The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri L. Harish Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.533 OF 2012 JUDGMENT: 1. ,The Criminal appeal is frled by the appellant-accused questioning the Judgment dated 13.O6.2OL2 in SC No. l1 of 2O1l passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District -cum- Metropolitan Sessions Judge: Cybearabad at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, wherein the accused was convicted for the offences under Section 8(b) read with Section 2o(a)(i) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (for short "the Act, 1985") and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of five years and also pay fine of Rs. 1O,OO0/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment of one year.

2. Heard Sri L.Harish, learned counsel for the appellant- accused and Sri Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and perused the record.

3. PW.3 is the Task Force Inspector. He received credible information on O6.05.2008 about cultivation of ganja, which is a psychotropic substance. He immediately passed on the 2 KS,J Crl.A-No.533 of 2012 information to his superior offlrg€, who is the Assistant Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Rajendranagar. PW.3 obtained permission from him and having secured two Revenue Inspectors, went to Gram Panchayath office of Manchanapally village, where he asked PWs.l and 2 to accompany them to witness the proceedings. PWs. 1 to 4 and others went to the fields, where the appellant was working. It was found that in Ac.O.20 guntas of land, there were 275 ganja plants with a height of 5 to 5 Vz feet. The plants contained flower tops and seeds. Then, PW.S-Excise Inspector, questioned the appellant and thereafter having followed the procedure prescribed, drew two samples of 5O grams each. The remaining plants were destroyed and destruction certihcate was also given.

4. The samples were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) lor examination. The test by FSL revealed that the samples were ganja. Accordingly, charge sheet was laid against the appellant for the offence under Section B(c) read with Section 20(a)(i) of the Act, 1985. I I 3 KS,J Crl.A.No.5 j3 of 2012

5. PWs.l ancl 2, who are .th€- independent witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW.3 is the Task Force Inspector, who having received information, reduced the same into writing, which is Ex.P4, and then went to the Iields of the appellant, where the appellant was found watering the plants. As already narrated above, due procedure was lollowed by PW.3. Thereafter, the appellant along with samples were handed over to the Station House Officer, Vikarabad. The pahanies of the land, where the ganja plants w,ere found, were also fi1ed.

6. The learned Sessions Judge relied on the evidence of PW.3, PW.4 Independent witness and PW.5, who registered the' case and issued Crime and Occurrence Report to find the appellant guilty. The learned Sessions Judge accordingly convicted the appellant.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there is violation of Sections 42 and 52-A of the Act 1985. Though it was stated during trial that leaves were plucked, however, the Forensic Science Laboratory received the seeds and flowers also. There is delay of nearly ,1 KS,J Crl.A.No.533 of 2012 three (03) months in sending t4e samples to the FSL. Further, the custody of samples for three months was not specifically explained by the prosecution. In the said circumstances, when there is violation of both provisions under Sections 42 arrd 52-A the Act, 1985, the question of convicting the appellant does not arise.

8. The appellant does not dispute his presence when the officials arrived. PW.3 has specifically stated that he has intimated his superior officer about the information he received and taken down the information in writing. The said information is Ex.P4. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that there is vioiation of Section 42 of NDPS Act.

9. The sampling was done and accordingly sent to the FSL for the purpose of testing. The FSL has given certificate that the samples sent for examination contained ganja.

10. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity with the linding of the learned Sessions Judge. 5 KS,J Crl.A.lt'o.5 3 3 of 2012

11. However, the incident is of-the year 2008 and nearly 17 years have passed by. It is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant is a habitual offender or has any other crimina-l antecedents. The appellant is an agriculturist having Ac.0.20 gunts of land. Keeping in view that the appellalt does not have any other criminal antecedents, the quantum of sentence is reduced to the period alreadl undergone by him.

72. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. A-V.S.S.C.S.M. SARMA INT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER 2 3 4 .and sessions. Judge, Ranga Reddy District-cum- 1 . The I Additionar District Metropolitan Sessrons Judge, CyberaOaO, at f.Ej.ruaoar. . The Prohibition & Excise rn-sp_ec[or, vit<arauao poii-#station, R.R.District . The s^uperintendent, centrar'prison at charraparti. Ringa Rebay oistiici' . Two ccs to the pubric prosecutor, uigh coirt ioi ih""st"iu oi ieian"gan" at Hyderabad lOUTl . 9n" 99 to Sri I Harish, Advocate tOpUC] . Two CD Copies 5 6 \ To, '@* HIGH COURT DATED: 2010112025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.533 ot 2012 1flE Sl4 ,€ ( C. o 2 4 JrtAB 2025 t ,t ALLOWING THE APPEAL 0