Mamidi Rajaiah, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd.,
2024 Latest Caselaw 2651 Tel

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

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

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