The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMATI JUKANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.7357 OF 2( 25 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed under Sectr< I 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short 'BNSS') by the State to set aside the order dated 28.05.2025 passed in Cr1.M.P.No.263 of 2025 in S.C.(NDPS).No.4 ol 2024 by I Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda.

2. Heard Mr. Surepalli Prashanth, learnt t Assistant Public Prosecutor for petitioner-State and \ rs, Inciira, learned counsel for re spondents / accu sed "

3. On the basis of compiaint of Sub-Inspector tf Poiice, PS Elkathurthy, an FIR bearing No.195 of 2023 rame to be registered on 16. lO.2023 for the offences under Sectron B{c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic )rugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for shori '{DPS Act') The gist of the complaint is that Sub-lnspector c I Police, was performing vehicle checking duties in vte w of the (forthcoming assembly) elections at check post F :nchikalpet CTOSS road, along with his personnel. On 1 ( .lO .2023 at ) JAK J CRLP ',tJs1 202s 05:00 hours, they checked an Eicher truck moving towards .l Karimnagar from Hanumakonda and found two persons suspiciously, on questioning them, they stated Ganja packets were on the top of the truck. Sub Inspector of Police climbed the truck and found intense smell emanating from the packets (150 packets, each of 2 kgs Ganja were found).

4. A notice under Section 5O of NDPS Act \vas served, accused Nos. 1 ald 2 confessed. A requisition was sent to Tahsildar, Eikathurthv, on the requisitior-r of Tahsildar, MDPC, Elkathuthy, sent tv,,o mediators. Tahsilciar conducted confession and seizure panchanama. Accused No.1 hails from Un Village, Kargon District, Madhya Pradesh, accused No.2 frorrr Akulbeda Nava SIat Village, Chopda Taluka, Jalgam District, Maharastra. ln their confession, accused Nos.l and 2 stated that accused No.3 Rahul Sabley and accused No.4 Shubham Gothiram Sabley got loaded 1106 packets of Rashik Litchi 250 ML bottles in Eicher truck at Jalgam, Maharashtra, directed them to unload them at Koheda in Cdissa State a:rd further directed them to come to Visakhapatnam 3 JAK. J Rt.t,7.ri7 202.t

5. On 09. 1O.2023, they unloaded the Rashik L itchi bottles ald went to Visakhapatnam. Accused Nos.3 it rd 4 came, took the truck into forest a distance of 4t) kms from Visakhapatnam. Accused No.S Sheshu came thc -e and took them to an unknown place. At the unknown pla:c, accused No.4 purchased 150 packets of Galja (blue coJr ur packets, sealed with brolt,n colour tape, each packet cor-r iining 2 kgs of Ganja, valued at Rs. 10,000/- per kg) and loac ed them on the top of the truck and covered the truck with l,lack colour tarpaulin cover and later covered with green colo tr tarpaulin (thadipathri)

6. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 confessed that they 'r :re directed to transport the said packets to Jalgz r r District, Maharashtra, for selling at Rs.25,000/- per kg.'he1 started from Visakhapatnarn via Karimnagar and \rrere ':r rprchended at Penchikalpet Cross Road. It is further sr i ted in the complaint that action be initiated against accusr) [ Nos.1 and 2 alter taking them into custody. 4 IAK, J CRLP 7357 2025

7. Charge Sheet was filed against accused on 06.03.2024 on the lile of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda. In all 15 witnesses were to be examined.

8. Crl.M.P.No.263 of 2025 in S.C(NDPS).No.4 of 2024 was filed by the State under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C') to recall LWs. 14 and 15 for recording their evidence in tl're interest of justice as the prosecution did not examine LW.14, B.Sanjeev, Inspector of Police, the first investigating oflicer who arrested accused Nos. 1 and 2 and LW .1 5, A. Praveen Kumar, Circle Inspector of Police, rvho filed the Charge Sheet

9. Learned Sessions Judge by ordcr dated 28.05.2025 dismissed the petition. Challenging the said order, the present Criminal Petition is filed.

10. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of petitioner-State submitted that LW.I , the first Investigating Officer, was transferreci and it is imperative in the interest oljustice for a just decision, that he be examined and evicience be recorded and hence to recal! the evicler-rce of ) IAK,.I cRt.t,7ii7 lot5 LW. 14. It is further submitted that LW. 15 is tt e oflicer who filed charge sheet and is a crucial witness .lhat in the interest of justice, to recall the evidence of LW. ).

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for espondents/ accused Nos.l and 2 submitted that FIR :ame to be registered on 16.1O.2023, Charge sheet \\ is tiled on 06.O3.2024. That accused Nos. 1 and 2 were ar .csted at the time of seizure and still languishing in the pris tn as Under Trial Prisoners. It is further submitted th:rt no relicf is granted to accused on the ground that trial is r nder way. Ii is also submitted that a belated petition in r ases of this nature has to be supported by reasons and no s uch reasons are forthcoming in the petition under Section 3I of Cr.p.C.

12. It is submitted that except stating LWs. 14 rnd l5 rvere officers rvho arrested the accused and filed <:. Large sheet, nothing is forthcoming. It is further submitted th rt bl.filing a petition to recall the evidence, State cannot be I lorved to fill up lacunae in al;, investigation process or trial r r inquiry. It is further submitted that a reading of the petirior liled under Section 31 1 of Cr.p.C. does not spell out zur.., reasons to 6 t- JAK, J CRLP 7357 2025 t recall 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 2a.O5.2O25 rn Crl.M.P.No.263 of 2025 in S.C.(NDPS).No.4 of 2024 lneld as follows: "Heard. Perused the petition and entire record- As the Crl.M.P.No.264 of 2025 is dismissed devoid of merits. No purpose will be solved by allowing this petition. Hence, this petition is dismissed." Order in Crl.M.P.No.264 of 2025 is as follot,s "Hcard. Pcrused the pctition, as no rcason was submitted by the prosecution that prevented LW14 and LW15 to appear before this Court and filed formal petition to reopen the evidence of LW14 and LW 15. This Court is not inclined to allow this petitioner as the petition is devoid of merits."

14. On a perusal of the order in Crl.M.P.No.263 of 2025, it is apparent that trial Court was in a hurry to dispose of the petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. basing on the order in Crl.M.P.No.264 of 2025. No application of mind is seen, nor it is forthcoming. The learned Sessions Judge ought not to have passed the order without any reasoning 't JAK. J CRLP 7357 202,5

15. Section 31 1 of Cr.P.C is as follows; "311. Power to summon material witnes;r, examine person present - Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, tr other proceeding under this Code, summon person irs a u itness, or examine any pcr':., attendance, though not summoned as a witnt: recall and re-examine any person already exar:r and the Court shall summon and examine or and re-examine any such person if his ev r appears to it to be essential to the just decisi the case. " al or :in S, or ned; ,n of

16. On a rcading of Section 31 1 of Cr.P.C, it ii evidenr that the Courts are empowered to examine, recall ar ( re-exarnine any person for a just decision at any stage. The r aid power is wide in ambit for a just decision. On a perusal (). the order of the learned Sessions Judge, a complete non rr >plication of mind is apparent. The power under Section 3I . to be exercised to arrive at a just decision in tl-r interests of of Cr.P.C. is justice. The l{on'ble Apex Court held, that re staturory provision (i.e., Section 31 1 Cr.P.C.) emphasiir s, that the Court(s) cannot be helpless bystander(s) in the r erailment of justice. That the Court(s) has/have a vital role o Cischarge in ensuring that the cause of discovering truth rs an aid in the realization ol justice is manifest. Paragral;lr No.9 of the 8 JAK, J CRLP 7t57 2025 ? Honble Apex Court judgment IN Raj Deo Shanna (Ifl u. State of Bihcrr is relevant, which is as follows: "9. We may observe that the power of the court as envisaged in Section 3i I of the Code of Criminal Procedure has nol been curtailed by this Court. Neither in the decision of the five-Judge Bench in A.R. Antulay case l(19921 I SCC 225 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 931 nor in Kortar Singh case [(1994) 3 SCC 569 : 7994 SCC (Cri) 8991 such power has been restricted for achieving speedy trial. In other words, even if the prosecuLion evidence is closed in compliance with the directions contained in the main judgment it is still open to the prosecution to invoke the powers of the court under Section 311 of the Code . We moke it clear that i,f euidence o-f ang uLitness appeors to tle court to be essential to the just decision of the case it is th-e dutg of the court to sttmmon and examine or recall anci re- examine ang such person." 17 . LW. 14 is the Inspector of Police who has arrested accused Nos. 1 and 2 and LW. l5 is the Investigating Officer who hled the charge sheet. In a case of this nature, it is trite that they be examined, as their evidence would be essential and vitai for arriving at a just decision. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact about the impact of the non- examination of LWs. 7 4 and 1 5 in the outcome of the case ' 1roso1 z scc oo+ 9 JAK, J ( I LP 7i57 202,i - This criminal petition deserves to be allowed in tl e interest of justice too.

18. In the present facts and circumstances of th: case, this Court is not inclined to uphold the order of t L e learned Sessions Judge, as it is devoid of reasons and complete non-application of mind is evident, it needs to be st t aside.

19. A request is made on behalf of the ac : tsed that accused Nos.1 and 2 h.ave been languishing in ja l as Under Trial Prisoners for more than 18 months. The r Right to freedom of life and liberty (guaralteed under Ar' icle 21 of Constitution of India) is impaired.

20. Heard learned counsels, perused the recorc A speedy tria,l is a vital aspect of criminal justice system, i s held by Hon'ble Apex Court. It is imperative that Co I -ts, while administering .1ustice, need to consider the right t : freedom of life and liberty of Under Trial Prisoners. Tir r accused \ cannot languish in the prison for long impacting heir right \ to freedom of life and liberty. Considering the ent re factu a-l matrix of the case, this Court deems it appropriat(' lo request l0 JAK. .l cRLt, 7357 2025 I the tria-l Court to complete the proceedings, as expeditiousiy as possible. Respondents/accused Nos.l and 2 shall be given a fair opportunity to examine LWs.14 and 15. This Court has not delved into the merits of the case (nor on the depositions annexed as documents). 21 . As the order dated 28.05.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.264 of 2025 is set aside in Crl.P.No.7358 of 2025, the present criminal petition deserves to be allor..,ed by setting aside the order under challenge.

22. For reasons aforesaid, the Criminal Petition is a-llowed, order of the learneC Sessions Judge is set aside i.e., order ctated 28.05.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.263 of 2025 in S.C.(NDPS).No.4 of 2024 by I Additional Sessions Judge, Halumakonda. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand clo sed I r_a . SD/- AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, -1 . The I Additional Sessions Judge, Hanamkonda 2. The Station House Officer,Police Station Elkathurthy,Warangal 1 I I l

3. Two CC to SRl. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [o JT] 4. One CC to SRl. INDIRA Advocate [OPUCI 5. Two CD Copies AG/PSL M :-+j. I r:-. 1i ffit m5 -t",- ,/, HIGH COURT DATED:3010712025