Recently, the Telangana High Court examined the legality of a conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, where an accused had been sentenced for allegedly cultivating ganja plants on agricultural land. The appeal raised critical questions about evidentiary standards, admissibility of confessional statements, and strict compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act.
The case arose from an incident in October 2009, when excise officials, acting on alleged credible information, conducted a search of agricultural land situated in Nimmatanda Village, Sirpur (U) Mandal. During the inspection, approximately 3,500 ganja plants were found allegedly intercropped with cotton crops.
According to the prosecution, the land stood in the name of the accused’s wife, though the accused was stated to be managing agricultural operations. A small quantity of ganja was sampled, while the remaining plants were destroyed on the spot. The accused was apprehended and later charge-sheeted for offences under the NDPS Act. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment along with a fine, prompting the present criminal appeal.
On behalf of the Appellant, it was argued that the conviction was unsustainable as it rested almost entirely on an alleged confession made during the panchanama, which was legally inadmissible. It was contended that no independent evidence was produced to establish cultivation by the accused.
The defence highlighted serious lapses in investigation, including the failure to produce photographs or videography of the alleged seizure and destruction of ganja plants, despite witnesses admitting that such documentation existed. It was further submitted that villagers who allegedly assisted in removing and burning the plants were never examined. Another major contention was non-compliance with mandatory requirements under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, as the information allegedly received was neither properly recorded nor forwarded to superior officers within the prescribed time.
The State, on the other hand, supported the trial court’s findings, arguing that the evidence on record sufficiently established the offence and that no interference was warranted.
The High Court noted that the prosecution’s case suffered from significant evidentiary deficiencies. The Court observed that although prosecution witnesses admitted that photographs and videography of the seizure and destruction were taken, none were produced before the court.
It further observed that no independent witnesses, including villagers who were allegedly present during the operation, were examined. The Court emphasised that the conviction had been recorded primarily on the basis of the accused’s confessional statement. Relying on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Court reiterated that confessional statements made to officers empowered under the NDPS Act are inadmissible and cannot form the sole basis of conviction.
The Court also found clear violation of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, noting that the investigating officer failed to prove that the information received was reduced into writing and communicated to superior officers, which is a mandatory safeguard. Such non-compliance, the Court held, went to the root of the prosecution case.
In view of the absence of independent evidence, reliance on inadmissible confessional statements, and non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements under the NDPS Act, the Court allowed the criminal appeal. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were set aside, and the accused was acquitted of all charges. The Court also directed that the bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged.
Case Title: Jadhav Gopal V. The State of A.P. through
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.78 of 2013
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice J. Sreenivas Rao
Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Vivek Jain
Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. M. Vivekananda Reddy
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
