Telangana High Court
Mamidi Rajaiah, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 10 July, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.456 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
The appellant herein was convicted for offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo three (03) years in prison.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that PW.2-Sub-Inspector of Police along with PW.1-Mandal Revenue Officer, Bhupalpalli and PW.3- Panchayat Secretary of Gorlaveedu Village went to land in Sy.No.774/3 and found that ganja was grown in the land. The said ganja plants were destroyed. It was identified by the PW.3-VRO that the land belongs to the appellant herein. He issued pahani for the year 2005-2006 vide Ex.P3.
3. The learned single Judge having examined the witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 5 and marking Exs.P1 to P9 found that ganja was grown in the land of the appellant and accordingly convicted him.
4. Sri Ravi Kumar Veluri, learned legal aid counsel for the appellant would submit that Ex.P5 which is scene of offence panchanama was drafted at 9.25 am. However, Ex.P1-Destruction panchanama was drafted at 9.10 am. The said scene of offence panchanama was conducted after destruction of the plants which is highly suspicious. Initially, the police 2 have undertaken the task of destroying the plants and later prepared panchanama.
5. Ex.P1 which is destruction of ganja proceeding was drafted at 9.10 am. In the said panchanama, there are no details of the said land. Neither the name of owner of the land is mentioned nor the boundaries and names of the neighbours were also not mentioned. Further, Ex.P2-Ganja Destroy Certificate was also signed by Mandal Revenue Officer at 9.10 a.m.
6. In Ex.P5-Scene of Offence Panchanama, the land where ganja was found was surrounded by cotton crop and paddy crop on four sides. There is no way or road shown to the land where ganja was found. Two of the surrounding farmers namely Lingachary and Mandala Narayana Reddy are shown as neighbors in Ex.P5. The Court found that the accused was cultivating the ganja plants.
7. The exclusive possession of the said land by appellant can be proved either by adducing the evidence from the neighbours or by examining any person to show that accused was cultivating the said land. It is not known from where the officer got information regarding ganja being cultivated by the appellant. The extent in which cotton crop and paddy crop was raised and ganja was found, was not stated in the scene of offence panchanama. If, it is the case of the prosecution that the cotton crop and paddy crop and also the ganja plants which are shown belongs to appellant, the prosecution ought to have adduced evidence from the 3 neighbors Lingachary and Mandala Narayana Reddy regarding the said cultivation and exclusive possession of the accused.
8. Failure of the prosecution to prove the exclusive possession of the accused and also for the reason of preparing panchanama-Ex.P5 after the destruction of plants, benefit of the doubt is extended to the appellant.
9. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 10.07.2024 SSY