1
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE UNDER NARCOTIC DRUGS AND
PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT -CUM-I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI :: ELURU
Present: SMT. INDIRA PRIYADARSHINI UNDRU I Addl. District & Sessions Judge West Godavari, Eluru
Tuesday, this the 19th day of May, 2026
NDPS. S.C No.11 of 2021
(Cr.No.211/2020 of Palakol Town Police Station).
Nameofthe: The State Represented by the Station House Officer, complainantPalakol Town Police Station.
Name of the Accused:1. Pothuraju Seshu, S/o. Late Nooka Raju, and particularsAge 25 years, Vinayaka Temple, Benna Gopalapatnam,RoluguntaMandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Sankina Ganesh, S/o. Ramana, Age 22 years,NearWaterTank,Benna Gopalapatnam village, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Muruganti Eswara Rao, S/o. Nooka Raju, Age 23 years, Vinayaka Temple, Benna Gopalapatnam Village, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
Charge: Under Sections 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty
Finding of the judge: Found guilty
Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused 1 to 3 are found guilty for the offence punishable under section 8(c) r/w. Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and they are convicted Under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. Hence, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years 2 each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default under go simple imprisonment for two years each period for the offence punishable under Section 8(C) r/w. Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of NDPS Act. The remand period already undergone by Accused from 09.07.2020 to 20.01.2021 shall be given set off as contemplated under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The material objects i.e., M.O.1: MEIZU company cell phone, M.O.2: VIVO company cell phone and the unmarked case property i.e., two bikes HF Delux bear- ing No.AP 31 DG 2330, Yamaha FZ bearing No.AP 31 DG 1311 and one Renolt Duster car bearing No.AP 31 CD 2367 shown under Ex.P.3 photographs shall be confiscated to the state after the period for appeal has expired. M.O.3 to M.O.200-sample packets shall be produced before the Drug Disposal Committee for de- struction after the period for appeal has expired, subject to the outcome of any appeal that may be filed.
Counselforthe: Additional Public Prosecutor, Eluru, West Godavari. prosecution
Counsel for defence: Sri P.Chiranjeevi, learned Counsel for the accused Nos.1, to 3.
This case is coming on 13-05-2026 for final hearing before me; and after hearing both sides and after perusing the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1. The Inspector of Police, Palakol Town P.S, filed a charge sheet against
Accused Nos. 1 to 3 under Section 8(c) r/w. Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the
NDPS Act"), in Crime No.211/2020 of Palakol Town Police Station.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is, as follows:
The accused 1 to 3 are residents of Benna Gopalapatnam village,
Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, they are no any estansible livelihood, doing Ganja Business illegally and eking out their livelihood. The offence took place near Swapna Bar and Restaurant, Penumadam Bye-pass 3 road, Palakol Town.
The accused 1 to 3 are indulged in possession of transporting, selling the narcotic drug i.e., Ganja illegally for wrongful gain. A1 to A3 were brought the Ganja from Benna Gopalapatnam village, Rolugunta Mandal of
Visakhapatnam District with a view to sale away the same with higher rate to gain much profits. 09-07-2020 A.1 to A.3 were brought the 198 packets containing 435.093 grams Ganja (Cannabis) to Broadipeta. Bye-pass road,
Palakol and ready to sale away to another person, meanwhile arrested them and seized property from their possession.
On 09-07-2020 in evening, Sri Fazul Rahaman, SI of Police, Palakol
Town P.S / L.W-8 has received a reliable information regarding transportation of Ganja (Cannabis) through Palakol Town. Then he sent a requisition to the
Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Narasapuram with a request to issue Search
Warrant, later he received Search proceedings from SDPO, Narsapuram vide
C.No. 339/SDPO-N/Search/2020 dated 09-07-2020.
Then Fazul Rahaman, SI of Police, Palakol Town P.S / L.W-8 secured the presence of his staff (K.Prasad Babu, PC-321, B.Balaji, PC-723,
Ch.D.N.Moses, PC -1145 and G.Naga Raju, HC-1546 / L.Ws 1 to 4) and mediators (Brahmaji Vadaparthi, Chittajallu Subba Rao, Ayinamanchi Venkata
Satya Subrahmanyam/ L.Ws 5 to 7), rushed near to Swapna Bar and
Restaurant located at Penumadam Bye- pass road, Palakol and all of them caught hold of accused 1 to 3 at 8-00 PM, L.Ws 5 got recorded the confessional statements of the accused 1 to 3 by L.Ws 6 and 7 (mediators), seized 10 packets of Ganja weighing about Kg. 22.535 grams and 2) one
Hero HF Deluxe Motor cycle bearing No. AP 31 DG 2330 seized from A.1.
Also seized 10 packets (serial No. 11 to 20) of Ganja weighing about Kg.
22.045 grams and 2) one Yamaha F2S motor cycle bearing No. AP 31 DG 131, 3) one VIVO Touch phone, seized from A-2 and also seized 178 packets (serial No. 21 to 198) of Ganja weighing about Kg 390.513 grams, and 2) one
Renault Duster Car bearing No. AP 31 CD 2367 and 3) MEIZU touch cell 4 phone were seized from A-3. Total 198 packets containing 435.093 KGs of
Ganja (Cannabis) seized from the accused 1 to 3.
Fazul Rahaman, SI of Police, Palakol Town P.S / L.W.8 brought the arrested accused, seized property to Police Station at 11-30 P.M. and kept the arrested accused under surveillance of Sentry P.C. for safe custody till sending the same to the Hon'ble Court. As the case is a specially grave in nature, then L.W-8 handed over the mediators report to Ch. Anjaneyulu,
Inspector of Police, Palakol Town P.S / L.W-9.
Basing on the strength of the mediators report, Ch. Anjaneyulu,
Inspector of Police, Palakol Town P.S / L.W-9 registered a case in Crime No.
211/2020, under sections 8 (c), 20 (B), (ii), (C) of The Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 of Palakol Town Police Station on 09-07- 2020 at 11-30 P.M. and took up investigation in this case.
Then Ch. Anjaneyulu, Inspector of Police, Palakol Town P.S / L.W-9 appraised to the superior officers about the facts of the case and arrest of accused and seizure of the narcotic drug 'ganja' along with two motor cycles, one Renault Duster Car, two cell phones and received suitable instructions in this case. Later Ch. Anjaneyulu, Inspector of Police, Palakol Town P.S / L.W-9 sent the seized material objects to the Govt. Chemical Examiner of Prohibition & Excise, Regional Prohibition & Excise Laboratory, Kakinada vide C.E.No.
1449/2020 in Serial Numbers 29188 to 29385. Secured the presence of L.Ws 1 to 4, examined them, recorded their detailed statements.
Ch. Anjaneyulu, Inspector of Police, Palakol Town P.S /L.W-9 and his staff made enquiries about the absconded accused Pothuraju Venkata
Krishna and Rambabu of Bennagopalapatnam and Korukonda villages and learnt that none are residing in that villages with Rambabu and Pothuraju
Venkata Krishna of Bennagopalapatnam and Korukonda and none are dong
Ganja business with the said names. Under the above facts, it is conformed that the accused 1 to 3 gave false confession stating that the Ramababu and 5 Pothuraju Venkata Krishna were supplied Ganja to them to sale away. Hence, it is conformed that the accused 1 to 3 were gave false confession to prolong the investigation in this case. In future if any clues come-forth against the accused 4 and 5, will arrest them and file separate charge sheet against them.
On 13-08-2020 Ch. Anjaneyulu, Inspector of Police, Palakol Town P.S/
LW-9 received Chemical Analysis reports from the Govt. Chemical Examiner of Prohibition & Excise, Regional Prohibition & Excise Laboratory. Kakinada, in his report the Chemical Examiner opined that the samples vide Serial
Numbers 29188 to 29385 are Ganja. Then Ch. Anjaneyulu, Inspector of
Police, Palakol Town P.S / L.W-9 prepared charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3 U/s 8 (c), 20 (ii), (A) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985.
K.Prasad Babu, PC-321, B.Balaji, PC-723, Ch.D.N.Moses, PC -1145 and G.Naga Raju, HC-1546 / L.Ws 1 to 4 are the staff of Ch. Anjaneyulu,
Inspector of Police, Palakol Town P.S / L.W-9, who stated that their presence at the time of arrest of accused 1 to 3 on 09-07-2020 and they assisted to
Fazul Rahaman, SI of Police, Palakol Town P.S L.Ws 8 to arrest the accused and seizure of property and etc. facts. Brahmaji Vadaparthi / LW-5 is a Deputy
Tahasildar, Palakol who stated that his presence at the time of arrest of accused 1 to 3 on 09-07-2020 and he questioned the accused to search their personals and etc. facts. Chittajallu Subba Rao, Ayinamanchi Venkata Satya
Subrahmanyam / L.W-6 and 7 are the mediators, they stated that their presence at the time of arrest of accused, seizure of property on 09-07-2020 and they prepared mediators report to that effect and etc. facts.
Fazul Rahaman, SI of Police, Palakol Town P.S / L.W-8 is the Sub-
Inspector of Police, Palakol Town P.S., who stated that he arrested the accused 1 to 3 on 09-07-2020 and seized some ganja packets from their possession and handed over the same to Ch. Anjaneyulu, Inspector of Police,
Palakol Town P.S/ L.W-9 and etc. facts.
6 The investigation in this case disclosed that the accused who are residents of Bennagopalapatnam village, Rolugunta mandal, Visakhapatnam, habituated to sell and possession of prohibited Ganja (Cannabis) to get wrongful gain. On 09-07-2020 the accused 1 to 3 collected 198 Ganja (Cannabis) packets, each packet containing 2 Kgs, all weighing about Kgs.
435.093 grams. A-1 to A-3 loaded 178 Ganja packets in a Renault Duster Car bearing No. AP 31 CD 2367 (relates to A-2) for hire Rs.1 Lakh. Remaining 20 packets packed in two bags and each bag was tied on a motor cycles and started on 09-07-20 afternoon to go to Palakol. When A.3 driving the Car, A.1 and A.2 were followed the car by their motor cycles i.e., 1) one Hero HF
Deluxe Motor cycle bearing No. AP 31 DG 2330 and 2) one Yamaha F2Z motor cycle bearing No. AP 31 DG 1311, each motor cycle containing one bag with 20 Kgs of Ganja, on the same day evening, they came to the scene of offence, and when trying to phone to their customers for sale purpose, meanwhile Police came and arrested them and seized the property along with two cell phones, two motor cycles and one Car from their possessions in the presence of mediators under cover of a mediators report to that effect. On 09- 07-2020 Fazul Rahaman, SI of Police, Palakol Town P.S / LW-8 arrested the accused 1 to 3 and sent them for remand. Hence, the charge.
3. This court took cognizance of the case for offences under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act against A.1 to A.3 and issued summonses.
4. Upon the appearance of the accused, copies of the case documents were furnished to them in compliance with Sections 207 and 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). After hearing the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court framed charges under Section 228(2) Cr.P.C. for the said offences against A.1 to A.3.
The charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7
5.During course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4, got marked Exs.P1 to P8 and MO1 to MO.200. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating circumstances appeared against them, for which they denied the offence and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.
6. Heard the arguments of learned Additional Public prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the accused. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted written arguments.
7. Now the points that arise for determination are :
i)."Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) r/w. Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, beyond a reasonable doubt." ii) To What relief ?
POINTS i and ii :
8.Before appreciating the evidence on record, it is pertinent to note that offences under the NDPS Act, carry stringent punishment and incorporate reverse burden clauses under Section 35 and 54 of the Act. However, before such presumption can be invoked against the accused the prosecution is bound to establish foundational facts including lawful search, seizure, conscious possession of contraband, and substantial compliance of mandatory statutory safeguards contemplated under Section 42, 50, 52 and other relevant provisions of the Act.
9.In the instant case, it is the case of prosecution that on 09.07.2020 during evening hours PW3-Sub-inspector of Police, Palakollu Town PS received reliable information regarding transportation of Ganja (Cannabis) through Palakollu Town. Then he sent a requisition to the Sub-Divisional
Police Officer Narsapuram with a request to issue search warrant, accordingly 8 he received proceedings from SDPO vide C.No.339/ SDPO-N/search/2020
dated 09.07.2020.
10.Further as per the case of prosecution PW3 secured his staff/Police constables (LW1 to LW4 and 3 mediators i.e., PW1, PW2 and LW7). They went to vacant place near the Swapna Bar and Restaurant located at
Penumadham Bypass road, Palakollu and caught hold A1 to A3 at 8.00 pm on 09.07.2020. On enquiry the A1 to A3 confessed the commission of the offence and other accused and the same was got recorded by PW1 the then Deputy
Tahsildar Palakollu. Based on the confession statements of A1 to A3, seized 10 packets of Ganja weighing about 22.535 kgs, one Hero HF Delux
Motorcycle bearing No.AP 31 DG 2330 from the possession of A1. Also seized 10 packets of Ganja weighing about 22.145 kg and one Yamaha F2-S motorcycle bearing No. AP 31 DG 131 and Vivo touch phone seized from A2.
Further seized 178 packets of Ganja weighing about 390-513 grams and one
Renault Duster Car bearing No. AP 31 CD 2367 and MEIZU touch cell phone were sized from A3 the total Ganja of 198 packets weighing 435.093 kgs seized from the possession of A1 to A3.
11.Under Section 42 of NDPS Act certain officers were empowered to conduct search, seizure and arrest the offenders without warrant in respect of
Narcotic Offences. In the instant case PW.3 is Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.4 is Inspector of Police of Palakollu Town P.S who are comes within the ambit of empowered officers described under Section 42 of NDPS Act.
12.Section 42 of NDPS Act mandates that where empowered officer receives prior information regarding concealment of contraband in any building, convenience or enclosed place, such information shall be reduced into writing and communicated to superior officers within 72 hours.
13.Regarding compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act both the prosecution and defence placed reliance on below mentioned citation. In this case their lordship referred land mark Judgments of apex court relating to Section 42 of
NDPS Act and finally held that : - 9 Karnail Singh Vs State of Haryana, 2009 in Crl.A No.36 of 2003 their lordship held that “Supreme Court of In conclusion, what is to be noticed is Abdul Rashid did not require literal compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) nor did Sajan Abraham hold that the requirements of Section 42(1) and 42(2) need not be fulfilled at all. The effect of the two decisions was as follows:
(a) The officer on receiving the information (of the nature referred to in Sub-section (1) of section 42) from any person had to record it in writing in the concerned Register and forthwith send a copy to his immediate official superior, before proceeding to take action in terms of clauses (a) to (d) of section 42(1).
(b) But if the information was received when the officer was not in the police station, but while he was on the move either on patrol duty or otherwise, either by mobile phone, or other means, and the information calls for immediate action and any delay would have resulted in the goods or evidence being removed or destroyed, it would not be feasible or practical to take down in writing the information given to him, in such a situation, he could take action as per clauses (a) to (d) of section 42(1) and thereafter, as soon as it is practical, record the information in writing and forthwith inform the same to the official superior.
(c) In other words, the compliance with the requirements of Sections 42 (1) and 42(2) in regard to writing down the information received and sending a copy thereof to the superior officer, should normally precede the entry, search and seizure by the officer. But in special circumstances involving emergent situations, the recording of the information in writing and sending a copy thereof to the official superior may get postponed by a reasonable period, that is after the search, entry and seizure. The question is one of urgency and expediency.
(d) While total non-compliance of requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance of section 42. To illustrate, if any delay may result in the accused escaping or the goods or evidence being destroyed or removed, not recording in writing the information received, before initiating action, or non-sending a copy of such information to the official superior forthwith, may not be treated as violation of section 42. But if the information was received when the police officer was in the police station with sufficient time to take action, and if the police officer fails to record in writing the information received, or fails to send a copy thereof, to the official superior, then it will be a suspicious circumstance being a clear violation of section 42 of the Act. Similarly, where the police officer does not record the information at all, and does not inform the official superior at all, then also it will be a clear violation of section 42 of the Act. Whether there is adequate or substantial compliance with section 42 or not is a question of fact to be decided in each case.
10 The above position got strengthened with the amendment to section 42 by Act 9 of 2001.”
14.In the instant case, on perusal of the evidence of PW.3 is Sub Inspector of Police, Palakollu Town P.S, he categorically deposed that immediately on receipt of credible information regarding possession transportation of ganja by some persons at open place adjacent to Swapna Bar and Restaurant, near
Brodipeta Bypass road, Palakollu informed to PW.4 Inspector of Police and sent a letter to DSP, Narasapuram for search proceedings. The evidence of
PW.4 goes to show that he received information from PW.3 on 09.07.2020 at about 05.00 or 06.00 p.m then he instructed him to make an entry in general diary and also obtained search warrant from SDPO, Narasapur.
15.On perusal of remand report, the true copy of general diary extract dt.09.07.2020 filed before this Court and in which there is a G.D entry at about 07.00 p.m that received information about possession of Ganja (Cannabis) and the summoning of MRO, the Deputy Tahasildar, VROs of Palakolllu. The entry in G.D at 07.30 p.m discloses that a notices were issued to the MRO and Deputy Tahasildars and VROs of Palakollu by informing about the information and along with the said mediators and PC 1546, PCs 321, 1145, 723 went to the vacant place at Broadipet, adjacent to Swapna Bar and restaurant and Police Zeep bearing No.AP 9 P 7118 by handing over station charge to ASI 1383. Though the prosecution failed to formally exhibit G.D entry relating to the receipt of information under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, the true extract appeared to the remand report forms part of contemporaneous record indicates that the information reduced into writing prior to search.
Hence, substantial compliance of Section 42 appears established. Further more Ex.P.8 search warrant issued by SDPO dated 09.07.2020 discloses that the empowered officer / PW.3 communicated the information to the superior officers and obtained search warrant from SDPO, Narasapur. This indicating that the empowered officer communicated to the superiors officers within 72 hours.
11
16.In order to prove the alleged apprehension of A1 to A3 seizure of contraband of Ganja (Cannabis) total weighing about 435.093 kgs from the possession of A1 to A3, two mediators were examined as PW1 and PW2. On perusal of evidence of PW1, he categorically deposed that on 09.07.2020 at about 8.30 pm one constable came to him and informed that his presence is required to act as meditator in a case involving illegal transportation of Ganja on that he accompanied him to the police station from there the Sub- inspector/PW3 accompanied by his staff took him to vacant site adjacent to
Swapna Bar and Restaurant located on Broadipeta bypass road in Kullaya
Cheruvu locality Palakollu Town. There they found 3 persons, a Duster car,
Yamaha Bike and Hero Deluxe bike. The Sub-inspector examined those persons regarding their identity particulars they revealed their names as
Pothuraju Seshu (A1), Sankina Ganesh (A2) and Maruganti Eswara Rao (A3) then PW3 searched the above vehicles, during the search police recovered 22 kgs of Ganja each from Yamaha bike and Hero Deluxe bike. The police also recovered 390 kgs of Ganja of Duster car. In total the police seized/ recovered around 435 kgs of Ganja in 198 packets, each packet weighing 2kgs.
17.He further deposed that when he questioned about the source of Ganja the accused revealed that they procured from Korujonda Rambabu. They further revealed that one Pothuraju Venkata Krishna advised them to procure contraband from Rambabu and sell to a customer at Palakollu and while they were waiting for the customer they were caught hold. They further confesses that they purchased Ganja @ Rs.3000/- Per Kg and selling the same from profit @ RS.5000/- pe kg. Further deposed that PW.3 Sub-inspector brought a weighing machine operator by name Dasara Seetha Ram and weighing the contraband thy further revealed that the Duster car belongs to A2 Sankini
Ganesh and A3 is driver.
18.During the cross examination it was elicited that the search and seizure took place between sunset and sunrise and that the rough sketch filed by the 12 police does not disclosed the presence of street lights at the scene of offence.
No written notice was issued to him by the police with a request to act as mediator and the Brodipeta bypass road is busy locality and PW3 is did not attempt to procure, mediators from the surroundings of the scene of offence.
He denied the case of defence.
19.The evidence of PW2 who is another mediator i.e., the VRO of
Palakollu Town goes to show that on 09.02.2020 at 8.00 pm one constable from Palakollu Town PS came to his house and requested to come to police station as his presence is required as meditator in connection with recovery of
Ganja. On that he took permission from MRO and proceeded to Palakollu
Town PS by that time he reached there PW1 Deputy Tahsildar and VRO Sub- rahmanyam were already present there. Then PW3 requested them to act as mediators they consented for the same, they have also received written no- tices from the Sub-inspector.
20.Further deposed that they accompanied with PW3 and other police constables to the vacant site located adjacent to Swapna Bar and Restuarant at Kulai cheruvu area where three persons present in the said vacant site and also noticed a car and two bikes with them. On seeing the police they tried to fled away but the Sub-inspector with the help of his staff caught hold them.
PW3 Sub-inspector examined each one them separately and the first person revealed his name Pothoraju Seshu (A1) R/o Kotukonda Mandal of
Vishakhapatnam District., he works as coolie he addicted to vices, he receives
Ganja from a person by name Rambababu @ Rs.3000/- per kg and he sell the same for profit @ RS.5000/- per kg he also further revealed that he was previously in jail illegal possession and selling of Ganja. He further revealed that he has two friends names Shankini Ganesh (A2) and Muruganti Eswara
Rao (A3), they are involved in procuring and selling Ganja along with him that being so recently has called by Rambabu and informed him that they have to transport 120 kgs of Ganja from Vishakhapatnam to Rajahmundry and 13 delivery to one Yadla Venkateswaralu, accordingly A1 to A3 went to
Vishakhapatnam, collected the Ganja and delivered to Yadla Venkateswaralu to Rajahmundry and received as sum of Rs.6 lakhs from his and after receiving the cash it is to found that it is counterfeit currency so on the advise given by Rambabu they burnt the currency. He further revealed that he also has a relative by name Pothuraju Venkata Krishna who is also involved on transporting Ganja heasked him to collect 450 kgs of Ganja from Ramabau and delivered the contraband accordingly he along with A2 and A3 collected the said 450 kgs of Ganja in 198 packets from Rambabu at Vishakhapatnam on 09.07.2020 and brought the same to Palakollu in Desire car and two bikes, while they were waiting for his brother Pothuraju Venkata Krishna they were caught hold.
21.Further deposed that PW3 examined other two person they also revealed their names as Sankini Ganesh and Murugundi Eswara Rao and revealed the same facts as of A1. Then PW3 recovered 10 packets each from two bikes and 178 packets from the car in their presence. They were serial numbers 1 to 198 on these packets. Serial No.1 to 20 recovered from the bikes and Serial No.21 to 198 recovered from the car. PW3 seized contraband of 198 packets of Ganja, Material objects two cellphones, two bikes and duster car and arrested them. Considering the above proceeding a mediators report was prepared and it was signed by him and other mediators and the also signed on the identity slips pasted on the seized packets containing contra bonds. The Sub-inspector took the A1 to A3 and contra bonds to the police station along with mediators report. The entire proceedings photographed as well a video graphed. He can identity accused by their name the witness identified A1 by his name but failed to identify A2 and A3 by their names.
22.During the cross examination it is elicited that the mediators report was drafted by him but there is no mention in the report that it was drafted by him 14 and that there is no mention he took permission from the Tahsildar. He denied that the mediators report was not drafted by him and no photographs and videographs were take covering the search and that he is the stock witness to the police and acted as mediator in more than 100 cased. The witness adds he might have accused as mediator around 50 cases and in 6 cases subsequent this case but he does not remember the particulars of this case.
He admitted that PW3 did not request the people who were present at
Swapna Bar to act as mediators. He denied that he identified A1 based on the inputs given by the police before entering the witness box. He further denied the case of defence.
23.The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 corroborated by the evidence of
PW.3 / empowered officer he categorically deposed that he received information about possession and transportation of Ganja by some persons at open place adjacent to Broadipeta Bypass road near Swapna Bar and
Restaurant Palakollu. Immediately, sent a letter to DSP, Narasapuram for issuance of search warrant. He also sent requisition to Tahsildar to depute 3 officials as mediators, accordingly the Tahsildar sent PW1, PW2 and LW7. He served summons to the mediators under due acknowledgment. In the mean time also received the search warrant from DSP, Narasapuram. He proceeded to the scene along with mediators and staff and also carried an electronic weighing machine. At the scene of offence they noticed 3 persons two bikes and one car, the car that was noticed was Renault Duster car bearing No. AP 31 DG 2367, One of the bike HF-Deluxe bearing No.AP 31 DG 2330 and other bike was Yamaha FZ bearing No,.AP 31 DG 1311. They also noticed a bag on each of those bikes. On seeing the police those 3 person tried to escape from there but with the assistance of staff he was able to apprehend them. Then he examined them one after the other.
24.He further deposed that the first person revealed his name as Pothuraju
Seshu (A1), R/o Rolugunta Vishakhapatnam District. The second person 15 revealed his name as Sankina Ganesh (A2), R/o Bennagupalapatenam,
Vishakhapatnam district. The Third Person revealed his name as Morugundi
Eswara Rao, R/o Bennagupalapatenam, Vishakhapatnam district. On search of bags found on the bikes in the presence of mediators found 10 packets of
Ganja on the bike HF-Deluxe bearing No. AP 31 DG 2330 A1 it was weighing 22.535 kgs, they also found 10 packets of Ganja in the bag found on bike
Yamaha FZ bearing No,.AP 31 DG 1311 that belongs to A2 and total weight of the ganja packets is around 22.045 kgs. He also recovered Vivo company mobile phone from the possession of A2. They searched Renault Duster car which was in possession of A3 and found 178 packets of Ganja in the back seat area of the car. The total weight of the ganja is to be 390.513 kgs. He also recovered MEIZU company mobile phone from the possession of A3. All the material objects that is contra bonds cellphones, bike sand Car was seized under cover of mediators report he took photographs and video graphed the proceedings and the proceedings were concluded at 11.00 pm. Later he brought accused, seized material objects to the police station and handed over them to the inspector of police. Based on the mediators report the
Inspector of Police registered FIR. The bikes and car that were seized from the possession of accused cloud not be moved, the photographs of bikes and car which were taken are marked as Ex.P2. MO1 is MEIZU company cellphone recovered from A3, MO2 is Vivo company cellphone recovered from
A2.
25.During his cross examination he stated that he cannot say exact time at which is received credible information and that he has not filed any entry made in the general journey regarding the credible information received by him. Further he cannot say the exact time at which he received search warrant from the DSP, Narasapuram and that whether the search warrant filed along with charge sheet or not as the same filed by the Inspector of Police. He does not know whether no document was filed along with charge sheet it show that he served summons on the mediators and the Deputy Tahsildar as the charge 16 sheet was filed by the Inspector of Police. They could not trace Korukonda
Rambabu whose name is mentioned in the mediators report was the supplier of ganja to the accused. According to him the scene of offence is located adjacent to Swapna Bar but not opposite to it. He admitted that the details of previous criminal cases in which the accused were involved. He denied that the MO1 and MO2 mobile phones are not belongs to accused and that the
Renault Duster car belongs to A2 was falsely implicated to this case.
26.When coming to the evidence of PW4 who is the then Inspector of
Police, Palakollu Town PS categorically depose that on 09.07.20220 at about 5.00 or 6.00 pm he received phone call, from PW3 that he received credible information of transportation of Ganja from the agency area Vishakhapatnam district to Palakollu Town. Immediately, he gave instructions to him to make an entry in General Diary and send requisition for search warrant from SDPO
Narasapur. Accordingly, he gave and obtained search warrant. On the same day at 11.30 pm while he was is PS PW3 produced accused along with contraband, seized vehicles and mobile phones and mediators report, summons on the mediators, notices served on the accused U/s. 50 of NDPS
Act and the search warrant issued by SDPO Narasapur dated 09.07.2020.
Based on the mediators report he registered case in C.No211/2020 U/S.8 (c)
R/w 20 (b) (ii) (c) of NDPS Act, 1985. he forward the original FIR to the JFCM
Palakollu and copies of the same to all the concerns. On 10.07.2020 he visited the scene of offence along with PW3 which is situated at Penamaru bypass road, Broadipet near Swapma Bar Palakollu Town where he examined the scene of offence ad prepared rough sketch. On the same day accused produced before the court for remand. On the same day he prepared inventory of the seized contraband and material objects and made an application to JFCM Palakollu to examine the inventory certify the correctness and draw representative samples and issue certificate of inventory certifying its correctness. Accordingly, JFCM Palakol verified the inventory and certificate of certifying the correctness of inventory and representative the 17 same. Two samples were collected from 198 packets of contraband and in total 396 samples were drawn. Each sample consisted of 24 grams. The samples were given number as SO1 to SO198 and SD1 to SD 198.
27.Further deposed that on the same day he addressed to letter to drug disposal committee to dispose of the seized contraband. On the next day on 11.07.2020 he sent a samples numbered as SO1 to SO198 to the Regional
Prohibition laboratory, Kakinada through the JFCM, Palakollu vide Dis.324/20
dated 11.07.2020. On 13.08.2020 he received chemical analysis from
Regional Prohibition laboratory, Kakinada who opined that the samples are cannabis. On 15.10.2020, on 16.12.2020, 19.01.2021 and 21.01.2021 he deputed HC-1882, PC-723, HC-372 and PC-321 to trace out the whereabouts of A4 and A5, but their whereabouts are not traced. On 25.02.2021 he secured the presence of LW1 to LW4 and recorded the statements after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. On 03.12.2025 he received the certificate of destruction from the drug disposal committee certifying the destruction of contraband sized in this case. Through PW.4 got exhibited
Ex.P3 is Original FIR in crime No.211/20 of Palakollu Town PS, Ex.P4 certificate of inventory issued by JFCM, Palakollu dated 10.07.2020, Ex.P5 rough sketch of the scene of offence, Ex.P6 is chemical analysis reported
date 07.08.2020, Ex.P7 attested copy destruction certificate issued by the
drug disposal committee, Ex.P8 search warrant issued by SDPO, dated 09.07.2020, Mo3 to Mo200 of the sample packets marked as SD1 to SD198.
28.During the cross examination he state the as it was COVID period
Swapna Bar and Restaurant was closed, generally it will remained open till 10.00 pm. He did not make an application for the police custody of A1 to A3 to extract information about A4 and A5. He admitted, according to A1 to A3 the contraband was supplied to them by A4 and A5. He admitted that Ex.P8 search warrant does not contain the time as it was issued. He admitted that the police who participated in the search and seizure nor signed in mediators 18 report. He admitted that he did not ascertain the fact as to in whose name the
SIM cards found in MO1 and MO2 was registered. The scene of offence is located on a road and it is situated at Swapam Bar and Restaurant and the vacant site of Karimelaka Naga Bhaskar Rao. He admitted that the signature of PW3 is not there on the Rough sketch. He denied the same of defence.
29.Section 50 of NDPS Act confers a valuable statutory right upon the accused to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or Magistrate.
The compliance with the said provision is mandatory when personal search of the accused is conducted. The learned Gr.I P.P placed reliance on below mentioned citation;
In State of Punjab Vs. Baljinder Singh and another,Crl.A.No.1565-66 of 2019, Supreme Court of India. Their lordship held that, “as regards applicability of the requirements under Section 50 of the Act are concerned, it is well settled that the mandate of Section 50 of the Act is confined to "personal search" and not to search of a vehicle or a container or premises. The conclusion (3) as recorded by the Constitution Bench in Para 57 of its judgment in Baldev Singh clearly states that the conviction may not be based "only" on the basis of possession of an illicit article recovered from personal search in violation of the requirements under Section 50 of the Act but if there be other evidence on record, such material can certainly be looked into.
In the instant case, the personal search of the accused did not result in recovery of any contraband. Even if there was any such recovery, the same could not be relied upon for want of compliance of the requirements of Section 50 of the Act. But the search of the vehicle and recovery of contraband pursuant thereto having stood proved, merely because there was non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act as far as "personal search" was concerned, no benefit can be extended so as to invalidate the effect of recovery from the search of the vehicle. Any such idea would be directly in the teeth of conclusion (3) as aforesaid.
The decision of this Court in Dilip's case, however, has not adverted to the distinction as discussed hereinabove and proceeded to confer advantage upon the accused even in respect of recovery from the vehicle, on the ground that the requirements of Section 50 relating to personal search were not complied with. In our view, the decision of this Court in said judgment in Dilip's case is not correct and is opposed to the law laid down by this Court in Baldev Singh and other judgments.
19 Since in the present matter, seven bags of poppy husk each weighing 34 kgs. were found from the vehicle which was being driven by accused- Baljinder Singh with the other accused accompanying him, their presence and possession of the contraband material stood completely established In the circumstances, the acquittal recorded by the High Court, in our considered view, was not correct. We, therefore, set aside the view taken by the High Court.”
30.In the instant case, as per Ex.P.1 mediators report dt. 09.07.2020 he along with staff searched A1 to A3 persons and also one Car and two motor cycles. So, in the instant case, personal search also involved and it requires compliance of mandatory provision under Section 50 of NDPS Act. As discussed supra, both mediators i.e., PW.1 and PW.2 categorically deposed that PW.3 served notices to them with a request that their presence is required for search in this case. Further, both PW3 and PW.4 empowered officers categorically deposed that notices were issued to the mediators
before proceeding to the scene of offence. The copies of original notices
under Section 50 of NDPS containing the signatures of the mediators are available with remand report and further it is established that accused 1 to 3 persons searched in the presence of PW.1 who is Deputy Tahasildar / gazetted officer and PW.2 VRO. Therefore, the empowered officer duly complied the mandatory provision under Section 50 of NDPS Act.
31.Under Section 52 of NDPS Act, there is a prescribed procedure to be followed after arrest and seizure, including informing the grounds of arrest and forwarding seized contraband and accused to competent authority without unnecessary delay. Though, it is directing in nature, Substantial compliance is expected to ensure fairness and authenticity of investigation. In the instant case, the empowered officer issued arresting intimation memo under Section 50 (A) Cr.P.C, injuries inspection memo under 50(2) Cr.P.C and duly followed the procedure prescribed under Section 52 of NDPS Act.
32.Section 52 (A) of the NDPS Act prescribes the procedure for preparation of inventory, certification of samples and disposal of seized 20 contraband. Proper sampling, sealing and maintenance of chain of custody are essential to preserve santity of the seized material and to ensure fair trial.
In this regard, the learned defence counsel placed reliance on below mentioned citation;
In Union of India Vs. Mohanlal and Another, in Crl..A No.652/2022, their lordship held that, “to sum up we direct as under: No sooner the seizure of any Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances is effected, the same shall be forwarded to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 of the Act. The officer concerned shall then approach the Magistrate with an application under Section 52A(ii) of the Act, which shall be allowed by the Magistrate as soon as may be required under Sub- Section 3 of Section 52A, as discussed by us in the body of this judgment under the heading 'seizure and sampling'. The sampling shall be done under the supervision of the magistrate as discussed in paras 13 and 14 of this order.
The Central Government and its agencies and so also the State Governments shall within six months from today take appropriate steps to set up storage facilities for the exclusive storage of seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances duly equipped with vaults and double locking system to prevent theft, pilferage or replacement of the seized drugs. The Central Government and the State Governments shall also designate an officer each for their respective storage facility and provide for other steps, measures as stipulated in Standing Order No. 1/89 to ensure proper security against theft, pilferage or replacement of the seized drugs.
The Central Government and the State Governments shall be free to set up a storage facility for each district in the States and depending upon the extent of seizure and store required, one storage facility for more than one districts.
Disposal of the seized drugs currently lying in the police maalkhans and other places used for storage shall be carried out by the DDCs concerned in terms of the directions issued by us in the body of this judgment under the heading 'disposal of drugs'.”
33.In the instant case, PW.3 and PW.4 categorically deposed that on 10.07.2020 the A1 to A3 produced before the court on remand and on the same day prepared inventory of seized contraband and material objects and made an application to JFCM Palakollu to examine inventory, certifying correctness and draw representative samples and issue certificate of 21 inventory certifying its correctness. Accordingly, the JFCM, Palakollu verified the inventory and certified the correctness of inventory under Ex.P.4 certificate of inventory issued by JFCM, Palakollu dated 10.07.2020. On perusal of Ex.P.4 certificate of inventory proceedings issued by JFCM,
Palakollu dt. 10.07.2020 two samples were collected from each 198 packets of contraband and in total 396 samples were drawn, each sample consists of 24 grams. The samples were given numbered as SD1 to SD198 marked as
MO.3 to MO.200. Further, on perusal of Ex.P.6 chemical analysis report dt.
07.08.2020 issued by Regional Prohibition Laboratory, Kakinada, opined that the samples are Cannabis. On perusal of Ex.P.7 attested copy of Destruction certificate issued by Drug Disposal Committee the drug disposal committee disposal of the seized contraband under Ex.P.7 attested copy of proceedings.
34.The Lr. Gr.1 P.P vehemently argued that the prosecution well established conscious possession of huge Ganja (Cannabis) of accused.
Once it is established that the court can presume the accused had culpable mental state under Section 35 of the Act. The presumption under Section 35 and 54 applies to this case. The Lr. Gr.1 P.P placed reliance on below mentioned citation;
i) AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 3642, Mandal Lal and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, their lordship held that, “Once possession is established the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it, because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this position because of presumption available in law. Similar is the position in terms of Section 54 where also presumption is available to be drawn from possession of illicit articles.
In the factual scenario of the present case not only possession but conscious possession has been established. It has not been shown by the accused-appellants that the possession was not conscious in the logical background of Sections 35 and 54 of the Act. In fact the evidence clearly establishes that they knew about transportation of charas, and each had a role in the transportation and possession with conscious knowledge of what they are doing. The accused-appellant Manjit Singh does not stand on a different footing merely because he was a driver of the 22 vehicle. The logic applicable to other accused-appellants also applies to Manjit Singh. Therefore, the presumption available by application of logic flowing from Sections 35 and 54 of the Act clearly applies to the facts of the present case.” ii) 2010 AIR SCW 6828, Dharampal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, their lordship held that, “the initial burden of proof of possession lies on prosecution and once it is dis- charged legal burden would shift on accused. Standard of proof expected from the prosecution is to prove possession beyond all reasonable doubt but what is required to prove innocence by the accused would be preponderance of probability. Once the accused plea is found probable, discharge of initial burden by the prosecution will not nail him with offence. Offences under the Act being more serious in nature higher degree of proof is required to convict an accused. It needs no emphasis that the expression possession is not capable of precise and completely logical definition of universal application in context of all the statutes. Possession is a polymorphous word and cannot be uniformly applied, it assumes different colour in different context. In the context of Section 18 of the Act once possession is established the accused, who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it because it is within his special knowledge from a plain reading of the aforesaid it is evident that it creates a legal fiction and presumes the person in possession of illicit articles to have committed the offence in case he fails to account for the possession satisfactorily. Possession is a mental state and Section 35 of the Act gives statutory recognition to culpable mental state. It includes knowledge of fact. The possession, therefore, has to be understood in the context thereof and when tested on this anvil, we find that the appellants have not been able to account for satisfactorily the possession of opium. Once possession is established the Court can presume that the accused had culpable mental state and have committed the offence In somewhat similar facts this Court had the occasion to consider this question in the case of Madan Lal and another vs. State of H.P.,2003 (7) SCC 465, wherein it has been held as follows:
Once possession is established, the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it, because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this position because of the presumption available in law. Similar is the position in terms of Section 54 where also presumption is available to be drawn from possession of illicit articles.
In the factual scenario of the present case, not only possession but conscious possession has been established. It has not been shown by the accused- appellants that the possession was not conscious in the logical background of Sections 35 and 54 of the Act." 23
35.The learned defence counsel vehemently argued that the evidence of
PW.1 to PW.4 cannot be relied upon as their evidence is not corroborated by the independent witnesses. Further, vehemently argued that there are discrepancies regarding the scene of offence. According to the case of prosecution, the scene of offence is situated adjacent to the Swapna Bar whereas the Ex.P.5 rough sketch showing the scene of offence is road in front of the Swapna Bar and Restaurant. On perusal of the record, Ex.P.1 mediators report the scene of offence is vacant place under the street lines near Swapna Bar and Restaurant but not adjacent the Swapna Bar and
Restaurant. Therefore, there is no depth in the contention of the learned defence counsel. Further, the learned defence counsel argued that Ex.P.5 rough sketch does not disclosing the street lights. As contended by the prosecution the street lights may not be draw in the rough sketch due to oversight and it is not fatal to the case of prosecution. The learned defence counsel placed reliance on below mentioned citation regarding glaring inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
36. 2026 SAR (Crl) 281, Doniyar Vildanov Vs. State of UP, their lordship held that, “Glaring inconsistencies in prosecution evidence create reasonable doubt, prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
We cannot but notice that even the recovery Mahazar does not Indicate a bag in which the contraband is said to have been smuggled into India. We cannot but notice that the inconsistencies in the evidence of PWI to PW3 are not minor and are glaring enough to raise a reasonable doubt as to the complicity of the accused in the alleged smuggling of the contraband into India. We are unable to find the search and seizure to be in accordance with the mandatory prescriptions and hence the foundation of the case charged against the appellant falls apart, has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of 14. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the prosecution the offence alleged against him, of bringing in charas from Nepal to India.”
37.Per contra, the Lr. Gr.1 P.P vehemently argued that in some cases it may not be possible to find independent witnesses at all places, at all times. In 24 the instant case, as contended by the Lr.P.P the offence took place during
Covid Pandemic period and the ride was conducted during night hours.
Therefore, in view of Covid Pandemic and Lock Down the movement of public on roads and Restaurants was restricted. Thus, non examination of independent witnesses is not fatal to the case of prosecution. The learned public prosecutor placed reliance on below mentioned citations;
i) 2010 AIR SCW 1494, Ajmer Singh Vs. State of Haryana, their lordship held that, “the learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the evidence of the official witness cannot be relied upon as their testimony, has not been corroborated by any independent witness. We are unable to agree with the said submission of the learned Counsel. It is clear from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses PW-3 Paramjit Singh Ahalwat, D.S.P., Pehowa, PW-4 Raja Ram, Head Constable and PW-5 Maya Ram, which is on record, that efforts were made by the investigating party to include independent witness at the time of recovery, but none was willing. It is true that a charge under the Act is serious and carries onerous consequences. The minimum sentence prescribed under the Act is imprisonment of 10 years and fine. In this situation, it is normally expected that there should be independent evidence to support the case of the prosecution. However, it is not an inviolable rule. Therefore, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that it would be travesty of justice, if the appellant is acquitted merely because no independent witness has been produced. We cannot forget that it may not be possible to find independent witness at all places, at all times. The obligation to take public witnesses is not absolute. If after making efforts which the court considered in the circumstances of the case reasonable, the police officer is not able to get public witnesses to associate with the raid or arrest of the culprit, the arrest and the recovery made would not be necessarily vitiated. The court will have to appreciate the relevant evidence and will have to determine whether the evidence of the police officer was believable after taking due care and caution in evaluating their evidence.
ii) 1988 AIR 1998, State of UP Vs. Anil Singh, their lordship held that, “on late this Court has been receiving a large number of appeals against acquittals and in the great majority of cases, the prosecution version is rejected either for want of corroboration by independent witnesses, or for some falsehood stated or embroidery added by witnesses. In some cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We have recently pointed out the indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the Court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it is proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and 25 acceptable. With regard to falsehood stated or embellishments added by the prosecution witnesses, it is well to remember that there is a tendency amongst witnesses in our country to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version. The Privy Council had an occasion to observe this. In Bankim Chander v. Matangini, 24 C.W.N. 626 PC, the Privy Council had this to say (at 628):
"That in Indian litigation it is not safe to assume that a case must be false if some of the evidence in support of it appears to be doubtful or is clearly unture, since there is, on some occasions, a tendency amongst litigants to back up a good case by false or exaggerated evidence."
In Abdul Gani v. State of Madya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 31 Mahajan, J., speaking for this Court deprecated the tendency of courts to take an easy course of holding the evidence discrepant and discarding the whole case as untrue. The learned Judge said that the Court should make an effort to disengage the truth from falsehood and to sift the grain from the chaff It is also our experience that invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. It is the duty of the Court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy con- fidence in the witnesses. It is necessary to PG NO 618 remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A
Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important
as the other. Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform.”
38.In this case, the 2nd accused filed Crl.M.P No.215/2022 for return of seized Duster Car bearing No.AP 31 CD 2367 and the said application was allowed by this Court vide Order dated 21.04.2022. However, due to non production of sureties, it was not released. Further, as the seized vehicle i.e.,
Duster car bearing No. AP 31 CD 2367 two motor cycles i.e., one Hero HF
Deluxe Motor Cycle bearing Nos. AP 31 DG 2330 and one Yamaha F2S motor cycle bearing No. AP 31 DG 131 are not in a condition to move, Ex.P.2
Photographs of Duster Car and two vehicles are marked. So, it is significant to note that the 2nd Accused did not offer any explanation how the Duster Car in to possession of police. Non offering of reasons raised adverse interference against A1 to A3.
26
39.On overall scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence available on record the prosecution has successfully established all the essential ingredi- ents constituting the offence punishable under Section 8 (C) r/w. Section 20 (B) (ii) (C) of the NDPS Act by adducing cogent convincing and reliable evi- dence. The evidence on record clearly proves that the accused were in con- scious and unlawful possession of commercial quantity of 435.093 Kgs of
Cannabis / Ganja in order to sell the same without any valid license or autho- rization and was transporting / possessing the same in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Further, the seizure of contraband, sampling procedure, chemical examination report, certification of inventory by the learned J.F.C.M,
Palakollu and testimonies of official witnesses consistently established that the seized Cannabis / Ganja of commercial quantity. The prosecution also proved compliance of mandatory, statutory safe guards under NDPS Act. Therefore, this court holds that the prosecution has proved the offence against Accused 1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt and they are liable for the punishment for the offence charged against them.
40. In the result, the accused 1 to 3 are found guilty for the offence punishable under section 8(c) r/w. Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and they are convicted Under
Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C for the said offence.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 19th day of May, 2026.
Sd/-Indira Priyadarshini Undru
SPECIAL JUDGE UNDER N.D.P.S. ACT-CUM-
I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.
Accused Nos.1 to 3 are questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence. Accused Nos.1 and 2 submitted that they got two small children each and nobody to look after them. Accused No.3 submitted that he got six months 27 old child and he is only person to look after his family affairs and all the accused requested the Court to take lenient view.
The offence under the NDPS Act is a grave and serious offence, affecting not merely a individual but society at large. The legislature taking note of the alarming increase in a Narcotic offence, has prescribed stringent punishment under Act. Considering the nature of gravity of offence, quantum of contraband / commercial quantity involved in this case, this Court does not find any extenuat- ing circumstances to take lenient view against accused.
Having consider the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused 1 to 3 do not deserve any lesser punishment than substantiate to sentence as prescribed under law, could meet the ends of justice and serve the object to deterrence.
Hence, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are sentenced to under go rigorous
imprisonment for a period of 10 years each and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default under go simple im-
prisonment for two years each period for the offence punishable under Sec- tion 8(C) r/w. Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of NDPS Act.
The remand period already undergone by Accused from 09.07.2020 to 20.01.2021 shall be given set off as contemplated under Section 428 of
Cr.P.C.
The Accused 1 to 3 are informed as to their right to prefer appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed by this Court before the Hon’ble
High Court. The Accused 1 to 3 further asked as to whether they have got means to engage Counsel to prefer appeal before the Hon’ble High Court.
They informed that they have no means to engage Counsel to defend their case before the Hon’ble High Court.
The material objects i.e., M.O.1: MEIZU company cell phone, M.O.2:
VIVO company cell phone and the unmarked case property i.e., two bikes HF
Delux bearing No.AP 31 DG 2330, Yamaha FZ bearing No.AP 31 DG 1311 and one Renolt Duster car bearing No.AP 31 CD 2367 shown under Ex.P.3 28 photographs shall be confiscated to the state after the period for appeal has expired. M.O.3 to M.O.200-sample packets shall be produced before the Drug
Disposal Committee for destruction after the period for appeal has expired, subject to the outcome of any appeal that may be filed.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 19th day of May, 2026.
Sd/-Indira Priyadarshini Undru
SPECIAL JUDGE UNDER N.D.P.S. ACT-CUM-
I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W.1V.Brahmaji
P.W.2Ch.Subba Rao
P.W.3Fazul Rahaman
P.W.4Chinnam Anjaneyulu
FOR DEFENCE : NIL.
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 Mediator’s report dated 09.07.2020.
Ex.P.2Photographs of the two bikes and the bearing Nos.HF Delux bearing
No.AP 31 DG 2330, Yamaha FZ bearing No.AP 31 DG 1311 and Renolt
Duster car bearing No.AP 31 CD 2367 along with 65-B Certificate.
Ex.P.3Original FIR in Cr.No.211/2020 of Palakol Town PS dated 09.07.2020
Ex.P.4The certificate of inventory issued by the JFCM, Palakol dated 10.07.2020.
29 Ex.P.5Rough sketch of the scene of offence.
Ex.P.6Chemical Analysis report dated 07.08.2020.
Ex.P.7Attested copy of the Destruction Certificate issued by the Drug Disposal committee.
Ex.P.8Search warrant issued by the SDPO Dated 09.07.2020.
FOR DEFENCE: NIL.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
M.O.1:MEIZU company cell phone recovered from A3.
M.O.2: VIVO company cell phone recovered from A2.
M.O.3: Sample Packets marked as SD1
M.O.4: Sample Packets marked as SD2
M.O.5: Sample Packets marked as SD3
M.O.6: Sample Packets marked as SD4
M.O.7: Sample Packets marked as SD5
M.O.8: Sample Packets marked as SD6
M.O.9: Sample Packets marked as SD7
M.O.10: Sample Packets marked as SD8
M.O.11: Sample Packets marked as SD9
M.O.12: Sample Packets marked as SD10
M.O.13: Sample Packets marked as SD11
M.O.14: Sample Packets marked as SD12
M.O.15: Sample Packets marked as SD13
M.O.16: Sample Packets marked as SD14
M.O.17: Sample Packets marked as SD15
M.O.18: Sample Packets marked as SD16
M.O.19: Sample Packets marked as SD17 30 M.O.20: Sample Packets marked as SD18
M.O.21: Sample Packets marked as SD19
M.O.22: Sample Packets marked as SD20
M.O.23: Sample Packets marked as SD21
M.O.24: Sample Packets marked as SD22
M.O.25: Sample Packets marked as SD23
M.O.26: Sample Packets marked as SD24
M.O.27: Sample Packets marked as SD25
M.O.28: Sample Packets marked as SD26
M.O.29: Sample Packets marked as SD27
M.O.30: Sample Packets marked as SD28
M.O.31: Sample Packets marked as SD29
M.O.32: Sample Packets marked as SD30
M.O.33: Sample Packets marked as SD31
M.O.34: Sample Packets marked as SD32
M.O.35: Sample Packets marked as SD33
M.O.36: Sample Packets marked as SD34
M.O.37: Sample Packets marked as SD35
M.O.38: Sample Packets marked as SD36
M.O.39: Sample Packets marked as SD37
M.O.40: Sample Packets marked as SD38
M.O.41: Sample Packets marked as SD39
M.O.42: Sample Packets marked as SD40
M.O.43: Sample Packets marked as SD41
M.O.44: Sample Packets marked as SD42
M.O.45: Sample Packets marked as SD43
M.O.46: Sample Packets marked as SD44
M.O.47: Sample Packets marked as SD45
M.O.48: Sample Packets marked as SD46
M.O.49: Sample Packets marked as SD47
M.O.50: Sample Packets marked as SD48
M.O.51: Sample Packets marked as SD49 31 M.O.52: Sample Packets marked as SD50
M.O.53: Sample Packets marked as SD51
M.O.54: Sample Packets marked as SD52
M.O.55: Sample Packets marked as SD53
M.O.56: Sample Packets marked as SD54
M.O.57: Sample Packets marked as SD55
M.O.58: Sample Packets marked as SD56
M.O.59: Sample Packets marked as SD57
M.O.60: Sample Packets marked as SD58
M.O.61: Sample Packets marked as SD59
M.O.62: Sample Packets marked as SD60
M.O.63: Sample Packets marked as SD61
M.O.64: Sample Packets marked as SD62
M.O.65: Sample Packets marked as SD63
M.O.66: Sample Packets marked as SD64
M.O.67: Sample Packets marked as SD65
M.O.68: Sample Packets marked as SD66
M.O.69: Sample Packets marked as SD67
M.O.70: Sample Packets marked as SD68
M.O.71: Sample Packets marked as SD69
M.O.72: Sample Packets marked as SD70
M.O.73: Sample Packets marked as SD71
M.O.74: Sample Packets marked as SD72
M.O.75: Sample Packets marked as SD73
M.O.76: Sample Packets marked as SD74
M.O.77: Sample Packets marked as SD75
M.O.78: Sample Packets marked as SD76
M.O.79: Sample Packets marked as SD77
M.O.80: Sample Packets marked as SD78
M.O.81: Sample Packets marked as SD79
M.O.82: Sample Packets marked as SD80
M.O.83: Sample Packets marked as SD81 32 M.O.84: Sample Packets marked as SD82
M.O.85: Sample Packets marked as SD83
M.O.86: Sample Packets marked as SD84
M.O.87: Sample Packets marked as SD85
M.O.88: Sample Packets marked as SD86
M.O.89: Sample Packets marked as SD87
M.O.90: Sample Packets marked as SD88
M.O.91: Sample Packets marked as SD89
M.O.92: Sample Packets marked as SD90
M.O.93: Sample Packets marked as SD91
M.O.94: Sample Packets marked as SD92
M.O.95: Sample Packets marked as SD93
M.O.96: Sample Packets marked as SD94
M.O.97: Sample Packets marked as SD95
M.O.98: Sample Packets marked as SD96
M.O.99: Sample Packets marked as SD97
M.O.100 : Sample Packets marked as SD98
M.O.101 : Sample Packets marked as SD99
M.O.102 : Sample Packets marked as SD100
M.O.103 : Sample Packets marked as SD101
M.O.104 : Sample Packets marked as SD102
M.O.105 : Sample Packets marked as SD103
M.O.106 : Sample Packets marked as SD104
M.O.107 : Sample Packets marked as SD105
M.O.108 : Sample Packets marked as SD106
M.O.109 : Sample Packets marked as SD107
M.O.110 : Sample Packets marked as SD108
M.O.111 : Sample Packets marked as SD109
M.O.112 : Sample Packets marked as SD110
M.O.113 : Sample Packets marked as SD111
M.O.114 : Sample Packets marked as SD112
M.O.115 : Sample Packets marked as SD113 33 M.O.116 : Sample Packets marked as SD114
M.O.117 : Sample Packets marked as SD115
M.O.118 : Sample Packets marked as SD116
M.O.119 : Sample Packets marked as SD117
M.O.120 : Sample Packets marked as SD118
M.O.121 : Sample Packets marked as SD119
M.O.122 : Sample Packets marked as SD120
M.O.123 : Sample Packets marked as SD121
M.O.124 : Sample Packets marked as SD122
M.O.125 : Sample Packets marked as SD123
M.O.126 : Sample Packets marked as SD124
M.O.127 : Sample Packets marked as SD125
M.O.128 : Sample Packets marked as SD126
M.O.129 : Sample Packets marked as SD127
M.O.130 : Sample Packets marked as SD128
M.O.131 : Sample Packets marked as SD129
M.O.132 : Sample Packets marked as SD130
M.O.133 : Sample Packets marked as SD131
M.O.134 : Sample Packets marked as SD132
M.O.135 : Sample Packets marked as SD133
M.O.136 : Sample Packets marked as SD134
M.O.137 : Sample Packets marked as SD135
M.O.138 : Sample Packets marked as SD136
M.O.139 : Sample Packets marked as SD137
M.O.140 : Sample Packets marked as SD138
M.O.141 : Sample Packets marked as SD139
M.O.142 : Sample Packets marked as SD140
M.O.143 : Sample Packets marked as SD141
M.O.144 : Sample Packets marked as SD142
M.O.145 : Sample Packets marked as SD143
M.O.146 : Sample Packets marked as SD144
M.O.147 : Sample Packets marked as SD145 34 M.O.148 : Sample Packets marked as SD146
M.O.149 : Sample Packets marked as SD147
M.O.150 : Sample Packets marked as SD148
M.O.151 : Sample Packets marked as SD149
M.O.152 : Sample Packets marked as SD150
M.O.153 : Sample Packets marked as SD151
M.O.154 : Sample Packets marked as SD152
M.O.155 : Sample Packets marked as SD153
M.O.156 : Sample Packets marked as SD154
M.O.157 : Sample Packets marked as SD155
M.O.158 : Sample Packets marked as SD156
M.O.159 : Sample Packets marked as SD157
M.O.160 : Sample Packets marked as SD158
M.O.161 : Sample Packets marked as SD159
M.O.162 : Sample Packets marked as SD160
M.O.163 : Sample Packets marked as SD161
M.O.164 : Sample Packets marked as SD162
M.O.165 : Sample Packets marked as SD163
M.O.166 : Sample Packets marked as SD164
M.O.167 : Sample Packets marked as SD165
M.O.168 : Sample Packets marked as SD166
M.O.169 : Sample Packets marked as SD167
M.O.170 : Sample Packets marked as SD168
M.O.171 : Sample Packets marked as SD169
M.O.172 : Sample Packets marked as SD170
M.O.173 : Sample Packets marked as SD171
M.O.174 : Sample Packets marked as SD172
M.O.175 : Sample Packets marked as SD173
M.O.176 : Sample Packets marked as SD174
M.O.177 : Sample Packets marked as SD175
M.O.178 : Sample Packets marked as SD176
M.O.179 : Sample Packets marked as SD177 35 M.O.180 : Sample Packets marked as SD178
M.O.181 : Sample Packets marked as SD179
M.O.182 : Sample Packets marked as SD180
M.O.183 : Sample Packets marked as SD181
M.O.184 : Sample Packets marked as SD182
M.O.185 : Sample Packets marked as SD183
M.O.186 : Sample Packets marked as SD184
M.O.187 : Sample Packets marked as SD185
M.O.188 : Sample Packets marked as SD186
M.O.189 : Sample Packets marked as SD187
M.O.190 : Sample Packets marked as SD188
M.O.191 : Sample Packets marked as SD189
M.O.192 : Sample Packets marked as SD190
M.O.193 : Sample Packets marked as SD191
M.O.194 : Sample Packets marked as SD192
M.O.195 : Sample Packets marked as SD193
M.O.196 : Sample Packets marked as SD194
M.O.197 : Sample Packets marked as SD195
M.O.198 : Sample Packets marked as SD196
M.O.199 : Sample Packets marked as SD197
M.O.200 : Sample Packets marked as SD198
Sd/-Indira Priyadarshini Undru
SPECIAL JUDGE UNDER N.D.P.S. ACT-CUM-
I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.
- 36
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE UNDER N.D.P.S. ACT –
CUM – I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.
PRESENT: SMT. INDIRA PRIYADARSHINI UNDRU,
Special Judge under N.D.P.S. Act-cum-
I Additional District & Sessions Judge,
West Godavari, Eluru
Tuesday, the 19th day of May, 2026
CALENDAR EXTRACT
N.D.P.S. S.C.No.11/2021
1.Name of the com-:The State Represented by the Station House Officer, Palakol Town Police plainant Station.
2.Date of offence:09.07.2020
3.Date of filing of com-:09.07.2020 plaint
4.Date of apprehension:A-1 to A-3 : 09.07.2020
5.Date of release on bail:A1 to A3 - 20.01.2021.
6.Commencement of trial:12.12.2025
7.Closure of trial:13.02.2026 8. Name and description of the accused:
1. Pothuraju Seshu, S/o. Late Nooka Raju, Age 25 years, Vinayaka Temple, Benna Gopalapatnam, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
2. Sankina Ganesh, S/o. Ramana, Age 22 years, Near Water Tank, Benna Gopalapatnam village, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
3. Muruganti Eswara Rao, S/o. Nooka Raju, Age 23 years, Vinayaka Temple, Benna Gopalapatnam Village, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
9.Date of Judgment:19.05.2026 37
10.Prosecution conducted :Additional Public Prosecutor, Eluru, West Godavari. by
11.Accused defended by:Sri P.Chiranjeevi accused Nos.1 to 3.
12.Finding of the Court:U/Sec. Section 8(c) r/w. Section 20
(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psy- chotropic Substances Act, 1985.
13.Offences:U/Sec. Section 8(c) r/w. Section 20
(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psy- chotropic Substances Act, 1985.
14.Sentence or Order date:19.05.2026
15.Explanation for delay:There is no avoidable delay.
16.Remarks:Nil.
ORDER: In the result, the accused 1 to 3 are found guilty for the offence punishable under section 8(c) r/w. Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and they are convicted Under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C for the said offence.
Hence, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each in default under go simple imprisonment for two years each period for the offence punishable under Section 8(C) r/w. Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of NDPS Act.
The remand period already undergone by Accused from 09.07.2020 to 20.01.2021 shall be given set off as contemplated under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
The material objects i.e., M.O.1: MEIZU company cell phone, M.O.2: VIVO company cell phone and the unmarked case property i.e., two bikes HF Delux bearing No.AP 31 DG 2330, Yamaha FZ bearing No.AP 31 DG 1311 and one Renolt Duster car bearing No.AP 31 CD 2367 shown under Ex.P.3 photographs shall be confiscated to the state after the period for appeal has 38 expired. M.O.3 to M.O.200-sample packets shall be produced before the Drug Disposal Committee for destruction after the period for appeal has expired, subject to the outcome of anyappeal that may be filed. Sd/-Indira Priyadarshini Undru
Special Judge under N.D.P.S. Act –
cum – I Additional District & Ses- sions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.
Copies to:
1. The Registrar (Judl.), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu (through C.D.)
2.The Principal District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru.
3.The Collector, W.G., Eluru.
4.The Superintendent of Police, W.G., Eluru.
5.The Director of Prosecutions, Govt. of A.P., Hyderabad.
6.Sri Y.N.Srinivas, Special Public Prosecutor for Customs, Visakhap atanam.