The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.73S8 OF 2o25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Sectron 52g of the Bharativa Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ([cr short ,BNSS) by the State to set aside the order dated 28.()5;.20125 passed in Crl.M.P.No.264 of 2025 in S.C.(NDPS).No..1 of 2024 bi, I Additional Sessions Judge, Halumakonda.

2. Heard Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learnecl Assistant Public Prosecutor for petitionei'-State anc Mrs. Indrra, learned counsel for respondents / accused

3. On the basis of complaint of Sub-lnsp<:ctor cf poli<;e, PS Eikathurthy, an FIR bearing No. 195 ol 2023 came to be registered on 16. 10.2023 for the offenccs rrrdcr Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotrc Drugs and Ps-vchotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ,NDpS Act,). The gist of the complaint is that Sub-lnspccror o[ police, u,as performrng vehicle checking duties in r,.ieu of t he (forthcoming assembly) elections at chcc[: post --\ "*.1 ) JAK, J CRLP 73 58 2025 Penchikalpet cross road, along u,ith his personnel. On

16.10.2023 at 05:00 hours, they checked an Bicher truck moving towards Karimnagar from Hanumakonda and found two persons suspiciously, on que stioning them, the-v stated Ganja packets were on the top of the truck. Sub- Inspector of Police climbed the truck ald found intense smell emanating from the packets (150 packets, each of 2 kgs Ganja were found). 4 . A notice under Section 5O of N DPS Act u'as served, accused Nos. 1 and 2 confesscd. A requisition was sent to Tahsildar, Elkathurthy, on the requisition of Tahsildar, MDPC, Elkathuthy, sent two mediators. Tahsildar conducted confession and seizure panchanama' Accused No.1 hails from Un Village, Kargon District' Madhya Pradesh, accused No.2 from Akulbeda I'lava Slat Village, Chopda Taluka, Jalgam District, Maharastra. In their confession, accused Nos. I anC 2 statcd tirat accused No.3 Rahul Sabley and accusecl No.4 Shu!:rhanr Gothiram Sabley got loaded 1106 packets of Rashik Litchi 250 ML bottles in Eicher truck at Jalgam, Maharashtra, directed them to J J/\ K. J cRLt'7158 l0li unload them at Koheda in Odissa Stat e and further directed them to come to Visakhapatnam

5. On 09.1O.2023, they unloaded the FlaLshik Litchi bottles and went to Visakhapatnam. Accused irlos..3 and 4 came, took the truck into forest a distance of 40 krns from Visakhapatnam. Accused No.5 Sheshu came there and took them to an unknown place. At the unl<ttorr,tt place, accused No.4 purchased 150 packets of Ganli blue coiour packets, sealcd with bro',vn colour tape, crlch packet containing 2 J<gs of Ganja., valued at Rs.1O,O00/- per kg) ald loaded them on the top of the truck anci :overed the truck with black colour tarpaulin cover ald .a ter covered with green colour tarpaulin (thadipathri).

6. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 confessed that thev w,ere directed to transport the said packets to Jalllarn l)istnct, Maharashtra, for seliing at Rs.25,0OO f - pc.r kg. The_v- started from VisakhaDatnam vla Karimnag,, r ard u'crc apprehended at Penchikalpet Cross Road. lt is lurther stated in the complaint that action be initiated againsl accused Nos. 1 and 2 after taking them into custod-v \ -*-I 4 JAK, J CRLP 7158 2025 - 7. Charge Sheet was liled against accused on

06.O3.2024 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda. In all 15 r.vitnesses u,ere io be examined B. Crl.M.P.No.264 of 2025 in S.C(NDpS).No.4 of 2024 rvas hled by the State under Section 3 I 1 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ,Cr.p.C,) io reo en the evidence of LWs.14 and l5 in the interest of jusrice as the prosecution did not examine LW.14, B.Sanjeev. Inspector of Police, the first investigating officer rvho arrested accused Nos. 1 and 2 and LW. I5, A.praveen Kumar, Circle Inspector of Police, who hled tl-re Charge Sheet. 9 . Learned Sessions Judge by order clated 2A.OS.2O2S dismissed the petition. Challenging the said order, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

10. Learned Assistant public prosccutor appeanng on behalf of petitioner-State submitted that LW. 14, the fii.st lnvestigating Officer, was transferred and it is imperative in the interest of justice for a just decision, that he be -) JAK. J ( RI-P 7358 2015 examined .r.n(l evidence be recorded and her ce to reopen the evidence of LW. 14. It is furrther submitted Lfrat [,W. 15 is the officer u'ho filed charge sheet and is a crll<:ial witness. That in thr: interest of justice, to reopen th,: evidence of LW.15. 1 1. On thc other hand, learned counsel for rcspondents/ accused Nos. i and 2 submitted that FIR c ame to be registered on ).6 .1O .2023, Charge sheet r"ers filed on

06.O3.2024. 'Ihat accused Nos. 1 and 2 were a|rested at the time of seizurc and still languishing in the prir;c,n as Under Trial Prisoners. It is further submitted that no reliel is granted to zrccused on the ground that trial is ,rnder way. It is also submitted that a belated petition in :zrses of this nature has to be supported by reasons and no such reasons are forthcoming in the petition under llection 31 I of Cr.P.C.

12. It is submitted that cxcept stating LWs. 14 and 15 were officers rt,ho arrested the accused anci liled charge sheet, nothing is forthcoming. It is further submitted that b1'liling a pctj.l-ion to reoperl the evidence, Stirtt' callnot be --.. ,-."._l 6 JAK. J CRLP 7J5E 2025 allowed to hll up lacunae in any investigation process or trial or inquiry. It is further submitted that a reading of the petition filed under Section 31 1 of Cr.P.C. does not spell out an-v reasons to reopen the evidence of officers. That the power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised without there being any reasonable cause

13. Learned Sessions Judge by order dated 2B-O5.2O25 in Crl.M.P.No.264 of 2025 in S.C.(NDPS).No.4 of 2024 held as lollow s: "Heard. Perused the petition, as no reason r{,as submitted by the prcsecr,rtion that prevented LW14 and LW15 to appear before this Court and filed formal petition to reopen the evidence of LWI4 and LW I 5. This Court is not inclined to allo'"v this petitioner as the petitior-r is devoid of merits."

14. On a perusal of the order in Crl.lvI.P.No.264 of 2025, it is apparent that trial Court was in a hurry to dispose of the petition under Section 31 1 of Cr.P.C. No application of mind is seen, nor it is forthcoming. The learned Sessions Judge ought not to have passed the orcler rvithout assrgnrng any reasons l JAK, J cl(LP 7158 2025 -

15. Section 3 I I of Cr. P.C is as follorvs; "311. Power to summon material examine person present - witn,essr ot Any Court may, at any stage of any inqurr.r,, trizrl or other proceeding under this Code, sumntor any person as a witness. ur examine any p(.r s, )n in attendance, though not summoned as a u itness, or recall and re-exarnine any person irlr-eady examined; and the Court shall summor and cxamine or recall and re-examine any such p,:rsor.r if his evidence appears to it to be essential tc thr: just decision of the casc."

16. On a rr:ading of Scction 31t of Cr.p.C, it is evident that the Courts are empo\\rered to examinc, rr:call and re- examine any person for a just decision at anv stage. The said power is n,ide in ambit for a just dc cision. On a perusal of the order of the learned Sessic,r^ s Judge, a complete non-application of mind is apparer t The power under Section 31 I of Cr,P.C. is to be exercised to .rrrive at a just decision in the interests of justice. The Hon,ble Apex Court held. tl.rat the statutory provision (i.e , liection 3l 1 Cr.P.C.) emphasizes, that the Court(s) canno be helpless bystander(s) in the derailment of justice. Thal t he Court(s) has/have a vital role to discharge in ensurirrg tl-rat the . ----1 8 JAK, J CRI-P 7158 2025 cause of discovering truth as an aid in the rea,lization of justice is manifest. Paragraph No.9 of the Honbie Apex Court judgment in Raj Deo Shartna (II) a. State of Blhort - is relevant, which is as follows: "9. Wc may obscrve that thc power of the court as envisaged in Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been curtailed b1' this Court. Neither in the decision of the five- Judge Bench in A. R. Antulay case [(19921 I SCC 225: 1992 SCC (Cri) 931 nor in Kartar Sirtgh case [(1994) 3 SCC 569 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 899] such powcr has been restrictcd for achieving specdy trial. In other words, even if the prosecution evidence is closcd in compliancc with thc directions contained in thc main judgment it !s stil1 open to the prosecution to involce the powcrs of the court under Scction 3 1 1 of the Code. We make it clear that if eui.dence of any u.titness appears to the court to be essential to the just decision of the cose it is the dutg of tLLe court to sumtnon ond excmine or recall and re-examine antl such person." 17 . LW .14 is the Inspector of Police who has arrested accused Nos. I and 2 and LW.15 is the Investigating Oflicer who filed the charge sheet. In a case of this nature, r+- is trite that thev be examined, as their evidence would be essential and vital for arriving at a just decision. This Ccurt '{tooo1 z scc so+ I JAK. J a RIP 7i 5{i 202_5 cannot lose sight of the fact about the irnpact of the non- examinatron ol t,Ws.14 and 15 in the outconrlr of the case This criminal petition deserves to be allowed irr the interest ofjustice too

18. In the present facts and circumstances r>f the case, this Court is not inclined to uphold the order <;f the learned Sessions Judge, as it is devoid of reasons anrl a complete non-application of mind is evident, it needs to lrt: set aside.

19. A request is made on behalf of the zrccused that accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been languishing in - ail as Under Trial Prisoners for more than 18 months. Tt e ir Right to freedom of life and liberty (guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution ol' India) is impaired

20. Heard learned counsels, perused the recorcl. A speedy trial is a vital aspect of criminal justice system, as treld by Hon'ble Apex Court. It is imperative that Cortrts, r,,'hile administering justice, need to considcr the righ t to freedom of life and libt:rty of Unde r Trial Prisoners. J'h e accused cannot langursh in the prison for long impacting their right I I l0 JAK, J cRi-P 7158 2025 to freedom ol life and liberty. Considering the entire factual matrix of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to request the trial Court tc cornpiete the proceedings, AS expeditiously as possible. Respondents/ accused Nos.1 and 2 shali be given a fair opportunity to examine LWs.14 and

15. This Court has not delved intc the merits of the case (nor on the depositicns annexed as documents). 2l . For reasons aforesaid, Criminal Petition is allorved, order of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside i.e., order dated 28-05.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.264 of 2025 in S.C.(NDPS).No.4 of 2024 by I Additiona-l Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stancl closed. SD/.S MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,e //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The I Additional Sessions Judge, Hanamkondg . . i. ff,r" iV AOOitionat Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hanamkonda i, fn" Stutlon House Officer, Elkathurthy Police Station Warangal 4. Two CCs to Public r',ot"t't', High iourt for the State of Telangana at s One CC to Smt lndira Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies Hvderabad [OUTI ABK tuc\ HIGH COURT DATED: 3010712025 ORDER CRLP.No.7358 ot 2025 ..:l): 1t1 e 5: T,,r r€ '( +-' l J \ tl t$t [6 t rFsoftr * 2 .L, ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL PETITION P^{q, Ltl't \'>{