HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 241 of 2007 Dated: 22.01.2014 Between: Katla Poshalu … Appellant/accused And State of A.P., Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.
… Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 241 of 2007 JUDGMENT:
This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is filed by the appellant-accused against the judgment, dated 22.02.2007 rendered in Sessions Case No.288 of 2003, wherein and whereby the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, found the accused-appellant guilty for the offence under Section 8(b) punishable under Section 20(i)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act’), convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.01.2003 on reliable information that the farmers at Jagaiahpally were cultivating ganja in Chilli, PW-2 made GD entry of the information and also sent information to the Superintendent of Police Warangal and other officers and proceeded to the outskirts of Jaggaihpet Village along with his staff. During search, he found Ganja plants in the Chilli crop. Immediately, PW-2 secured the presence of PW-1 and LW-10 Gampa Chakrapani and conducted scene of offence panchanama and plucked the Ganja plants with the help of staff and adjacent land owners viz., LW-4 Mr. Babu, LW-5 - Mr. Poshalu, LW-6 -Mr. Mallesh and LW-7 – Mr. Odelu and took photographs with the help of LW-8 Mr.Shanker and heaped them at a place from which they took three samples in separate ploythin covers, sealed them, affixed slips containing signatures of himself, panchas and the Village Secretary. Thereafter, they displayed a board at the place that the plucked ganja shall not be touched by anyone until orders of the competent authorities and accounted as 1136 and seized Ganja plants after taking samples for Chemical Analysis in the presence of mediators. After returning to the police station, PW-2 handed over Ex.P-1 panchanama, basing on which, a case was registered in Cr.No.15/2003 under Section 8(b) read with 20 of the NDPS Act. After completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the accused.
3. On appearance of the accused, the learned Special Judge framed the charge for the offence under Section 8(b) read with 20 of the NDPS Act against the accused, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-15. On behalf of defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
5. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty and convicted him as stated above. Challenging the same, present appeal has been preferred.
6. This Court heard arguments and also perused the entire material on record.
7. On a perusal of the material on record, it is apparent that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is consistent. Their evidence coupled with the seizure and analysis report clearly establishes the case of the prosecution. In view of the same and in view of the nature of the offence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment under appeal.
8. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is having children and he is the only breadwinner of his family and further, he was in prison for a considerable period and therefore, a lenient view may be taken.
9. In the above circumstances and considering the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment.
10. In the result, the conviction recorded by the trial Court against the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 8(b) read with 20(i)(b) of the NDPS Act is hereby confirmed. But however, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court is reduced to the period, which the appellant has already undergone while maintaining the sentence of fine.
11. With above modification in sentence of imprisonment, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any filed in this appeal, shall stand closed.
RAJA ELANGO, J 22nd January 2014. mar