SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(AP) 67

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
Bhaja Jal S/o Late Anomdh Jal – Appellant
Versus
The State Of A.P. & Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.394 of 2011
Decided on : 29-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P DURGA PRASAD, Sri A.S.K.S. Bhargav

The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of culpable mental state and possession under Section 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, and the court's reliance on the prosecution's evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant.

Headnote:

NDPS Act - Possession - Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court found the appellant guilty of possession of ganja under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985. The judgment discusses the compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 50 and 42 of the NDPS Act, the necessity of personal search, and the chain of custody of the contraband ganja. The court also considered legal precedents and presumptions under Section 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act.

Fact of the Case:

The prosecution's case was that the appellant was found in possession of 6 kgs of ganja at a bus stand. The appellant denied the possession and claimed to be falsely implicated by the police. The court examined the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, including the investigating officer and chemical analyst, and found the appellant guilty based on the recovery of the contraband from his possession.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the appellant guilty of possession of ganja under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The court also held that the compliance of Section 50 and 42 of the NDPS Act was not necessary in this case and that the prosecution had established the chain of custody of the contraband ganja. The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Issues: The key issues before the court were the compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 50 and 42 of the NDPS Act, the necessity of personal search, and the chain of custody of the contraband ganja. The court also considered the appellant's claim of false implication and lack of culpable mental state.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the prosecution's evidence establishing the recovery of ganja from the appellant's possession. The court also relied on legal precedents and presumptions under Section 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act to support its findings.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the trial court, finding the appellant guilty of possession of ganja under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The appellant was directed to surrender before the trial court, and the trial court was instructed to carry out the sentence imposed against the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment, dated 11.03.2011 in NDPS S.C.No.1 of 2007, on the file of Special Sessions Judge for Trial of the Cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram (“Special Judge” for short), where under the learned Special Judge found the present appellant/A.1 guilty of the charge under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act” for short), convicted him 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 undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The learned Special Judge found A.2 not guilty of the charge under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and acquitted him under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

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

3) The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the charge sheet filed by the Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Bobbili in Crime No.49 of 2006-07, is that A.1 is resident of Jathupali Village, Nanpada District of Orissa State. A.2 is resident of Pydiparthi Village of Mentada Mandal.

4) On 19.12.2006 at about 1-00 p.m., on a phone message received L.W.8-P. Suryanarayana, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Bobbili, entered information in the General Diary left the station along with L.W.4-P. Krishna Rao, Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector; L.W.5-M.S. Pentayya, Prohibition & Excise Head Constable; L.W.6- K. Appala Raju, Prohibition & Excise Constable and L.W.7-T. Geeta Rani, Prohibition & Excise Constable and proceeded to Mandal Revenue Office, Bobbili. They made a requisition to Mandal Revenue Officer and in turn Mandal Revenue Officer deputed L.W.1-A.P.S. Gollapalli and L.W.2-V. Simhachalam Tayari, the revenue personnel to act as mediators. They left the office of Mandal Revenue Officer with mediators and reached rickshaw stand of Bobbili Bust Stand (Complex) at 2-00 p.m. They found A.1 carrying a big shoppy bag with his right hand along with A.2 discussing together. They came out from the bus stand to the rickshaw stand. L.W.8 in the presence of mediators detained A.1 and A.2. A.1 and A.2 disclosed their identity on questioning and confessed that they possessed ganja in the bag. Then L.W.8 issued a search notice to the accused informing the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. On taking willingness from A.1 and A.2 to be searched before a gazetted officer, a mediatornama was drafted there and both accused were taken to a nearest gazetted officer. They were taken to the Mandal Revenue Office, Bobbili. They produced A.1 and A.2 before Mandal Revenue Officer, Bobbili at 4-00 p.m. on 19.12.2006. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Bobbili in the presence of mediators searched the big shoppy bag and found ganja having leaves, tops, flowers and small stems. Then with the available measures, Mandal Revenue Officer, got measured the ganja bundle and found it as 6 kgs. Then L.W.8 took two samples i.e., 50 grams of each, packed them separately in the presence of mediators. The remaining ganja was packed and it is sealed in a bundle of ganja and two sample packets are also sealed with proper identity slips and with signatures of the mediators and officers. A mazarnama was drafted to that effect. L.W.8 in the presence of mediators arrested the accused informing the grounds of arrest. He along with the staff, accused and property returned to the station at 5-15 p.m., on 19.12.2006 and registered the mahazar as a case in Crime No.49 of 2006-07 under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and issued FIR. On 20.12.2006 property was produced before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili for custody. On 20.12.2006 Inspector se

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top