Dismissed

The Prohibition and Excise Inspector,yellamanchili v. Vallala Koteswara Rao

Telangana HC26 Mar 2010CRLA/610/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal dismissed. The Court held that the trial court correctly acquitted the accused due to mandatory non-compliance with Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act regarding the time limit for forwarding information to superiors, rendering the prosecution case vitiated.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 2004 dismissed; order of acquittal set aside status quo. Accused remain acquitted.

The Prohibition and Excise Inspector,yellamanchili Vs… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

: HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH [26^TH ] DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶4

Present:

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶6

Criminal Appeal No.610 of 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

The Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Yellamanchili, Visakhapatnam district

¶9

… Appellant

¶10

And:

¶11

Vallala Koteswara Rao & others

¶12

… Respondents

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶14

Criminal Appeal No.610 of 2004

¶15

JUDGMENT:

¶16

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.03.2002 in SC No.36 of 2000 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein, the respondents-A.1 to A.9 were found not guilty of the offence under Sections 8[c] read with Section 20b of the N.D.P.S. Act [for short ‘the Act’] and were acquitted thereof, under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.

¶17

2. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the Appellant-State and the learned counsel for the respondents-accused. Perused the record.

¶18

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.08.2000 at about 10.30 p.m. PW.3-Investigating Officer had received information on phone about the commission of the offence going to take in the early hours on 12.08.2000 at Penugollu Dharmavaram village and that after recording the said information in the station information register, he informed the same to his superiors. Thereafter, the Sub Divisional Prohibition & Excise Officer accompanied by other officials, proceeded to the scene of offence at 5 a.m. on 12.08.2000 and found A.1 to A.9 near Balatripura Sundari cinema hall, sitting on the gunny bags. It is further alleged

¶19

that the accused were apprehended and the gunny bags MOs.1 to 5, polythene bags Mos.6 to 9 were seized in the presence of mediators-PW.1 and another under a panchanama Ex.P.1 and that the gunny bags MOs.1 to 5 and polythene bags MOs.6 to 9 found containing ganja. It is also the case of the prosecution that the samples were drawn from the said ganja bags under Mos.10 to 27 in the presence of the mediators and that the accused were taken to the Mandal Revenue Officer-PW.2 for personal verification. Samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner and the analyst opined that they contain ganja vide report Ex.P.7.

¶20

4. On appearance before the Court, the accused denied the offence and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed under Section 20(b)(i) read with section 8[c] of the Act. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.7 and MOs.1 to 27. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

¶21

5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused on the ground that the mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 47 and 50 of the Act have not been duly complied with.

¶22

6. According to the prosecution, information was received by PW.3 about the offence on telephone on the night of 11.08.2000. It is claimed that the said information was recorded in the station information register. The said record is not produced before the Court. Admittedly, the said information was not entered in the FIR nor any separate report is sent to the superior officials.

¶23

7. Section 42(2) of the Act reads as follows: Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1)

¶24

or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within 72 hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. In the present case, PW.3 is said to have received information by phone and noted the same in the station information book. PW.3 was duty bound to send the copy of the said information, which was reduced by him into writing to his immediate official superior within 72 hours. Admittedly, PW.3 has not complied with the said mandatory requirement under Section 42(2) of the Act.

¶25

8. Learned counsel for the respondents-accused relied upon a decision in ‘State of Punjab vs. Balbir Sing h^[1] ’ , wherein, the apex Court held as follows:

¶26

“Under Section 42(2) such empowered officer who takes down any information in writing or records the grounds under proviso to Section 42(1) should forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. If there is total non-compliance of this provision the same affects the prosecution case. To that extent it is mandatory. But if there is delay whether it was undue or whether the same has been explained or not, will be a question of fact in each case.”

¶27

9. In the present case also, there has been a total noncompliance with the mandatory requirement as contemplated under Section 42(2) of the Act.

¶28

10. Learned counsel for the respondents would further contend that the provisions of section 50 of the Act also have not been complied with, as no notice was served on the accused regarding their proposed examination before the Mandal Revenue Officer. Section 50 of the Act contemplates that when the authorized officer is about to search any person and if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay

¶29

to the nearest Gazetted Officer or nearest Magistrate. In the present case, even according to the prosecution, the gunny bags were found not on the person of the accused and nothing was seized from the person of any of the accused. According to the prosecution, the gunny bags were found near the place where the accused was found sitting. PW.1 stated that the gunny bags were in fact found 15 yards away from where the accused were sitting. It is not the case of the prosecution that they seized the contraband from the person of the accused. Hence, noncompliance, if any with the requirement under Section 50 of the Act is of no consequence. However, as the evidence on record established that PW.3-authorised officer has failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the Act, the trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution of the accused is vitiated thereby. In view of the discrepant evidence regarding the seizure of the gunny bags and polythene bags Mos.1 to 9 from the possession of the accused, the trial Court has rightly disbelieved the alleged seizure.

¶30

11. It is well settled that an order of acquittal cannot be easily interfered with in the appeal in the absence of any strong and compelling reasons to do so. In the present case, there are no such strong or compelling reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. There are no merits in the appeal.

¶31

12. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed.

¶32

G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶33

Date: 26.03.2010 bss

¶34

[1] AIR 1994 SC 1872

The Prohibition and Excise Inspector,yellamanchili v. Vallala Koteswara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Prohibition and Excise Inspector,yellamanchili v. Vallala Koteswara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Public Prosecutor Vs Uddaraju Srinivasa Raju

Meesala Krishna Rao Vs Allu Suryanarayan

M. Murali Krishna Vs Margadarsi Chit Fund Ltd.

Lagudu Venu (Died) Vs Nandi Seetharam

Bontalakoti Trinadha rao Vs Revalla Chinnayya

The Food Inspector, Khammam Vs Yermala Srinivasa Reddy