Telangana High Court
Pothulboguda Veera Kumar Goud And ... vs The State Of A.P. on 17 February, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.501 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellants/A1 & A2 aggrieved by the
conviction recorded by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at
Sangareddy, in NDPS S.C.No.86 of 2011, dated 11.06.2012, for the
offence under Section 8(c) r/w.22 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and
sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and also
to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M.Vivekananda
Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
3. During pendency of the appeal, Appellant No.2/A2 died.
Accordingly, the case against A2 is abated. The appeal is heard only
against Appellant No.1/A1.
4. PW.4 is the Prohibition and Excise Sub-inspector. On
10.02.2011, he was conducting a routine search. He went to the
Toddy shop at Yellapur village and found A1. The licence of that
toddy shop was standing in the name of A2. A1 was sitting in the
sales counter and conducting the toddy business on behalf of A2. On
demand, A1 produced the licence copy of A2, which was verified and
found to be valid. On verifying the stock, he found 12 wooden crates,
each crate containing 24 bottles, filled with 650 ml. toddy in each
bottle. He conducted the spot test and found the toddy to be free
from chloral hydrate. He collected three samples of 350 ml. each in
three bottles. The samples were sent to the chemical examiner for
analysis. Chemical Examiner sent report Ex.P6 that toddy was
adulterated with diazepam, which is a narcotic substance.
5. Charge sheet was filed against the appellants. During the
course of trial, PWs.1 and 2, who are the independent witnesses,
turned hostile to the prosecution case. The accused No.1 was
allegedly found in the shop, transacting the business on behalf of
Accused No.2. The case is one of total denial. Accused No.1 stated
that he has nothing to do with the adulteration or with A2.
6. PWs.1 and 2, who were independent witnesses, have turned
hostile to the prosecution case. PWs.3 and 4 are the Excise Sub-
inspectors, who went to the premises. A1 is a stranger to both PWs.3
and 4. The prosecution has not examined any customer to the shop
to substantiate that A1 was working for A2. Further, no evidence is
placed on record that A2 had employed A1 in the shop for selling
Toddy. In the absence of any proof to show that A1 was employed by
A2, mere presence of A1 at the scene will not in any manner attract
penal consequences. Apart from A1, several customers were present
in the shop, even according to PWs.3 and 4. Once A1 denies his
association with A2 and the shop, the initial burden of proving that
A1 is associated with A2 is on the prosecution and the same has not
been discharged by the prosecution. In the said circumstances,
benefit of doubt is extended to A1.
7. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed. Since the appellant is
on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 17.02.2025
tk
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.501 OF 2012
Date: 17.02.2025
tk
