The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for truthful and consistent prosecution evidence, especially regarding the involvement of mediators, and the importance of compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act.

ORDER :

Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment in Sessions Case No.42 of 2007, dated 19.01.2009, on the file of Special Judge for NDPS Cases-cum-I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole (“Special Judge” for short), whereunder the learned Special Judge found the accused Nos.1 and 2 guilty of the charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) r/w 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act” for short), convicted them under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure) (“Cr.P.C.” for short) and after questioning them about the quantum of sentence, sentenced A.1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days and sentenced A.2 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. The appellants herein are no other than A.1 and A.2 in the aforesaid Sessions Case.

2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Special Judge for the sake of the convenience.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the charge sheet filed by the Station House Officer, Prohibition & Excise, Kanigiri, is as follows:

On 18.06.2007 at about 3-30 p.m., Prohibition & Excise party proceeded to Kanigiri to Podili road to detect the Prohibition and Excise offences in a Government rented Jeep. They reached Kasireddy Nagar Bus Stop and found the accused in the standing position having the polythene gunny bags at their legs possessing with their right hands. On seeing the vehicle, they confused themselves. Prohibition & Excise party stopped the vehicle. When they questioned the accused about the contents, they replied that it contained Ganja. They did not reveal the source of Ganja. They revealed that they were waiting for auto to go to Kanigiri. Then L.W.1-K. Sreenivasulu, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, asked the passengers present at to act as mediators and two of them came forward and they are L.W.7-Ravoori Narayana Reddy and L.W.8-Golla Phani Kumar. L.W.1 asked the accused whether they wanted any other Gazetted Officer or Magistrate to search their polythene gunny bags, for which they replied that they may be searched before L.W.1 because he is also a Gazetted Officer. Then Prohibition & Excise party searched the gunny bags of A.1 and A.2 and found Ganja. The bag of A.1 was weighed as 4.200 kgs. The bag of A.2 was weighed as 2.300 kgs. Prohibition & Excise Police drawn sample of 50 grams from each bag and sealed it. They obtained the signatures of the L.W.7 and L.W.8 on the mediatornama. L.W.1 arrested the accused after intimating to them about the grounds of arrest. L.W.6-A. Radha Krishna Murthy, Prohibition & Excise Sub- Inspector, Kanigiri, registered a case as PR.No.56 of 2007-08 and took up investigation. The accused were sent to the Court for remand. L.W.9-G. Muralidhar, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Kanigiri, sent the samples to the chemical examiner, who opined that two samples are of Ganja. Hence, the charge sheet.

4. The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the case under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) r/w 8(c) of N.D.P.S Act. After appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., and on hearing both sides, a charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) r/w 8(c) of N.D.P.S Act was framed and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 and got marked Ex.P.1, Ex.P.1(a)&(b), Ex.P.1(c)&(d), Ex.P.2, Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.2(a) and M.O.1 to M.O.4. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution, for which they denied the same and they did not let in any evidence.

6. The learned Spe