Telangana High Court

The Drugs Inspector vs Chippa Thirupathi on 17 June, 2022

Bench: K.Surender

      HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                      AT HYDERABAD
                             *****

              Criminal Appeal No.74 OF 2020

Between:

The Drugs Inspector,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad.                               .... Appellant.
                      AND
Chippa Thirupathi.                       ... Respondent.


DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 17.06.2022

Submitted for approval.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER


 1    Whether Reporters of Local
      newspapers may be allowed to       Yes/No
      see the Judgments?

 2    Whether the copies of judgment
      may be marked to Law               Yes/No
      Reporters/Journals

 3    Whether Their
      Ladyship/Lordship wish to see      Yes/No
      the fair copy of the Judgment?
                                               2


                   * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER


                                    + CRL.A. No.74 of 2020


% Dated 17.06.2022




# The Drugs Inspector,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court for the State of Telangana,
Hyderabad.                                                   ... Appellant

                                            And

$ Chippa Thirupathi                                          ..Respondent.




! Counsel for the Appellant:                Learned Public Prosecutor


^ Counsel for the Respondent:



>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred
1
    (2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

2 (2021) 6 Supreme Court Cases 116
                                  3


             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

               CRIMINAL APPEAL No.74 OF 2020
JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the sole respondent, the

State preferred the present appeal. The respondent was

charged for the offence under Section 27(b)(ii), 28 and 22(3) of

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for brevity 'the Act') for

contravention of Sections 18(c), 18(A) and 22(1)(cca) of the

Act.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution in the complaint filed

before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad

was that the respondent was found in the premises of door

No.2-215, Chata Village and in possession of drugs meant for

sale, without a valid licence, as detailed in Exs.P1 and P2

which are Form No.16 and Panchanama. P.W.1, who is the

Drug Inspector in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are

panch witnesses to seizure conducted the seizure of the said

drugs. Having seized the said drugs, P.W.1 issued notices to

produce valid licence if any. The respondent did not reply to

the said notice. P.W.1 further caused enquiry about the

ownership of the premises and in the process, examined P.Ws

4 and 5, who are building owner and Panchayat Secretary of

the said village.

3. The grounds on which the learned Sessions Judge

acquitted the respondent/accused are that; i) the exclusive

possession of the premises in which the drugs were found was

not proved to be that of the accused; ii) the witnesses to the

seizure P.Ws.2 and 3 have turned hostile and denied the

seizure; (iii) the date on Ex.P12 sent to P.W.4 was corrected; iv)

the tour diary of P.W.1 was not produced though P.W.1

admitted to have maintained a diary and written the details.

4. Having found the said infirmities in the prosecution case,

the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent

extending benefit of doubt as the complainant/P.W.1 failed to

prove the case against the respondent.

5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that

though the witnesses to the proceedings turned hostile, the

evidence of P.W.1 can be believed and can be solely made

basis for convicting the respondent. Further, the owner/P.W.4

has deposed that the premises was given on rent to the

respondent/accused.

6. Learned Sessions Judge has found that exclusive

possession of the premises where from the drugs mentioned

under Exs.P1 and P2 were seized, has to be proved beyond

reasonable doubt. Admittedly, no document is filed by P.W.1

nor P.W.4 produced any document to substantiate that the

premises was given on rent to the respondent/accused. If

there were transactions such as lease deed or rents regarding

giving the premises on lease, the burden is on P.W.1 to prove

the relationship of land lord and tenant between the

respondent/accused and the house owner. When it is not

proved beyond reasonable doubt that the premises was in

possession of the respondent/accused, it cannot be

conclusively said that it is the respondent only, who was in

possession of the alleged premises.

7. Further, the independent witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3 who

were present according to PW1 during the search and seizure

proceedings turned hostile to the prosecution case and denied

any knowledge of the seizure. In the facts and circumstances,

when there is no credible evidence to connect the premises

where drugs were found to the respondent and further the

hostility of P.Ws.2 and 3, independent witnesses, cast a doubt

on the case of the complainant being correct.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishna

Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 and also in the case of

Guru Dutt Pathak v. State of Uttar Pradesh2 held that under

the Indian criminal jurisprudence, the accused has two

fundamental protections available to him in a criminal trial or

investigation. Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent till proved

guilty and secondly that he is entitled to a fair trial and

investigation. Both these facets attain even greater

significance where the accused has a judgment of acquittal in

his favour. A judgment of acquittal enhances the presumption

of innocence of the accused and in some cases, it may even

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

(2021) 6 Supreme Court Cases 116

indicate a false implication. But then, this has to be

established on record of the Court.

8. In Guru Dutt Pathak's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

"15. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325] , this Court reiterated the legal position as under : (SCC p. 432, para 42) '42. ... (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.

(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."

9. It is the bounden duty of the complainant to prove

beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent/accused

regarding the exclusive possession of the premises, failing

which, the prosecution fails in the back ground of the

respondent/accused totally denying any knowledge about the

premises and the drugs seized. When there is no corroboration

by oral or documentary evidence, to support the version of

P.W.1 that drugs were seized from the possession of the

respondent/accused in his premises, PW1's version cannot be

believed.

10. For the aforementioned reasons, when there are no legal

grounds to discard the finding of the trial Court, there cannot