THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.50 of 2014 23-01-2014 BETWEEN:
State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, …..Appellant AND Dandu Venkateswarlu And others.
…..Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.50 of 2014 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State challenging the Judgment dated 15.09.2006 passed in C.C. No.394 of 2000 by the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 27(b) (ii) read with 18(c) and Section 28 read with 18A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That the Police, on information, found the respondent No.1/Accused No.1 at bus stand center in possession of two bags of drugs. On verification, P.W.1, Sub Inspector of Police, found all the drugs were stamped with “Supply to Government Hospital not for sale”. The police in the presence of the mediators recorded the confession statement of A.1 and seized the drug bags under the cover of police proceedings. The police also visited the clinics of respondents 2 and 3/A.2 and A.3 and seized the drugs supplied by respondent No.1/A.1. After complying with all the formalities, the police registered the case against the respondents/A.1 to A.3. After completion of the investigation, police filed charge sheet against the respondents/A.1 to A.3 for the offences under Section 27(b)(ii) read with 18(c) and Section 28 read with 18A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.4, and marked Exs.P.1 to P.15 and M.Os.1 and 2. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the respondents/A.1 to A.3 mainly on the following grounds (paragraph 10 of the Judgment).
I observed that in this case L.W.1 to 10 were cited as witnesses but only 4 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. In this case, L.W.8 is most important witness. He was not examined by the prosecution and P.W.2 did not support the prosecution case. He deposed in the Chief Examination that he signed tin the mediator nama at the hospital and in the cross-examination, he stated that he signed in Ex.P.5 and P.6 in the police station at the instance of SI, P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the prosecution witnesses and official witnesses. P.W.2 is only independent witness. He did not support the version of the prosecution case. He stated that I do not know the contents of Ex.P.5 and P.6. Hence, in this case, prosecution failed to fulfil the mandatory provisions under Cr.P.C., regarding furnishing of copy of list of seized articles to the accused. In the light of the above observations, this Court feels that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and hence, benefit of doubt is extended to the accused.
Heard both sides and perused the entire material available on record.
On perusing the entire evidence and hearing the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has considered the evidence in proper perspective and the reasoning given above while acquitting the accused is also in accordance with law. The Judgment of the trial Court does not suffer from any perverse findings and the acquittal recorded by the trial Court needs no interference by this Court. The criminal appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 23.01.2014 pln