IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
Bosaga Suryakanth @ Suresh, S/o Amrutha Rao – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.929 of 2010
Decided on : 03-03-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 207, 228, 235(2) - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 - Section 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C) - Criminal Appeal - Search and seizer of Ganja - Appeal against conviction - Held, prosecution before Court below cogently established about recovery of huge quantity of contraband i.e., Ganja from possession of accused beyond reasonable doubt. A perusal of Ex.P.7, analysis report, discloses that samples are of Ganja - Prosecution established link between M.O.1 to M.O.74 with that of Ganja that was seized from accused - In court considered view, learned Special Judge on factual aspects rightly appreciated evidence on record and rightly found guilty of accused - No grounds to interfere with judgment of learned Special Judge - Criminal Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant, who was the accused in NDPS Sessions Case No.8 of 2005, on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of the cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry (hereinafter will be referred to as “Special Judge”), challenging the judgment, dated 02.07.2010, where under the learned Special Judge, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (“N.D.P.S. Act” for short) and convicted him under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (“Cr.P.C.” for short) and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year.
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The State, represented by Inspector of Police, Rajavommangi Circle, East Godavari District, filed charge sheet in Crime No.10 of 2004 of Rajavommangi Police Station under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(1) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 alleging in substance as follows:
(i) The accused is resident of Bhogasa Village, Bhasavakalyana Mandapam Taluk, Bheedar District of Karnataka State. He is a driver of Lorry bearing No.MH 18A 7501. L.W.1- Kanigiri Chakrapani and L.W.2-Behavara Gavarraju are the mediators to the occurrence. L.W.3-Bhyrun Abdul Davoodh is the Kirana shop owner, who weighed Ganja packets in the presence of police and revenue officials. L.W.4-Thatituri Veerababu is the Photographer. L.W.5-M. Satyananda Rao is the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajavommangi. L.W.6- C. Satyanandam is the Government Chemical Examiner for Prohibition and Excise, Kakinada. L.W.7-G. Satyanarayana is the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajavommangi Police Station. L.W.8-Y. Srinivasa Rao is the then Inspector of Police, Rajavommangi Police Station.
(ii) On 09.03.2004 at about 11-00 a.m., on receipt of information regarding the fact that the Ganja loaded lorry driven by the accused dashed a tree in the outskirts of Sarabhavaram Village, near Boyapadu-Kakarapadu, the Inspector of Police, along with Sub-Inspector of Police and the mediators proceeded to the spot and found the accused with an injury on his forehead. L.W.8, the Inspector of Police questioned the accused. Firstly, he gave prevaricating replies and finally disclosed his identity particulars. He confessed that he purchased 74 packets of Ganja from an unknown person in between Narsipatnam and K.D. Peta forest area at the rate of Rs.100/- per Kg and accordingly he purchased total 430 Kgs. of Ganja for Rs.43,000/- with a view to sell the same at Thiruchanur for Rs.1,000/- per Kg. Ganja to get profit to earn money. While, he is brining 74 packets of Ganja bundles in his lorry bearing No.MH 18A 7501 from K.D. Peta via Rajavommangi and after passing Kakarapadu-Boyapadu junction, he failed to control the vehicle in high speed and dashed a road side Boda tree, as such, he received minor injury. He also revealed that along with him, another driver Venkat and one Basaga Govind Ganapath were present, but they absconded after the accident. The Inspector of Police recorded the statement of the accused under the cover of Mahazarnama in the presence of mediators from 1-00 p.m. to 2-00 p.m., on 09.03.2004 and he seized 74 packets of Ganja bundles under the cover of mediatornama. On 09.03.2004 at 3-00 p.m., the Sub-Inspector of Police, at the instructions of Inspector of Police, registered the mahazarnama as a case in Crime No.10 of 2004 under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(1) of N.D.P.S. Act. L.W.8 personally investigated into the case. L.W.3 weighed 74 packets of Ganja and L.W.4 Photographed the Ganja bundles in the police station. A mahazar was drafted for weighing of Ganja from 4-00 p
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act does not vitiate the trial but renders the recovery suspect. The burden of proving a satisfactory explanation for possession lies with the ....
Possession of narcotics requires no personal search compliance under Section 50 when found during public checks; evidence established conscious possession leads to conviction under the NDPS Act.
The prosecution's burden to prove the recovery of contraband from the accused, the presumption under Section 35, and the link between the contraband and the accused were central legal principles esta....
The court found the accused guilty of possession of Ganja based on consistent evidence from witnesses and dismissed the appeal.
The court emphasized that compliance of Sec. 50 of the NDPS Act was not necessary as there was no personal search of the accused, and the accused's conscious possession of Ganja led to the presumptio....
The court upheld the conviction under the NDPS Act, establishing that procedural compliance and evidence corroborate guilt for possession of contraband.
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act vitiates the conviction, especially where the prosecution relies solely on police testimony without corroboration from independent witness....
The prosecution must establish conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt in NDPS cases.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.