N Rajaiah @ Raju vs State Of Karnataka
2026 Latest Caselaw 1938 Kant

Karnataka High Court

N Rajaiah @ Raju vs State Of Karnataka on 6 March, 2026

                          1




   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
       DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
                       BEFORE
       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. BASAVARAJA
         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.816 OF 2013
      C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.877 OF 2013 &
         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.315 OF 2014

CRL.A NO.816 of 2013

BETWEEN

SRI G. MARUTI
S/O LATE SINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/O NIMBOLI ADDA
NEAR KACHIGUDA KUMAR TALKIES
KACHIGUDA, HYDERABAD CITY
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE 500 027
                                        ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI AMAR CORREA, ADVOCATE)

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MADIKERI RURAL POLICE STATIONI
MADIKERI
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001
                                      ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP)
                           2




     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) OF CRPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER DATED 31.07.2013 PASSED BY THE S.J.,
KODAGU, MADIKERI IN SPL. CASE (NDPS) NO.4/2007
CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S/ 8(c) AND 20(b)(ii)(C) OF NDPS ACT.

CRL.A. NO.877 of 2013

BETWEEN

SRI DEVENDRA
S/O MALLAIAH @ AIYLAYYA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/O METUPALLI VILLAGE
SHANKARA PATTANAM MANDALA
KAREEM NAGAR DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE 505 001
                                       ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI AMAR CORREA, ADVOCATE)

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MADIKERI RURAL POLICE STATIONI
MADIKERI
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001
                                      ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) OF CRPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER DATED 31.07.2013 PASSED BY THE S.J.,
KODAGU, MADIKERI IN SPL. CASE (NDPS) NO.4/2007
                           3




CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S/ 8(c) AND 20(b)(ii)(C) OF NDPS ACT.

CRL.A. NO.315 of 2014

BETWEEN

SRI N RAJAIAH @ RAJU
S/O SARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
DRIVER, DOOR NO.4-106
SINGAPURA VILLAGE
HUJIRABAD MANDALA
KAREEM NAGAR DISTRICT
ANDHRA PRADESH
(NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)
                                       ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI RAJASHEKAR K. &
 SRI B. RAVINDRA, ADVOCATES)

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MADIKERI RURAL POLICE STATIONI
MADIKERI
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001
                                      ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
374(2) OF CRPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER DATED 31.07.2013 PASSED BY THE S.J.,
KODAGU, MADIKERI IN SPL. CASE (NDPS) NO.4/2007
                                4




CONVICTING   THE     APPELLANTS/ACCUSED      FOR          THE
OFFENCE P/U/S/ 8(c) AND 20(b)(ii)(C) OF NDPS ACT.

     IN THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS ARGUMENTS BEING
HEARD, RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 16.02.2026,
COMING ON "PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS", THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. BASAVARAJA

                      CAV JUDGMENT

1. All these appeals arise out of the judgment passed in

Spl. Case (NDPS) No.4 of 2007 dated 31st July, 2013 by the

District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are

referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Sub-

Inspector of Police, Madikeri Rural Police Station has

submitted the charge-sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3

for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b) of the

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 read

with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The case against

accused No.4 was split up as he was absconding and a

separate case was registered in Spl. Case (NDPS) No.11 of

2007.

4. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 26th

November, 2006, CW1-P.P.Raghavaiah, working as a Head

Constable in Madikeri Rural Police Station, CW6-Rajesh B.K,

Constable in that station and a Forest Guard by name K.A

Ramesh shown as CW5 in the charge-sheet, working in

Sampaje Forest Range, were entrusted with the task of

checking vehicles near Sampaje Check-post within the

limits of

Sampaje Forest Range. Around 12.30 p.m., when they

were near the check-post, a Toyota lorry bearing

Registration No.AP-09/T-0575 came from the side of

Madikeri. The driver of the lorry was asked to stop the

vehicle. Accordingly, it was stopped. The driver and

another person who was on the left side of the lorry tried to

run away. Immediately they were caught hold of. They

disclosed their name as Rajaiah and G.Devendra. One

more person who was in the lorry attempting to run, was

also caught. He also disclosed his name as Maruthi. When

interrogated, they stated that they had come from

Kachiguda of Andhra Pradesh. When the lorry was

checked, they found four plastic bags which were half filled

with cannabis leaves. In the body of the lorry a box-like

thing had been formed. In that, there were 11 plastic bags

containing cannabis leaves. When questioned the accused

stated that they had no license to transfer the same.

Therefore, the vehicle and the contraband were seized. The

accused was taken to the outpost police station attached to

Madikeri Rural Police Station. Thereafter, CW1 went to

Madikeri Rural Police station and gave complaint. Based on

that, case was registered in Crime No.175 of 2006.

Investigation was taken over by CW16 the PSI of that

Station. They recorded the voluntary statement of accused

Nos.1 to 3. They disclosed that accused No.4 had given

them the ganja leaves for being transported from Warangal

of Andhra Pradesh to Mangalore. Thus the involvement of

the accused No.4 came to be known. A sample of what was

seized was sent for chemical analysis and it was confirmed

that it was cannabis. Thereafter, charge-sheet was filed

against all the four accused in crime number. Accused were

enlarged on bail.

5. Upon hearing on charges, the trial Court has framed

charges for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and

20(b) of NDPS Act, 1985 and the same was read over and

explained to the accused in the language known to them

i.e., Telugu language. Having understood the same,

Accused Nos.1 to 3 have pleaded not guilty and claimed to

be tried.

6. To prove the case of prosecution, in all, nine

witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 9 and nine documents

were marked as Exhibits P1 to P9 and two Material Objects

were marked as MOs.1 and 2. On closure of prosecution

side evidence, statements of the accused under Section 313

of Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. The accused

have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witness.

However, they have not chosen to lead any defence

evidence on their behalf.

7. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial

Court has convicted the accused for the offences punishable

under Section 8(c), 20(b)(iii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Being

aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on

sentence the appellants/accused have preferred this appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that

the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court is

without appreciation of facts, borne out from records to the

law in force pertaining to the offence under the NDPS Act

and hence same has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

9. PW1-Medical officer examined as the Gazetted Officer

affixing seizure, deposes in his examination-in-chief that

the police told him that they will neatly write the

panchanama later and bring it in the evening for signature

of this witness and this witness has been treated as hostile

by the prosecution. Even the suggestion put by the Public

Prosecutor that police had drawn the panchanama at

Sampaje Forest Check Post and signatures of witnesses

were taken, is denied by this witness. This witness has

categorically admitted that Exhibit P2-Panchanama was

signed him in his quarters. This evidence totally demolishes

the case of the prosecution with respect to the primary and

most vital evidence in the case, which is alleged seizure of

the contraband as per Exhibit P2.

10. PW1-the seizing Gazetted Officer further deposed that

he did not examine the box like things in the vehicle and

that the plastic bags were all open when he saw them. This

evidence further establishes the fact that there is no seizure

made from the possession of any accused and moreover the

alleged plastic bags were in an open stage. PW1 deposed

that in his presence the alleged contraband was not seized

nor were any photographs taken in his presence.

11. PW2 being first informant and one among the raiding

team, deposes that after discovering contraband in truck

and after apprehending accused 1 to 3, he left the truck

and at Sampaje check post entrusting CW6 to guard and he

proceeded to Madikeri. This again renders the alleged

seizure and apprehension untrustworthy. This also dispels

the fact of any alleged seizure from these accused and also

for the reason that Exhibit P3 complaint does not speak of

CW6 being asked to stay back at Sampaje to guard the

vehicle and the accused. In addition, the evidence of this

witness about the seizure is also not trustworthy for the

reason that he states that he travelled back to Sampaje

from Madikeri by bus. But PW9, the Investigating Officer

and Sub-Inspector of Police, states that this witness along

with him and PW1 travelled together to Sampaje by jeep.

12. Two independent panchas examined as PW7 and PW8

have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Their

evidence does not corroborate each other and are doubtful

about the seizure of contraband as also the arrest of the

accused.

13. The trial judge has wrongfully appreciated that there

has been seizure from the vehicle in which the accused

were travelling and accused have failed to explain as to

contraband in their possession. This is an incorrect

appreciation of evidence on record. There is failure on

behalf of the prosecution to prove possession against the

accused. Hence, the presumption cannot be drawn. The

trial judge has failed to appreciate the written-statements

submitted under Section 313 of CrPC; there was no

possession proved as against the accused. Hence, the

explanation given by these accused were most probable in

the given circumstances. The Investigating Officer has not

complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 52A of

NDPS Act. On all these grounds he sought to allow the

appeals.

14. As against this, Smt. Anitha N. Girish, the learned

HCGP appearing for the respondent-State, would submit

that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence

on record and passed the impugned judgment of conviction

and sentence and there is no ground for interference by this

Court in these appeals. Hence, she sought for dismissal of

appeals.

15. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on

perusal of materials, the following points would arise for my

consideration:

1) Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the accused for the offence

intersection 8(c) and section 20(b) of NDPS Act?

2) What order?

16. My answer to the above points are:

Point No.1: in the negative; Point No.2: As per final order.

Regarding Point No.1:

17. I have carefully examined the materials placed before

this Court. It is the case of the prosecution that on 26th

November, 2006 at about 12:30 pm at Sampaje Village

within the limits of Madikeri Rural Police Station near the

Forest Check-Post, accused 1 to 3 were found in illegal

transportation of Ganja weighing 106 kgs. in a DCM Toyota

vehicle bearing registration No.AP-09/T-0575 which was

supplied by accused No.4 and the accused were in illegal

possession of narcotic drugs without any valid license or

permit from the competent Authority. Thereby, accused

committed offence, under Section 80(c) and 20(1)(b) of

NDPS Act.

18. To prove the case of the prosecution, in all, nine

witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 9 and nine documents

were marked as Exhibits P1 to P9 and two material objects

were marked as MOs1 and 2.

19. CW1-P.P. Raghavayya, Assistant Sub-Inspector of

Police examined as PW2. He has stated that from 2003 to

2009 he was working as Head Constable in Madikeri Rural

Police Station and that Sampaje Outpost was attached to

the Madikeri Rural Police Station. In the year 2006, he was

working in that Outpost. On 26th November 2006, CW1-K.A.

Ramesh, examined as PW6 and CW6-BK Rajesh were

checking vehicles near Sampaje check Post. Around 12:30

pm a Toyota vehicle bearing registration No.AP-09/T-0575

came from the side of Madikeri and the same was stopped.

When it was being checked, its driver and other person who

was sitting on the left side, got down and started to run.

PW6 and CW6 went after them. By then, another person

who was in the Lorry, got down and when he was trying to

escape, he caught old of him. The person who was caught

hold was accused No.3. The remaining two persons who

were caught hold by PW6 and CW6 were accused 1 and 2.

He has further deposed that in the lorry, there was dry

grass and when it was removed, he found four plastic bags

containing cannabis leaves. There was a box like thing that

had been set up in the body of the lorry, and when it was

opened, he found eleven plastic bags containing cannabis

leaves. The accused, when questioned, stated that they had

no permit to transport the same and that they were

transporting it from Andhra Pradesh to Mangalore. He has

further deposed that the vehicle and the property were left

at the Check-Post and accused were taken to the Outpost.

Then he proceeded to Madikeri Rural Police Station and

gave complaint as per Exhibit P3. He has further deposed

that he gave complaint to CW16-Sub Inspector who is

examined as PW9. PW9 came to the spot and secured CW3

and 4 i.e. PW3 and 4 as Panchas and PW1 Doctor a

Gazetted Officer. There, the mahazar as per exhibit P2, was

drawn. The cannabis leaves which were in the bags were

seized. For the purpose of sending to the chemical

analysis, a portion was taken out as sample and packed

separately. He has also given the details regarding packing

and sealing. Further he has deposited that in the lorry,

there was a document pertaining to it, which was marked

as Exhibit P4.

20. PW1-Dr.B.N. Harish, Medical officer, has deposed that

on 26th November 2006 at 2.00 pm, when he was in his

residential Quarters, the Sub-Inspector of Madikeri Rural

Police Station, went there and told him that he should

accompany him to Sampaje and that he had taken

necessary permission from the District Surgeon. He has

further deposed that around 4.00 pm in the police vehicle,

he went to Sampaje along with Inspector and other staff.

He has also deposited that before going to Sampaje, they

went to the police station and in the station, there were

three persons who were shown and upon enquiry, they

disclosed their names and addresses. He also searched for

his person first before enquiring those persons. Then the

police took him near the tempo which had been parked in

the premises of Police Station, where he found plastic bags.

He has deposed that the police told him that the plastic

bags contained Ganja, but he has stated that he did not

know till then what Ganja was. He has also stated that in

the police station, he saw 3 persons and he did not know

the language of those persons. He has also stated that a

sample of Ganja was taken out from those bags and it was

separately packed and sealed. He has identified the vehicle

in the photographs Exhibit P1(a) and P1(d).

21. PWs3 and 4 are CWs3 and 4. PW3 has stated that at

the relevant point of time, he was working as a temporary

employee in APMC and on that day at around 12 noon, a

Toyota Lorry came from the side of Mysore and was

proceeding towards Mangalore and its registration number

was '0673'. Then he deposed that the officials of the Police

Department stopped that Lorry in which there were three

persons. The officials made them to get down from the

lorry. Thereafter, the lorry was checked and in the Lorry,

there were plastic and gunny bags. He has stated that there

was a plastic bag in which there were gunny bags and in

the gunny bags there were dry leaves and he does not

know what those leaves were. He has identified MOs1 and

2 and he has stated that they were the leaves found in the

Lorry. Then he has stated that there were 50 bags in the

Lorry. He has identified accused 1 and 2. On that day,

accused No.3 had not come and he has stated that he

would be able to identify the third accused also. Therefore,

his further examination was deferred. On 13th March 2013,

he was again recalled for further examination and on that

day the accused No.3 had also come. He, however, stated

that the accused No.3 was not one of the three persons

whom he saw the other day and at that place. He has

deposed that accused 1 and 2 were taken to Madikeri by

police, but he did not go to Madikeri. He has also deposed

that his signature was taken to the mahazar Exhibit P2 near

the Check Post and since the police told him that the Lorry

was seized, he signed Exhibit P2.

22. PW3 has been treated hostile by the prosecution and

has been cross-examined. In the cross-examination, he has

admitted that he and PW4 were secured as Panchas. He

admitted that PW2 was present at that place, but has

stated that he did not see PW1. He has admitted that PW2

showed the persons who were in the Lorry and also the

property which was there. He has however, denied as to

showing of three accused persons but stated that only

accused 1 and 2 were shown. He has also stated that he

does not remember those persons.

              "ಆ  ನ  ಾನು  ೈದ ಾ ಾ   ಂದ  ೖಸೂ  ೆ             ೈ ನ  
      ಬಂ ೆ.   ನನ3     ಾ     ಮಂಗಳ# ನ       $ಾ%ನ&'      ಾ*    () ೆ&