Partly allowed

Monaraguthi Muni Swamy v. The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC8 Feb 2012CRLA/1978/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment confirms the conviction of two appellants under the NDPS Act for carrying ganja. The court held that voluntary disclosure by the accused negated any search and seizure violation. The appeals were partly allowed to treat the sentence already undergone as satisfying the imposed sentence.

What did the court decide?

The sentence undergone by the accused is treated as the sentence of imprisonment including the default sentence.

Monaraguthi Muni Swamy Vs The State of A.P. rep. by… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 1978 of 2004 and 700 of 2005

¶2

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶3

Both these appeals arise out of the conviction in S.C.No.47 of 2003 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

¶4

Criminal Appeal No.1978 of 2004 was preferred by both the accused initially but subsequently Criminal Appeal No.700 of 2005 was preferred by the 2^nd appellant through legal aid counsel.

¶5

The case of the prosecution is that on 13.10.2002 at about 5.00 a.m. both the accused were apprehended near the bus stand at Vijayawada, when they were carrying two bags and when they were questioned, they disclosed that they are carrying ganja and, therefore, in the presence of mediators the bags were checked and the property was seized after taking samples.

¶6

Thereafter the accused were prosecuted and the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(B)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the Act”) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed.

¶7

The point that arises for consideration is whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is legal and sustainable? POINT:

¶8

In order to prove the seizure of ganja from the possessions of the accused, P.W.1, who was said to be the Senior Manager of ANL parcel service at R.T.C. bus stand has spoken about the apprehension of the accused and the accused are carrying two bags M.Os.1 and 2. The

¶9

evidence of P.W.2 is that he was panch witness and he was called by the police on 31.10.2002 and the accused were apprehended and they disclosed that they are carrying ganja in M.Os.1 and 2 and thereafter the bags were searched and the police have seized the ganja bags and taken samples and Ex.P-1 is the panchanama. In cross-examination, there is not of much material to discredit his testimony as to his interestedness in speaking falsehood. P.W.3 is the S.I. of Police and P.W.4 is the C.I. of Police and they also spoke about the particulars of the apprehension of the accused and seizure of the ganja.

¶10

The learned counsel for the appellants contends that there is violation of the mandatory provisions of the Act and the search and seizure cannot be believed.

¶11

It is to be noted that the accused after apprehension are said to have given voluntary disclosure and thereafter the property was seized. Therefore, it is not a case where the search was done without the disclosure by the accused. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the lower Court has rightly accepted the evidence of seizure. Evidently, the quantity of ganja, which is said to have been seized, is only 3 KGs and there is no case of previous conviction or involvement of the accused in case of this nature.

¶12

It is represented by the learned counsel for A-2 that A-2 was already in jail for a period of more than one year and A-1 is also said to be in jail for sufficient time.

¶13

Therefore, taking into consideration the above circumstances, I feel the ends of justice would meet, while confirming the conviction of the accused for offence under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(B)(ii) of the Act, the sentence undergone by the accused shall be treated as the sentence of imprisonment including the default sentence for non-payment of the fine.

¶14

With the above, the Criminal Appeals are partly allowed.

¶15

________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J

¶16

Date: 08-02-2012 MR

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO

¶18

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 1978 of 2004 and 700 of 2005

¶19

DATE: 08-02-2012

¶20

Monaraguthi Muni Swamy v. The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monaraguthi Muni Swamy v. The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jajjavarapu Papa, Vs Bajjivarapu Vishnu Prasad

Indian Bank , Madras Vs Gazulapelluru Landless Labour

The Public Prosecutor, Vs Shaik Abdul Khayum

T.Sharada, Vs Dr.v.v.L.N.Sastry

Thuppudu Konda Reddy Vs State of a.P., rep by Public Prosecutor

Mohd Naseemunnisa Vs Md.Murtaza