APHC010301362009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3396]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 545/2009 Between:

BOYA PIENTI ANJANEYA, S/O ADI BASAPPA, R/O MADANAHALLI VILLAGE, D.HIRAHAL MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DIST.

...APELLANT AND THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATI.

...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant:

1. ARUN SHOWRI G

2. LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent:

1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

Impugning the judgment of conviction in Sessions Case No.206 of 2004 on the file of the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur, dated

17.04.2009, the Appellant / Accused preferred the present appeal.

2. Heard Sri G. Arun Showri, learned counsel for the Appellant and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent/State.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant would submit that there is no evidence to prove that the alleged ganja plants were found in the land of the Appellant. Learned counsel would further submit that the land, in which the Ganja plants were found, belongs to the father of the Appellant. Learned counsel would further submit that the procedure contemplated under Section 52-A of NDPS Act has not been followed. It is submitted that P.Ws.1 and 2 turned hostile and there is no independent evidence to corroborate the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned trial Judge. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that, as per the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5, the Accused was found in the land watering to the crop and 253 ganja plants were found mixed with the tomato garden. It is submitted that the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge is well-reasoned. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

5. The Appellant/Accused was convicted for the offence under Section 20 (a) (i) of NDPS Act by the learned trial Judge in S.C.No.206 of 2004 vide judgment dated 17.04.2009 and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

6. As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5, who are the Excise Officials, they inspected the land in R.S.Nos.66-A, 66-B, 74-A and 74-B and on 04.08.2002 at 5.00 p.m., and found the Appellant/Accused in the said land, wherein, they found 253 ganja plants. As rightly held by the learned trial Judge, there is no hard and fast rule that the evidence of Excise Police Officer cannot be relied on. As seen from Ex.P.8 copy of pattadar passbook, it was established that the said land belongs to the father of the Appellant and since his father was a blind person and was incapable to cultivate the said land, the Appellant was cultivating the said land. Further, there is no contra evidence from the Appellant/Accused to prove that he was not cultivating the said land. Admittedly, the Ganja plants were raised in four rows in the middle of Tomato crop, but they were not found here and there in the entire land. As rightly held by the learned trial Judge, the Prosecution clearly established that the Ganja plants were cultivated in the said land and that the Appellant/Accused was found in possession of the said land by raising crops including Ganja plants. Further, non-compliance of the procedure envisaged under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is not a fatal to the case of the Prosecution, in view of the corroborative evidence to prove the cultivation of the said Tomato land including the Ganja plants by the Accused. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Prosecution could prove the case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 20(a)(i) of NDPS Act. Therefore, this Court does not find any force in the conten