APHC010730782018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396]

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 2703/2018 Between:

1. REDDI SATYA RAO, R/O. PANJA. CENTRE, GANDHI STREET NO.1, 3RD HOUSE, VIJAYAWADA

2. AARLI SRINU, R/O. NARASAYYAPETA, CHODAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST.

...APELLANT(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THROUGH PS CHODAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST, HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD.

...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. R SIVA SAI SWARUP

2. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent:

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

JUDGMENT

Impugning the judgment of conviction dated 29.08.2018 passed in N.S.C.No.27 of 2013 by the Special Judge to try the offences under NDPS Act-cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam for the offence under Section 8(c) read with Section

20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, For short ‘NDPS Act’

the Appellants / Accused Nos.1 and 2 preferred the present appeal.

2. Heard Sri R.Siva Sai Swarup and Sri V.V.Satish, learned counsel for the Appellants and Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Respondent/State.

3. Learned counsel for both the Appellants would submit that Section 52 A of the NDPS Act has not been complied with. Learned counsel would further submit that four witnesses were examined by the Prosecutor and P.W.1 is a stock witness. Learned counsel would further submit that P.W.1 was not present at the time of alleged raid. It is further submitted that the alleged seize of ganja was added at the end of the mediators report and there is no mention of the name of the person, who weighed the said ganja. Learned counsel would submit that, Ex.P.1 panchanama speaks about drawing of sample on the spot, which is illegal. As such, the consequential report becomes irrelevant to the case on hand. The identity of the contraband is not legally established by the Prosecution. Learned counsel would finally submit that, there are irregularities and infirmities in the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge, as such, interference of this Court is necessary and prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohammed Khalid and another vs. The State of

Telangana, 2024 INSC 158, Yusuf @ Asif vs. State, 2023 INSC 912, Mangilal vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and proved the case against the Appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that there are no tenable grounds warranting interference of this Court in the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge.

Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

5. N.S.C.No.27 of 2013 was registered against the Appellants herein alleging that on 08.01.2013 at 4.30 a.m., near Gowripatnam Bridge, Chodavaram Mandal, they were found while transporting 475 kgs of ganja, which is a commercial quantity, loaded in 19 bags in white colour Maruthi Van bearing No.AP 37 AB 8709, without any valid permission or license. The learned trial Judge, after conducting full-fledged trial, having found that the Appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the alleged offence, convicted them under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of fourteen years each and also to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each for the offence under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal has been preferred by the Appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2.

4 2023 Liv