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

2023 Supreme(AP) 1358

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V.Ravindra Babu, J.
Yanaki Gopala Krishna - Appellant
Versus
State: Prohibition And Excise Inspector - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 692 of 2010
Decided On : 12-10-2023

Advocates appeared:
N.Harinath, Advocate, C.H.Ravindra Babu, Advocate, Bhogadi Mallikharjuna Devarayulu, Advocate

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.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)

(C), 42, 43, and 50 - Conviction for possession of 30 Kgs of Ganja - Prosecution established recovery from the accused during routine vehicle check - Accused failed to prove non-compliance of mandatory provisions concerning search and seizure - Evidence supports conscious possession of contraband, leading to conviction and sentencing. (Paras 1, 3, 57, 59)

(B) Presumption of guilt - Under Sections 35 and 54, upon proving possession, the burden shifts to the accused to disprove conscious possession or provide an alternate explanation. (Paras 54, 57)

(C) Appeal - Scope of review - High Court upheld lower court's finding as there was no merit in arguments to reverse the conviction. (Paras 58, 59)

Facts of the case:
The accused, apprehended during a checkpoint, were found with 30 Kgs of Ganja in their possession aboard a bus. They claimed insufficient evidence for conviction, arguing that Ganja was not under their control.

Findings of Court:
The prosecution sufficiently established facts showing the accused's knowledge and possession of the contraband, justifying the conviction and sentence.

Issues: The adequacy of evidence supporting the prosecution's claims regarding possession, and the compliance with search provisions of the NDPS Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that compliance with mandatory provisions under Sections 42, 43, and 50 was confirmed; failure to establish factual discrepancies was critical in asserting possession.

Result: Criminal Appeal dismissed; the conviction and sentence were upheld.

Table of Content
1. challenge to earlier judgment in ndps act case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. procedural foundation laid for trial and conviction. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court's observations on evidence. (Para 8)
4. arguments regarding non-compliance of ndps act provisions. (Para 15 , 18 , 19 , 24)
5. argument for non-compliance of provisions. (Para 16 , 17)
6. details on specific statutory provisions. (Para 27 , 29)
7. conscious possession and its implications under ndps. (Para 30 , 53 , 57)
8. summary of findings and conclusions. (Para 56)
9. final disposition of the appeal and orders issued. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62)

JUDGMENT

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU,J. - The judgment, dtd. 19/3/2010 in Sessions Case No.2 of 2010, on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, is under challenge in the present appeal filed by the unsuccessful Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 ("A.1 and A.2" for short), who faced conviction and sentence under Sec. 8(c) r/w Sec. 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act" for short) for possessing 30 Kgs. of Ganja.

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

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the averments set out in the charge sheet filed by the State, represented by Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Mangalagiri, in Crime No.89/2009-10 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Mangalagiri, under Sec. 8(c) r/w Sec. 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, is that;

(a) A.1 is resident of Marellavari Street, 22nd Ward, Near Simhadri Appanna Temple, Bheemavaram, West Godavari District and A.2 is resident of Lingamgunta Village, Ananthasagaram Mandal, Nellore District.

(b) On 21/11/2009 L.W.3-G.E. Ananda Babu, Prohibition & Excise Head Constable, Mangalagiri; L.W.4-D. Rama Krishna, Prohibition and Excise Constable, Mangalagiri; L.W.5-Y. Ashok Kumar, Prohibition and Excise Sub Inspector, Mangalagiri and L.W.6-T. Srinivasa Rao, Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Mangalagiri, along with other staff conducted vehicle checking of the vehicles coming from Vijayawada side, near Khaja Tollgate, from 8-30 a.m. onwards. At about 10-45 a.m., L.W.6 stopped the APSRTC bus bearing No.A.P.28 Z 5018 from Machilipatnam to Tirupati to check the bus. Accordingly, he conveyed intention to check the bus to the driver of the said bus and served search proceedings under Sec. 165 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE ("Cr.P.C." for short) on L.W.1-A. Surya Nagendra Rao, bus driver. On search, he found A.1 in seat No.11 in the 4th row behind the conductor and further found A.2 in the seat No.14, behind the driver, by keeping some bags in front of them. On enquiry, both of them admitted possession of Ganja in the said bags in a confusing manner. Then, L.W.6 requested L.W.1 and L.W.2-K. Ramkumar, the Drivers of the said RTC Bus to act as mediators, for which they agreed to do so. In the presence of them, he verified the white polythene sticks bag and black zip bag with A.1 and white polythene sticks bag and wheat colour sticks bag with A.2. He found leaves, stems, flowers and seeds smelling as Ganja. Then he secured one electronic weighing machine with the help of L.W.3. In the presence of mediators i.e., L.W.1 and L.W.2, he got numbered the bags as Sl.Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the bags of A.1 and numbered the bags of A.2 as Sl.Nos.3 and 4 and got weighed the same. He found 8.500 Kgs, 8.500 Kgs., 7.00 Kgs. and 6-00 Kgs. in total 30 Kgs of Ganja in the above said bags. A.1 and A.2 revealed their names and identity particulars on enquiry by him. They confessed about the commission of offence. They handed over the bus journey tickets. Then he has taken 100 grams of Ganja each into four separate paper packing, as samples for analysis and kept the remaining Ganja in the respective bags, tied the same, sealed and affixed identity slips. He arrested A.1 and A.2 after explaining grounds of arrest under cover of a mediators report scribed by L.W.4. Later

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