The judgment established the importance of legally admissible evidence and the burden of proof in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

The unsuccessful Accused No.3 in Sessions Case No.73 of 2005, on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur (“Additional Sessions Judge” for short), filed the present Criminal Appeal impugning the judgment, dated 03.07.2009 whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge found A.3 guilty of the offence under Section 20(a)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act” for short), convicted under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short) and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. By virtue of the said judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found A.1 and A.2 not guilty of the charge and acquitted them under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

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

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as set out in the charge sheet filed by the Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise, Rayadurg in Crime No.79/04-05, is that the accused are residents of D. Hirehal Mandal. A.1 is the father of A.2. A.3 is the owner of land bearing S.No.274/B. On 28.08.2004 Prohibition & Excise party along with the mediators made a visit to the land in the aforesaid survey number. They found A.1 and A.2 attending the agricultural work at 9-30 a.m. Excise party entered into the land and found Ganja plants raised as mixed crop in the cotton crop. A.1 and A.2 disclosed that A.3 is the owner of the land. Then A.3 was also brought to the land by the police. All the Ganja plants were up rooted and two of them were separately taken for sample. All the Ganja plants and the sample plants were sealed and labeled. Prohibition and Excise party arrested A.1 to A.3 under the cover of mediatornama. The property and accused were brought to Prohibition & Excise P.S., Rayadurg. They registered a case in Cr.No.79/04-05 and investigated into. Sample Ganja plants were sent to the chemical examiner, Chittoor, who opined that, they are of Ganja.

4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge took cognizance of the case under the above provisions of law. 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(a)(i) 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.6 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 and M.O.1 and M.O.2. 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 stated that they have no defence witnesses.

6. The learned Additional Sessions on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as the documentary evidence, found A.1 and A.2 not guilty of the charge, but found A.3 guilty of the charge and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as above. Felt aggrieved of the said judgment, the unsuccessful A.3 filed the present appeal.

7. Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the points for determination are as follows:

(1) Whether A.3 on 28.08.2004 at 9-30 a.m. was found in cultivating the Ganja in the land situated in Sy.No.274-B and that he was in exclusive possession of the aforesaid land in the manner as alleged?

(2) Whether the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dated 03.07.2009 in S.C.No.73 of 2005, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same?

Point No.S.1 and 2:-

8. Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned counsel, representing Sri C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant