Megavath Kubya vs The State Of A.P., Through Rep. By State ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 2292 Tel

Telangana High Court

Megavath Kubya vs The State Of A.P., Through Rep. By State ... on 19 June, 2024

                HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.176 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section

20(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

vide judgment in NDPS SC No.13 of 2012 dated 22.02.2013 passed

by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy on the

allegation of cultivating ganja plants in an extent of 10 guntas of

land.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 08.06.2011,

P.Ws.1 and 2 constables, P.W.8 Sub-Inspector along with VRO-

P.W.4 went and found that there was illegal cultivation of ganja.

Two feet high plants were found. Accordingly, they conducted

panchanama and later the land was ploughed, destroying the ganja

plants. Thereafter, P.W.8 handed over investigation to P.W.7.

3. According to P.W.7, he received CD file from P.W.8 on

29.06.2011 and effected arrest of the appellant on 22.07.2011.

Thereafter, charge sheet was filed. During the course of cross-

examination, the Investigating Officer/P.W.7 admitted as follows:

"I was not working in Papannapet P.S by the date of registration of this case. I sent the sample to the chemical examiner through the Court. The property was deposited before the court on 29.11.2011. The case was registered on 08.06.2011. It is true that there was a delay of (5) months in depositing the property before the Court and it was not explained in the charge sheet."

4. P.W.8 having conducted the proceedings has not deposited the

samples before the Court as required under Section 52-A of the Act.

The investigation was handed over on 29.06.2011 and thereafter,

the property was deposited on 29.06.2011 with a delay of five

months which is admitted. Though the witness tried to explain that

one sample was deposited on 29.06.2011 and the other sample

received from the chemical examiner on 21.01.2012. However, there

is no documentary evidence to the said effect. In cases such as this,

it is necessary that the samples are deposited before the Court

immediately at the most within 72 hours after the seizure and

sampling had taken place. Not taking permission from the learned

Magistrate for sending the samples to the examiner and sampling

not being certified by the learned Magistrate, casts any amount of

doubt regarding the seizure being correct. More so, the said

infirmity is in violation of the rules laid down for sampling and

sending for chemical examination. In view of the violation of the

provisions under Section 52-A of the Act and rules regarding the

sampling, the conviction of the appellant requires to be set aside.

5. Accordingly, the judgment of trial Court in NDPS SC No.13 of

2012 dated 22.02.2013 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted.

Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 19.06.2024 kvs