NDPS Act, 1985 and accordingly he is convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. for the said offence.

Typed to my Dictation by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of

November, 2021.

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

13.The accused is heard with regard to the quantum of sentence.

His plea is recorded wherein he stated that he is having old aged parents and there is no one to look after them and he has not committed anything and pleaded mercy of the court. After hearing the accused and his learned legal aid counsel, this court is of the considered opinion that a lenient view can be taken against the accused by taking into consideration his submissions as well as his social strata.

8 NDPS.SC.65 OF 2021

14. Therefore, the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for SIX MONTHS for the offence punishable under

Section 8(c) R/w. 20(b)(ii)(a) of NDPS Act, 1985.

15.The remand period undergone by the accused from 16-12-2020 to till date shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The M.O.1,

M.O.2 shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal period.

16. The accused is appraised about his right to prefer an appeal

before the Hon'ble High Court and he is further informed that he will

be provided legal-aid counsel, if required. Free copy of Judgment is supplied to him.

Typed to my Dictation by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of

November, 2021.

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 G. Krishna GoudNIL PW2 P. Surender Benarji PW3 U. Kishan PW4 N. Mahesh

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 Signature of PW1 on panchanama NIL Ex.P2 Signature of PW1 on ganja packet 9 NDPS.SC.65 OF 2021

Ex.P3 Signature of PW1 on sample packet Ex.P4 Confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P5 C.O.R Ex.P6 Signature of PW3 on Panchanama Ex.P7 Signature of PW3 on ganja packet Ex.P8 Signature of PW3 on sample packet Ex.P9 Written information to Superior Authority Ex.P10 Search Memo Ex.P11 C.E. Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 Contraband M.O.2 Sample Packet

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

10 NDPS. S.C.NO.65 OF 2021

1 NDPS.SC.102 OF 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

Present: Smt. Suneetha Kunchala, I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

THURSDAY, THE 11th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

NDPS.SC.No.102 OF 2016

C.O.R. No.35/2016

Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, S.H.O. Zaheerabad.

Description of the accusedAnjaiah Goud S/o. Narayana Goud, Age: 29 yrs, Caste: Goud, Occ: Toddy Seller, R/o. Kothur “B” village, Zaheerabad Mandal, Sangareddy District,

ChargeU/S. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and Section 8(c) R/w. 22 of NDPS Act, 1985.

Plea of accusedNot guilty

Finding of the JudgeNot guilty

Sentence or orderIn result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and Section 8(c) R/w. 22 of NDPS Act, 1985 and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

Prosecution conducted bySmt. P. Manjula Devi, Addl. Public Prosecutor

Accused defended bySri. A.M. Janardhan Goud, Advocate.

This case came up before me for final hearing on 08.11.2021 in the presence of Sri. A.M. Janardhan Goud, Advocate

for accused and Smt. P. Manjula Devi, Addl. Public Prosecutor for

the State; having perused the material on record; having heard both the parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following:- 2 NDPS.SC.102 OF 2016

J U D G M E N T

The Prohibition & Excise Inspector, S.H.O. Zaheerabad laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and Section 8(c) R/w. 22 of

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”) in C.O.R. No. 35/2016 with the following averments.

2.That on 28-01-2016 at about 07:50 PM on reliable information about illegal possession and sale of toddy, PW2, PW3 conducted raid in front of the accused house at Kothur “B” village, Zaheerabad

Mandal, secured the presence of two mediators LW1/G. Shiva

Kumar, PW1, on seeing them the accused tried to escape but they apprehended him, on search of the premises they detected (40.6)

Liters of toddy, on enquiry they came to know that accused was selling toddy without having any valid license or permit, thereafter

PW3 drawn two samples each (400) ml and destroyed the remaining toddy on the spot under the cover of panchanama in the presence of above said mediators, PW2 handed over the case papers, seized samples to PW3 for further investigation, basing on which PW3 registered a case in C.O.R. No. 35/2016 for the offence under

Section 34(a) of A.P Excise Act, 1968 and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation on 01-02-2016 he produced the

before the court for judicial remand and deposited the case property

before the court along with letter of advise to send one of the sample

for analysis, the Govt. Chemical Examiner after analyzing the 3 NDPS.SC.102 OF 2016 samples issued report opining that the sample is fermented toddy adulterated with Alprazolam as such LW6/B. Sailu Prohibition &

Excise Inspector, Zaheerabad after completion of the entire investigation filed the charge sheet. Hence the charge.

3.That on filing of the charge sheet this court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and Section 8(c) R/w. 22 of NDPS Act, 1985 the copies of the case documents were furnished to accused thereby complied Section 207 of Cr.P.C., a charge for the offence under Section Section 34(a) of

A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and Section 8(c) R/w. 22 of NDPS Act, 1985, was framed, read over and explained to him but he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.The prosecution in order to prove the case examined P.W.1 to

P.W.3, marked Ex.P1 to P5, exhibited M.O.1.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses but he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides, gone through the entire record of evidence, in view of rival contentions now the point that arises for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the ingredients

for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act, 1968 and Section 8(c) R/w. 22 of NDPS Act, 1985,

against the accused or not?

4 NDPS.SC.102 OF 2016

7. POINT:-

The prosecution in order to prove the framed charge examined

PW1 to PW3, marked Ex. P1 to P5 and exhibited MO1 but except the official witness evidence there is nothing on the record, PW1 is the panch witnesses for the search and seizure of the toddy, PW2, PW3 are the excise officials.

8.PW1 is the panch witness for the search and seizure of the toddy but he did not support the prosecution case as he did not speak anything about conducting panchanama, preparing panchanama and seizure of toddy in his presence. Therefore, his evidence cannot be considered in support of the prosecution case as he turned hostile.

9.Coming to the evidence of PW2 and PW3, PW2 admitted that he did not approached any official of the village to know the owner of the scene of offence, he did not took the photograph of the scene of offence, he did not collected any ownership certificate of the house, he did not mention the colour of the crates, he did not examine the person who informed about the identity particulars of the person who fled away and he did not mention the descriptive particulars of the person who run away. Likewise PW3 admitted that they have not found and ascertain any Village Officer to know the house and its owner, they have not examined any neighbors of the house, they have not cited or examined any persons who stated that the accused is the owner of the house. The investigating officer ought to have 5 NDPS.SC.102 OF 2016 examined any other witnesses but admittedly no proof of ownership of the place of offence is collected and there is no evidence that the accused selling the toddy. He did not examined any neighbors or the customers of the shop to say that the accused was conducting illegal toddy business, he also did not enquired about the owner of the shop and even being the investigating officer he has not followed any formalities. They have not issued any search memo on the accused

before search and collected any ownership particulars of the house

to say that the accused conducting toddy business in his house and they have not even examined any neighbors of the house nor the customers who consume toddy. The search and seizure was conducted on 28-01-2016 but the case property was deposited

before the court on 29-02-2016 and he has not explained the reasons

for causing such delay in depositing the case property before the court That as per PW2, PW3 they have credible information about selling of toddy but there is no evidence that such information reduced into writing and there is also no evidence of sending such information to higher officials, which is in clear violation of Section 42 of NDPS Act. Further the investigating officer sent the samples to lab with a delay of more than one month so the accuaracy of the report cannot be trusted as the toddy will be fermented very quickly and it is a easily perishable goods. These contradictions in the evidence of

PW3 are material and are going to the root cause of the offence.

Therefore, this court is of considered opinion that PW3 failed to comply the mandatory provisions provided under NDPS Act and a 6 NDPS.SC.102 OF 2016 benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused and he is entitled for acquittal.

10.In result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and Section 8(c) R/w. 22 of NDPS Act, 1985 and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands canceled after expiry of six months. The M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time is over.

Typed to my Dictation by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of

November, 2021.

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 T. Raja Goud NIL PW2 S.M. Shuttari PW3 Subash Chander Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 Signature of PW1 on panchanama NIL Ex.P2 Panchanama Ex.P3 C.O.R Ex.P4 C.E. Report Ex.P5 Alteration Memo

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 Sample Bottle

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

7 NDPS. S.C.NO.102 OF 2016

1 NDPS.SC.44 OF 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

Present: Smt. Suneetha Kunchala, I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

FRIDAY, THE 12th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

NDPS.SC.No.44 OF 2018

C.O.R. No. 231/2009-2010

Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, S.H.O. Narayankhed.

Description of the accusedHemla S/o. Lachiram, Age: 75 yrs, Caste: ST, Occ: Agriculture/Pattadar/Cultivator, R/o. Gangaram Thanda, Karasgutti G.P. Manoor Mandal Now Naagalgidda Mandal

ChargeU/S. 8(b) R/w. 20(a)(i) of NDPS Act, 1985.

Plea of accusedNot guilty

Finding of the JudgeNot guilty

Sentence or orderIn result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section Section 8(b) R/w. 20(a)(i) of NDPS Act, 1985 and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

Prosecution conducted bySmt. P. Manjula Devi, Addl. Public Prosecutor

Accused defended bySri. G. Santhosh Kumar, Advocate.

This case came up before me for final hearing on 09.11.2021 in the presence of Sri. G. Santhosh Kumar, Advocate

for accused and Smt. P. Manjula Devi, Addl. Public Prosecutor for

the State; having perused the material on record; having heard both the parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following:- 2 NDPS.SC.44 OF 2018

J U D G M E N T

The Prohibition & Excise Inspector, S.H.O. Narayankhed laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 8(b) R/w. Section 20(a)(i) of The Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”) in C.O.R.

No. 231/2009-2010 with the following averments.

2.That on 07-10-2009 on reliable information about illegal cultivation of ganja plants in the agriculture land of accused in Sy. No.

4/22A, situated in the sivar of Karasgutti village, Manoor Mandal

LW3/Syed Zaianuddin, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, PW3 along with staff secured the presence of two mediators PW1, PW2 and conducted raid on the agriculture land of accused, at about 02:15 PM they found the ganja plants are cultivated in the land but no one was present in the land, on enquiry with the local people they came to know that the accused is the pattadar and possessor of the land and he is cultivating the ganja plants in the agriculture field, they verified the revenue records and issued pahani which shows that one

Bansala Bai is the pattadar and possessor, on search of the land they found (13,443) ganja plants each at about 3 to 4 feet of height, they drawn two samples (100) grams each under the cover of panchanama in the presence of above said mediators. Basing on which PW3 registered a case in C.O.R. No. 231/2009-10 for the offence under Section 8(b) R/w. 20(a)(i) of NDPS Act. 1985 and took up the investigation, he deposited the case property before the court 3 NDPS.SC.44 OF 2018 along with letter of advice to send one of the sample for analysis, the

Govt. Chemical Examiner who analyzed the sample opined that the sample is ganja. During the course of investigation he apprehended the accused and produced him before the court for judicial custody.

On 21-04-2013 Smt. Dasanla Bai who is the pattadar and possessor of the land was died as such the case against her is abated. As such after completion of entire investigation PW4 filed the charge sheet.

Hence the charge.

3.That on filing of the charge sheet this court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 8(b) R/w. 20(a)(i) of NDPS Act, 1985 the copies of the case documents were furnished to accused thereby complied Section 207 of Cr.P.C., a charge for the offence under Section 8(b) R/w. 20(a)(i) of NDPS Act, 1985 was framed, read over and explained to him but he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.The prosecution in order to prove the case examined P.W.1 to

P.W.4, marked Ex.P1 to P6, exhibited M.O.1.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses but he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

4 NDPS.SC.44 OF 2018

6.Heard both sides, gone through the entire record of evidence, in view of rival contentions now the point that arises for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the ingredients

for the offence punishable under Section 8(b) R/w. 20(a)(i)

of NDPS Act, 1985 against the accused or not?

7. POINT:-

The prosecution in order to prove the framed charge examined

PW1 to PW4, marked Ex. P1 to P6, exhibited M.O.1 but except the official witness evidence there is nothing on the record, PW1, PW2 are the panch witnesses for the search and seizure of the ganja plants, PW3, PW4 are the excise officials.

8. PW1, PW2 are the panch witness for the search and seizure of the contraband but they did not support the prosecution case as they did not speak anything about conducting panchanama, preparing panchanama and seizure of contraband in their presence. Therefore, their evidence cannot be considered in support of the prosecution case as they turned hostile.

9.Coming to the evidence of PW3 and PW4, PW3 admitted that they have not reduced the information into writing and not sent any written intimation to their superior officers which is a clear violation of mandatory provision under NDPS Act. He does not remember the time of receiving information and conducting of panchanama, the land stands in the name of one Dasara Bai, he have not issued any written requisition for giving pahanai and accused name was not 5 NDPS.SC.44 OF 2018 found in the pahani, he have not mentioned in the panchanama that they have taken (35) persons, they have not examined the neighbors of the land, they have not mentioned in the pahani on which part of land in Ac. 1-05 gts the ganja plants are existing, they have not measured the height of plants, they have not drawn any rough sketch. There is no evidence that the accused was cultivating the ganja plants other than panchanama. They have filed pahani which is in the name of one Dasanla Bai but not the accused. Pahani itself is not sufficient to prove that the accused was cultivating the land. No photos are obtained to show that the ganja was in the said land and they uprooted the same in the presence of panch witnesses. They did not examined any neighbors of the land to say that the accused was cultivating ganja plants. Moreover he did not obtained any photographs of the scene of offence or the ganja plants, there is no proof that the accused alone is cultivating the land and except pahani they have not filed any other document to show that the accused alone was cultivating the said fields. That as per P.W.3 they have credible information about cultivating of ganja but there is no evidence that such information reduced into writing and there is also no evidence of sending such information to higher officials, which is in clear violation of Section 42 of NDPS Act. The search and seizure was conducted on 07-10-2009 but the case property was deposited

before the court on 29-01-2011 and he has not explained the reasons

for causing such delay in depositing the case property before the court and accused was not apprehended on the spot. These 6 NDPS.SC.44 OF 2018 contradictions in the evidence of PW3 and PW4 are material and are going to the root cause of the offence. Therefore, this court is of considered opinion that PW4 failed to comply the mandatory provisions provided under NDPS Act and a benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused and he is entitled for acquittal.

10.In result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8(b) R/w. 20(a)(i) of NDPS Act, 1985 and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands canceled after expiry of six months. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time is over.

Typed to my Dictation by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of

November, 2021.

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 Shaik MoinuddinNIL PW2 P. Raja Ram PW3 T. Srinivas Reddy PW4 G. Prabhakar

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 Signature of PW2 on panchanama NIL Ex.P2 Signature of PW2 on sample Ex.P3 Pahani Ex.P4 Panchanama 7 NDPS.SC.44 OF 2018

Ex.P5 C.O.R Ex.P6 C.E. Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 Sample

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

8 NDPS. S.C.NO.44 OF 2018

1 NDPS.SC.82 OF 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

Present: Smt. Suneetha Kunchala, I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

FRIDAY, THE 12th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

NDPS.SC.No.82 OF 2016

C.O.R. No.818/2014-15

Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, S.H.O. Zaheerabad.

Description of the accusedRathod Manik S/o. Limboo, Age: 35 Yrs, Caste: Lambadi, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 1-90, Raipally Thanda, Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak District.

ChargeU/S. 8(c) R/w. 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, 1985.

Plea of accusedNot guilty

Finding of the JudgeNot guilty

Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) R/w. 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

Prosecution conducted bySmt. P. Manjula Devi, Addl. Public Prosecutor

Accused defended bySri. A.M. Janardhan Goud, Advocate

This case came up before me for final hearing on 08.11.2021 in the presence of Sri. A.M. Janardhan Goud, Advocate

for Accused and Smt. P. Manjula Devi, Addl. Public Prosecutor for

the State; having perused the material on record; having heard both the parties and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:- 2 NDPS.SC.82 OF 2016

J U D G M E N T

The Prohibition & Excise Inspector, S.H.O. Zaheerabad laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 8(c) R/w. 20(b)(ii)(c) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substance Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act”) in C.O.R. No. 818/2014- 15 with the following averments.

2.That on 03-03-2015 at about 02:30 PM, on reliable information about illegal possession and sell of ganja in the house of accused at

Raipally Thanda, Zaheerabad PW3, PW4 after obtaining permission from concerned authority, secured the presence of two mediators

PW1, PW2 rushed to the spot but on seeing them the accused escaped from them, then they issued search memo, pasted the same on the main door, entered into the house with Gazetted officer and verified the premises of the house and found (2) Kgs of dry ganja in the first room, PW3 drawn two samples each (50) grams and seized the remaining ganja under the cover of panchanama in the presence of above said mediators. Basing on which PW4 registered a case in

C.O.R No. 818/2014-15 for the offence punishable under Section 8(c)

R/w. 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 and took up the investigation, during the course of investigation he deposited the case property

before the court with a request to send one of the sample for

chemical analysis, the Govt. Chemical Examiner who analyzed the sample opined that the sample is ganja, as such after completion of entire investigation PW4 Prohibition & Excise Inspector, S.H.O.

Zaheerabad filed the charge sheet. Hence the charge.

3 NDPS.SC.82 OF 2016

3.That on filing of the charge sheet this court took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) R/w. 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS

Act, 1985, the copies of the case documents were furnished to the accused thereby complied Section 207 of Cr.P.C., a charge for the offence under Section 8(c) R/w. 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, 1985, was framed, read over and explained in Telugu to the accused but he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.The prosecution in order to prove the case examined P.W.1 to

P.W.4, marked Ex.P1 to P10, exhibited M.O.1, M.O.2.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses but he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard both sides, gone through the entire record of evidence, in view of rival contentions now the point that arises for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the ingredients

for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) R/w. 20(b)(ii)

(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 against the accused or not?

7. POINT:-

The prosecution examined PW1 to PW4, marked Ex. P1 to

P10 and exhibited MO1, MO2. PW1 and PW2 are the panch 4 NDPS.SC.82 OF 2016 witnesses for the search and seizure of ganja, PW3 and PW4 are the investigating officers. But the only independent mediators examined by the prosecution PW1 and PW2 are turned hostile not chosen to support the prosecution case.

8.PW1, PW2 are the panch witnesses for the search and seizure of the contraband but both of them did not support the prosecution case as they did not speak anything about conducting panchanama, preparing panchanama and seizure of contraband in their presence.

Therefore, their evidence cannot be considered in support of the prosecution case as they turned hostile.

9.Coming to the evidence of PW3 and PW4, PW3 admitted that he received the information prior to 2 days when they were at

Zaheerabad, they cross checked the information for that two days, the have not found and ascertain any village officer to know the house and its owner, they have not collected any ownership particulars of the house, nobody was present in that house, they have not examined any neighbors of the house, they have not cited or examined any persons who stated that the accused is the owner of the house, they weighed the contraband in the shop but he cannot say the shop name and not taken any receipt, after panchanama they have not given any information to their superiors. There is no evidence that the accused was selling the ganja other than panchanama. They did not examined nor cited any neighbors of the house to say that the house belongs to the accused and he is selling 5 NDPS.SC.82 OF 2016 ganja, they have not collected any ownership particulars of the house. They have not filed any document to show that the house belongs to the accused. The search and seizure was conducted on 03-03-2015 but the case property was deposited before the court on 13-08-2015 and he has not explained the reasons for causing such delay in depositing the case property before the court and accused was not apprehended on the spot. These contradictions in the evidence of PW3 and PW4 are material and are going to the root cause of the offence. Therefore, this court is of considered opinion that PW4 failed to comply the mandatory provisions provided under

NDPS Act and a benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused and he is entitled for acquittal.

10.In result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) R/w. 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands canceled after expiry of six months. The M.O.1, M.O.2 and if any other unmarked properties shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of

November, 2021.

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

6 NDPS.SC.82 OF 2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 Chavan Vasu RamNIL PW2 Chavan Tukaram PW3 A. Subash Chander Rao PW4 B. Sailu

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 Signature on search memo by PW1NIL Ex.P2 Signature on panchanama by PW1 Ex.P3 Signature on search memo by PW2 Ex.P4 Signature on panchanama by PW2 Ex.P5 Search Memo Ex.P6 Panchanama Ex.P7 Intimation given to higher officials Ex.P8 written permission Ex.P9 COR Ex.P10 C.E Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 Sample M.O.2 Contraband

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

7 NDPS. S.C.NO.82 OF 2016

TSME000006412018

Presented on : 04-06-2018 Registered on : 07-06-2018 Decided on : 17-11-2021 Duration : 3 years, 5 months, 13 days

IN THE COURT OF

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy

MVOP/193/2018

Exhibit No.:

: Padlam Padma Age: 47 Occupation : Address: Hno 7-55,Muchkur Village, of Bheemgal Mandal,Nizambad district

VERSUS : Ramesh kumar Age: 31 Occupation : Address: VPO KHERI Raiwali, Kaitanal Dist, Kaithal , Haryana 136027.

2:Rajender Kumar Age: 0 Occupation :

3:Cholamandalam M S General Insurance company Age: 0 Occupation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for :

Advocate for : appearing for Ramesh kumar: Advocate , appearing for 2, 3 respectively.

ORDER

Claimant and Respondent No 2 are present. learned counsels on both sides are also present,.. Due to the adviice by the members of the Lok adalat bench and the learned counsel on either side, both the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and entered into compromise. As per the terms of compromise, between the parties Respondent No 2 has offered to pay an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs Only) to be deposited within 60 days and in default to deposit along with interest @ 7.5 p.a and the claimant is agreed to receive the same towards full and final settlement of her claim. Both the parties have reported that the said compromise is voluntary and without any force, satisfied that the compromise between the parties is voluntary. Hence award is passes accordingly in terms of compromise (vide separate on)

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy