.

This Appeal is preferred by the Accused in S.C.No.328 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.

2. The accused were charged for the offence under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') for allegedly possessing 25 litres of toddy in a white plastic can on 22-08-1998 at the TFT toddy shop belonging to A-2 in Peddamanthur village. They denied the charges and claimed for trial.

3. The story of the prosecution leading to the conviction of the accused is briefly as follows: The Excise Inspector, Penukonda along with his staff proceeded to Peddamanthur village on 22-08-1998 in a government van, picked up panchayatdars and visited the TFT Toddy shop of A-2 at about 1-40 PM. A-1 was present in the shop transacting toddy business. PW-4 found M.O.1 containing 25 litres of toddy. When A-1 was asked, she could not produce the licence and other records. PW-4 tested the toddy with the kit available with him and found positive for diazepam. He drew 650 ml toddy in glass bottles for the purpose of chemical analysis, sealed and labeled them and destroyed the remaining adulterated toddy and arrested A-1. She stated that she was selling toddy at the instance of her husband (A-2) and she was having licence. PW-4 seized the empty can and bottles under the cover of panchanama covered by Ex.P-2 in the presence of PWs.1 and 2. He gave one sample to A-1 under acknowledgement. He brought the accused and property to the Excise and Prohibition Station, Penukonda and registered the crime. He sent the toddy samples for analysis and received the report of Analyst, which shows the presence of chloral hydrate and diazepam. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was laid.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined PWs.1 to 4 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-5 and M.Os.1 and 2. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on defence side. The accused in their 313 Cr.P.C. examination did not take any specific defence and simply denied the offence.

5. The learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that though the scene of offence is mentioned as TFT Toddy shop, the boundaries were not mentioned and the neighbours were not examined to prove that the accused were running the toddy shop and were adulterating the toddy, therefore, the accused are not liable for prosecution.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence placed by the prosecution amply established the commission of the offence against the accused, therefore, the lower Court rightly convicted and sentenced them and there are no grounds to interfere with the same and the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7. In the light of the contentions of both parties, the point for consideration is: "Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether the convictions and sentences imposed by the lower Court are liable to be set aside?"

8. The prosecution alleged that the accused were in possession of 25 litres of toddy, which was mixed with diazepam, therefore, they are liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 22 of the NDPS Act.

9. PW-1, who is one of the panchas for the panchanama conducted at the shop of the accused, stated that the panchanama was not conducted in his presence, but he signed on Ex.P-1 panchanama on 22-08-1998. In the cross-examination, he stated that the police obtained his signature at Penugonda P.S. and he does not know the contents of the same.

10. PW-2, who is another panch, also did not support the prosecution version. He turned hostile and stated that no panchanama was conducted in his presence and he signed on some papers at the police station. He denied a suggestion that the police conducted panchanama in his presence and he signed on it and he i