THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.113 of 2009 01-12-2014 BETWEEN:
Sanga Iylaiah AND …..Appellant The State, rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.113 of 2009 JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the sole accused challenging the judgment of the Special Judge for trial of NDPS Cases (I Additional Sessions Judge), Warangal in S.C.No.162 of 2004 dated 19.01.2009, whereby the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default to suffer imprisonment for two years.
The case of the prosecution is that on 17.3.2004 at about 9.00 a.m., P.W.1-Sub-Inspector of Police, Mogullapally along with staff checking the vehicles at Peddavagu Bridge. At that time, he found M.O.5-jeep being driven by the accused proceeding towards Jammikunta. P.W.1 stopped the said jeep and found gunny bag containing dry ganja. Therefore, he requested P.W.4-Mandal Revenue Officer, Mogullapally to visit the spot to witness the search. He also secured the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 to act as mediators. On arrival of P.W.4, he got opened the bag in the jeep and found dry ganja weighing 13 kgs. He took three samples from the contraband for chemical examination. He prepared Ex.P.2-panchanama and filed Ex.P.1 report with P.W.5-A.S.I., who registered a case as a crime. P.W.6-Circle Inspector of Police took up further investigation, sent the samples for chemical examination, recorded the statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offence.
To substantiate its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.11 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 5. On behalf of accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. After evaluating the evidence brought on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as aforementioned.
P.W.1-S.I. of police deposed regarding his finding the accused in the jeep with gunny bag containing the contraband. He deposed regarding the search conducted in the presence of P.W.4 and mediators-P.Ws.2 and 3, seizing the dry ganja of 13 kgs. from the possession of accused and preparation of panchanama-Ex.P.1. P.Ws.2 and 3, the mediators to Ex.P.2- panchanama did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.4-M.R.O. deposed that on receipt of requisition on 17.3.2004 from P.W.1 he went to Peddavagu bridge and found the accused who was also the driver of jeep bearing No.AP 15V 4645. In his presence, the bag in the jeep was got opened by P.W.1 and found to be containing 13 kgs. dry ganja. P.W.5 deposed regarding his registering the case in Crime No.16 of 2004 basing on Ex.P.1 report filed by P.W.1. P.W.6- Inspector of Police deposed regarding the further investigation conducted by his and filing the charge sheet against the accused.
After arguing for some time, on evaluation of entire evidence and the findings of the trial Court, when this Court pointed out that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment, learned counsel for appellant confined his arguments only to the extent of quantum of sentence and prayed this Court to reduce the sentence of imprisonment in the circumstances of the case.
No grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned conviction imposed by the trial Court. Hence, the conviction imposed on the accused- appellant for the offence under Section 8(c) r/w 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is hereby confirmed, but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment is modified to the one period already undergone by the appellant herein and the fine amount imposed by the trial Court is reduced to Rs.10,000/-. Since the appellant had paid the said sum towards security amount at the time granting bail by this Court, he need not pay any further amount.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall stand closed.
RAJA ELANGO,J 01.12.2014.
Tsr