Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V.Ravindra Babu, J.
Ragipindi Gopal Reddy - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2010
Decided On : 07-11-2023
NDPS Act - Cultivation of Ganja - Sec. 20(a) - Sec. 42, Sec. 52(A) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the compliance of Sec. 42 and Sec. 52(A) of the NDPS Act, which were found not to be necessary in the case of open field cultivation of ganja. The judgment also referenced relevant case law to support the interpretation of these provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was charged with cultivating ganja plants in his land, but the prosecution failed to prove the ownership and extent of the land where the ganja plants were allegedly cultivated. The court found that the evidence did not establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of the charge under Sec. 20(a) of the NDPS Act.
Issues: The key issues were whether the prosecution proved the accused's cultivation of ganja plants and whether the judgment of the trial court was sustainable under law and facts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the ownership and extent of the land where the ganja plants were allegedly cultivated.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, the judgment of the trial court was set aside, and the accused was acquitted of the charge under Sec. 20(a) of the NDPS Act. The fine amount, if any, paid by the accused was ordered to be refunded, and the accused was directed to be released from prison.
JUDGMENT
A.V.RAVINDRA BABU,J. - The judgment, dtd. 18/3/2010, in Sessions Case No.755 of 2007 on the file of the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur (for short, 'the learned Additional Sessions Judge'), is under challenge in the present Appeal filed by the appellant, who was unsuccessful accused in the aforesaid Sessions Case and faced charge for the offence under Sec. 20(a) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act').
2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the aforesaid charge, convicted him under Sec. 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C') 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.1,000.00 in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months.
3. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
4. The State, represented by Station House Officer (SHO), Prohibition and Excise Station, Tadipatri filed charge sheet in Crime No.37 of 1999-2000 for the offence under Sec. 8(b) R/w.20(i)(a) of the NDPS Act. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
(i) On 9/11/1999 at about 04:30 p.m. on reliable information about the ganja plantation in the lands of the accused i.e., Survey No.182, LW.3 - U.G. Sathya Narayana, Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural Circle along with LW.4 - B. Umamaheswara Reddy, SI of Police, Yellanur Police Station, LW.5 - R. Md. Rafiq, Head Constable, Yellanur Police Station including other staff members, LW.6 - D. Nagabhushanam, Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Tadipatri and his staff accompanied by LW.1 - K. Syed Basha, Mandal Revenue Inspector (MRI), Yellanur Mandal and LW.2 - B.L. Madhava Rao, Village Administrative Officer (VAO), Mallagundla proceeded to the lands of the accused, situated at a distance of 1 K.M. west to Gaddamvaripalli village. They found the accused watering the lands. He tried to run away on seeing the Police but with the assistance of his staff, LW.3 surrounded and detained him. Accused revealed his identity on interrogation and admitted that the lands in Survey No.182 to an extent of Ac.7.00 cents belong to him. LW.3 informed his intention to search the fields and searched the fields of accused and found in between the cheeni trees and groundnut crop, ganja plants to an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in the middle of the lands of the accused. On enquiry, accused disclosed that he raised ganja plants to earn more money. There are totally 3,250 ganja plants raised by the accused. The boundaries of the lands of the accused in Survey No.182 are as follows:
East - groundnut fields of Kristipadu Basi Reddy,
West - cheeni garden of Krishtipadu Basi Reddy,
North - groundnut field of Vennapusa Venkata Reddy and
South- rastha leading to the fields from Gaddamvaripalli village by the side of cheeni garden of Kotakinda Nagi Reddy.
(ii) LW.3 - Inspector of Police, Tadipatri with the assistance of his staff and mediators, removed the ganja plants from the land and took two plants as sample for chemical analysis and sealed the samples and labeled it. They destroyed the remaining plants on the spot. They arrested the accused under the cover of mahazarnama and returned to Yellanur Police Station and registered the same initially as a case in Crime No.80 of 1999 for the offence under Sec. 8(b) R/w.20(i)(a) of the NDPS Act.
(iii) The accused was forwarded to the judicial remand on 10/11/1999. The investigation revealed that the accused raised ganja plants in his land and used to look after his ganja plants. The villagers of Gaddamvaripalli chastised the accused for raising the ganja plants but he did not heed to their advice. During investigation, LW.3 obtained the adangals pertaining to the lands of the accused in Survey No.182.
(iv) On 3/12/1999, LW.3 transferred the case to LW.6 - SHO, Prohibition and Ex
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to establish key elements of the alleged offense can resul....
Where search is not relating to any building, enclosed place or any conveyance, compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act is not at all necessary.
Conviction for drug-related offences requires proof of knowledge and intent; mere ownership of property does not suffice for liability without substantial evidence.
The judgment established the importance of legally admissible evidence and the burden of proof in criminal cases.
Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt accused's active cultivation of cannabis on jointly owned land through evidence of possession and nurturing; mere presence or joint ownership insufficie....
Confessions to police officers are inadmissible; failure to follow mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act voids prosecution.
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.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
