Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1411
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K.SURENDER, J.
Shaik Naim - Appellant
Versus
The State of A.P, rep. by its Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.900 OF 2013
Decided on : 21-02-2025
For the Appellant: Sri A.Prabhakar Rao
For the Respondent: Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor
Failure to comply with procedural requirements under Section 52-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act undermines the prosecution's case, leading to acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)
(C) and Section 52-A - Conviction for possession of contraband - Conviction set aside due to non-compliance with procedural requirements for sample collection and discrepancies in evidence. (Paras 1, 9, 10, 13)
(B) Legal procedure - Importance of following statutory procedures in drug-related cases - Failure to adhere to Section 52-A undermines the prosecution's case. (Paras 9, 13)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for possession of ganja, but the second appellant died during the appeal process. The prosecution's case relied on witness testimonies and evidence collected during the arrest.
Findings of Court:
The court found significant procedural lapses in the collection and handling of evidence, leading to reasonable doubt about the prosecution's claims.
Issues: The main issues included whether the procedure under Section 52-A was followed and the implications of discrepancies in evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the failure to comply with Section 52-A regarding sample collection creates serious doubt about the prosecution's case, necessitating the acquittal of the appellant.
Result: Criminal Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
K.SURENDER, J.
1. The appellants 1 and 2 were convicted for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ‘the Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years vide judgment in S.C.No.51 of 2012, dated 30.10.2013 passed by the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of NDPS Cases (I-Additional Sessions Judge) Warangal. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.
2. During pendency of the appeal, the Superintendent of Jails, Central Prison, through letter dated 12.08.2024 informed that the 2nd appellant/A2 died on 30.05.2017. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal was dismissed as abated in respect of 2nd appellant/A2 by this Court on 02.09.2024.
3. Heard, Sri A.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State.
4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the Sub- Inspector of Police, who was on patrolling duty on 06.03.2012. About 2.45 p.m, he along with other police reached Hanamkonda Bus Stand and near plot form No.8, they found two persons, i.e., A1 and A2, carrying two bags. P.W.1 and others stopped A1 and A2 and the bags were weighed. Each bag was 8 kgs. Three samples of 100 grams were drawn from each bag. P.W.1 then prepared Ex.P1 panchanama. P.W.1 marked MO1 during investigation, which is sample collected during proceedings.
5. P.W.2, who was running Kirana Shop at the local Bus stand is a witness to the appellants being caught by the police men. P.W.3 is an independent witness, who was called by the police. According to him, in his presence Ex.P1 panchanama and Ex.P2 seizure panchanama were prepared. P.W.4 is the Tahsildar. According to him, he went to the Bus stand, where A1 and A2 allegedly confessed that they purchased ganja from A3 to A5. According to P.W.4, three samples from each bag were collected and thereafter, property was kept in safe custody of the police.
6. P.W.5 turned hostile to the prosecution case. P.W.6 is the photographer. P.W.7 turned hostile to the prosecution case. P.W.8 is the Circle Inspector of Police, who received Ex.P3 report from P.W.1. He registered the case and effected arrest of A1 and A2. On 08.03.2012, P.W.8 sent samples to the Chemical Engineer through SDPO, Hanamkonda. Ex.P8 is the copy of letter of advise dated 06.03.2012. P.W.8/investigating officer, arrested A3, A4 and A5, on the basis of information given by A1 & A2.
7. P.W.9 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who collected FSL report Ex.P9. Exs.P10 and P11 are the photographs of destruction of the contraband seized from A1 & A2.
8. Learned Sessions Judge found favour with the prosecution case and accordingly, convicted A1 and A2. However, A3 to A5 were acquitted, since they were arrayed as Accused only on the basis of confession of A1 and A2.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/A1 would submit that the procedure prescribed under Section 52-A of the Act was not followed. In the absence of following the procedure, the conviction has to be set aside. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Simarnjit Singh v. State of Punjab, [2023 LawSuit (SC) 859] held as follows:
“8. In paragraphs 15 to 17 of the decision of this Court in Mohanlal's case, it was held thus:
“15. It is manifest from Section 52-A(2)include (supra) that upon seizure of the contraband the same has to be forwarded either to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 who shall prepare an inventory as stipulated in the said provision and make an application to the Magistrate for purposes of (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory, (b) certifying photographs of such drugs or substances taken before the Magistrate as true, and (c) to draw representative samples in the presence of the Magistrate and certifying the correctness of the list of samples so drawn. 16. Sub-section (3) of Section 52-A requires that the Magistrate shall as soon as may be allow the application. This impl
