Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Udugula Yadagiri vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(1)ALD674, 1999(1)ALD(CRI)625, 1999(1)ALT567, 1999CRILJ3532
Author: Vaman Rao
Bench: Vaman Rao
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal arises out of the conviction of the appellant for the offence of contravention of Section 8(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act punishable under Section 20 of the said Act, for which the accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for two months by judgment dated 30-9-1993 in CCNo.51 of 1992 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge at Warangal.
2. The charge against the accused is that the Sub-Inspector of Police (PW4) got some information that the accused was cultivating ganja plants in his land bearing survey No.518 of village Appalaraopet. In pursuance of the information, he requisitioned the services of the Revenue Inspector (P\V I) and two panch witnesses, namely, P\Vs.2 and 3 and proceeded to a field purporting to be the Survey No.518 of the said village and found 209 plants of ganja in (hat field, lie got the plants plucked and preserved six plants for the purpose of Chemical Analysis and got the remaining plants destroyed.
The allegation is that it was the accused who was in possession of the plants and that he cultivated the ganja plants.
3. For bringing home the charge against the accused, the prosecution must prove firstly that the ganja plants were found in the particular survey no. of the village as alleged by the prosecution and that it was the accused who was in possession of that land and raised the crop of ganja in that land.
4. To locate the survey No.5 IS, PW1, Revenue Inspector, seems to have been examined. It would appear that he has no personal knowledge about the location of the survey No.518. According to him, the village servants located the survey No.518 for him.
The village servants have not been examined. It is not the case of P\V I that he located the land with reference to the village map or any other survey and settlement records which would help him to locate the survey No.518. As to the cultivation of the land by the accused except the statement of PW1 that he was informed by the village servants that it was the accused who cultivated that land, there is no such material on record. PW1 apparently does not have any personal knowledge about the cultivation of the land by the accused. Even a copy of the pahani patrika has not been filed. On the other hand, on behalf of the accused, such copy has been filed and marked as Ex.Dl which does not disclose the accused as one of the cultivators of the land. Ex.Dl shows that one Udugula Veer/ah was the owner of the land and four persons, namely, Udugula Veeraswamy, Udugula Bakkaiah, Udugula Yel/iah and Udugula Komariuh cultivated the various pieces of the land in that survey number. Absence of the name of the accused among the cultivators is significant. The two panch witnesses who attested the panchanama conducted by teh investigating officer (PW4) at the time of the seizure of the ganja plants have not supported the prosecution version. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove that the ganja plants were in fact found in survey No.518 and that the said survey number or any part of that survey number was in possession of the accused or under cultivation of the accused. From the above discussion, the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the accused is acquitted of the charge under Section 8(b) read with Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged. The fine amount if paid by the accused shall be refunded to him.