Telangana High Court
Yerukala Ramulu vs The State Of A.P. on 17 March, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.898 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed aggrieved by the conviction
recorded by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy
in NDPS S.C.No.47 of 2011, dated 31.08.2012 for the offence under
Section 34(a) of A.P.Excise act, 1968.
2. P.W.3 along with P.W.1 and P.W.2 and others went to a shop
besides Sangepu Ramulu Hotel, Huggeli, Zaheerabad. There, they
found the appellant was selling toddy. On seeing P.Ws.3 and others,
the appellant tried to run away. However, he was caught. On
searching the place, they found 15 crates toddy and the total
quantity was 234 liters in 650 ml bottles. P.W.3 conducted spot test
for chloral hydrate and found the toddy adulterated with chloral
hydrate. Two bottles were drawn for samples. The panchanama was
conducted and remaining toddy was destroyed. The panchanama
was prepared and the samples test sent for analysis. FSL reported
that the sample contained chloral hydrate. Accordingly, charge
sheet was filed.
3. P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the independent, who accompanied
P.W.3, turned hostile to the prosecution case.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that no
proof was filed by the prosecution to connect the appellant with the
said premises where the alleged seizure had taken place. In fact, he
was a customer drinking toddy. However, he was caught and shown
as an accused.
5. P.W.3 is the official, who stated that he received information
from the Assistant Commissioner to go and search the premises. No
written instructions of the Assistant Commissioner are filed nor
Assistant Commissioner, was examined before the Court below. The
prosecution is not clear as to what was the information that was
received by the Assistant Commissioner and passed on to P.W.3.
6. The premises where the appellant was found, is not owned by
the appellant. P.W.3 admitted that neither proof of ownership of the
shop was filed nor any proof that the appellant has taken on lease
the said premises. Unless the prosecution proved that the appellant
was in exclusive possession of the said shop where the toddy was
found, the question of connecting the appellant with the said shop,
cannot be accepted.
7. Though, 234 liters were found, that too in 15 crates, each
crate containing 24 bottles, from which bottle sample was collected,
is also not mentioned. . No steps were taken to mix toddy and to
take samples from the mixture, which ought to have been done in
accordance with the rules.
8. Further, the samples that were taken from the spot were not
sent to the concerned Magistrate by the prosecution. The seizure
was on 03.02.2010 and the samples were dispatched to the
concerned Magistrate on 15.02.2010. The possession of the samples
for the period of 12 days is not explained by the prosecution. No
document is filed to show that the samples were deposited before
the concerned Court and the samples were sent through Court.
9. As already discussed, the prosecution has failed to prove that
the appellant was in exclusive possession of the premises where the
toddy was found. No one is examined to state that the appellant
was selling toddy. Even according to P.W.3, there were five persons
in the shop and all of them tried to flee from the shop, when P.W.3
and others went there. Since there is no evidence to connect the
appellant with the premises, the appeal is liable to be allowed.
10. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed. Since the appellant is
on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 17.03.2025
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.898 of 2012
Date: 17.03.2025
kvs
