Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to to present this Memorandum of Crl.A., aggrieved by the Judgment in N.D.P.S.SC.No. 14 of 2008, dt. 08-12-2008 on the file of the Court of the Spl.Sessions Judge for trial of the cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -cum- 1 Addl. Sessions Judge), East Godavari District, Rajahmundry.

IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLAMP 7 OF 2009

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to release the vehicle bearing No.AP 04 K 3141 (Tatasumo) the appeal.

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

****

CRL.A.No.7 of 2009

Between:

Neerudi Dhanamma, W/o. kumar,

Hindu, Aged 33 years, Vegetable Business,

R/o. H. No. 5-143/1, Bharathnagar,

Uppal, Ranga Reddy District. …… APPELLANT/ACCUSED

A N D

The State of Andhra Pradesh,

rep. by its Public Prosecutor,

High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad, and others. …… RESPONDENTS

DATE OF ORAL JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 29.04.2026

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No

______________________________

JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

+ CRL.A.No.7 of 2009

% 29.04.2026

# Between:

Neerudi Dhanamma, W/o. kumar,

Hindu, Aged 33 years, Vegetable Business,

R/o. H. No. 5-143/1, Bharathnagar,

Uppal, Ranga Reddy District. …… APPELLANT/ACCUSED

A N D

The State of Andhra Pradesh,

rep. by its Public Prosecutor,

High Court of Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad, and others. …… RESPONDENTS

! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy

^ Counsel for the Respondent : Sri C.P.Somayaji, Addl. Public Prosecutor and Sri A. Sai Rohit, Asst. Public Prosecutor

Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

O R A L J U D G M E N T:

Heard Sri Mohammed Sayeed Uddin, learned counsel representing Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri C.P. Somayaji, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, along with Sri A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent–State.

The present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant, owner of the vehicle, i.e., Tata Sumo bearing Registration No. AP 04 K 3141 (hereinafter referred to as “the disputed vehicle”), which was confiscated, on the ground that it was used for transportation of narcotic substances seized in the case, vide judgment dated 08.12.2008 passed in NDPS S.C.No.14 of 2008 on the file of learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – cum – I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry.

The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that Section 60(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “the NDPS Act”) reads as follows:

“60. Liability of illicit drugs, substances, plants, articles and conveyances to confiscation:

60.(3). Any animal or conveyance used in transporting any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, [or controlled substances] or any article liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be liable to confiscation, unless the owner of the animal or conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person-in-charge of the animal or conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable precautions against such use.”

He would further submit that Section 63 of the NDPS Act prescribes as follows:

“63. Procedure in making confiscations:

(1) In the trial of offences under this Act, whether the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged, the court shall decide whether any article or thing seized under this Act is liable to con