Partly allowed

Choppari Narsaiah, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Telangana HC30 Jun 2023CRLA/120/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In CRL.A. No. 120 of 2009, the Telangana High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by Choppari Narsaiah under Section 374(2) CrPC against his conviction for growing cannabis plants. The court reduced the term of imprisonment only, maintaining the fine.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone; fine maintained.

Choppari Narsaiah, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

13251 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1 20 0F 2009

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 374(2) ot Cr.p.C against the judgment dated 20'01-2009 passed in sc.No. 107 oI 2004 on the file of the court oi the special Judge for NDPS cases-cum- I Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal.

¶8

Betwe'en:

¶9

Choppari Narsaiah, S/o Lachaiah, aged:S1 years, Occ: Agriculture, R:/o Mohammadapur.Village, Duggondi Mandal, Warangal District.

¶10

...APELLANT/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

The State Of Andhra Pradesh., rep. by its^public prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPODENT/COMPLAINANT

¶14

CRLAMP. NO: 145 OF 2009

¶15

Petition under Section 3Bg (i) CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the execution of sentence passed in SC.No. 107 of dt. 20-01-2009 on the file of the court of the Special Judge for NDpS Cases-cumlAdditional sessions Judge, warangal and release the petitioner on bail pending Crl.A

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI P. PRABHAKAR REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

THI IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SI]REI[ T)ER

¶20

()riminal Appeal No.12O of :2OO9

¶21

{,D-GMENT:

¶22

'l'1-ri s llimir-r:rl Appeal has been fi ed urrr,ler Sec:tion 37aQ) of^{(lr. ).C.} ag:rinst the conviction anr.l scr 1,. ncl passccl in S.C No \t'.7 of 2OO4 ciated 2O.O l.2OO9 orr tl.re file of Specizrl Judgc lor 'll)PS cases - I Additional Sesr;rlns .fuiclge, Warangzrl.

¶23

I{r' 'r-l learned counsel appearinfl for Lre appe[ant and lcerutr:ll F'ublic Prosecutor for the respon ir.nt State Perusec tl: r, e:ord

¶24

It is^rl're case of the prosecution that on 1,3. . I .2003, P.W. l, Ir.<sup>/ . P.W.3 and others had gone to thc land o,' the appellant an I bund that 560 Ganja piants wer.e l:eirg grou,n along it'itlL t'illy plants. P.W.1 secured the 1:resrence of photographe s and the plants wer,r p r( to[.raphed. Thereaft er. a t-rotice wzrs displayed on the spot t'1at no one should be cl^.aling rvith the said Ganja F,lants. Th,:reafter, havinq t aker-. r:quisite permission under Ex.P.il :rlants \vere plucked, hea rt, d and destroyed.

¶25

Prior to that, three samples were obtained.^The samples were sent for anal5zsis. It^r,r,as found that^{the plants} were Ganja. During the course of investigation, the^Police collected the analyst's report marked as Ex.P.^{10 and Ex.P.} l1 is the copy of Pahani issued by Village^{Secretary. The} exhibits Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 i.e.,^{panchanarnaswere also} collected. Ex.P.3 is the destruction^{orderand Ex.P. l, Ex.P.2,} Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 are the^photographs.

¶26

According to the learned counsel for^{the appellant,} the f,reld does not belong to the appellant and^{none of the} neighbours were examined.^{The Police also failed to intimate} the Gazetted Officer before undertaking^{the procedureof} plucking the plants and destroying them.^{Since procedure} has not been followed, the appeal^{has to be allowed.}

¶27

As seen from the record, including^{the scene of} offence, panchanama, it^was found^{that the land belongs to} the appellant as could be seen from^{Ex'P. 1 |uiz., tl:.e Pahani.} Except claiming that the^procedure has^{not been followed,} no other grounds are raised. This Court^{is of the view that}

¶28

P w l 'tll(l 'w 2 lltll;^{lrrlloucclllrcdt-tt} 1-'t'"1-'t^{tittrc rvllilt:} pluci<r rr1. l(t^{Ll ,iltg ol- clestt-orir-rg t l-rer plants}

¶29

7 . I :" r ot l'inci anY rttfirmitr'^{\'ith llles;z ir} 1l-oce<ltrrc follou'ecl^{('t r.t} st:c1ttt'ntlt',^{Iclo not fincl ilnve l-ot intllc} judgme r1 r;l;secl lt-t' tlre Iear-ned Sessions.^ucLge

¶30

Hrts :r er, keeping ttl^{vieu' that the incjc e rt r)ccurred} in the vcrrr²⁰⁰³ and^{thcre are no otht:r c:ritllin al cases} a6lainst thr,'^{r poellzrnt,further the appellant is tlrt' onlybread} winner ol tl' ' familv^{ancl his parents, thl ee cllLt:8'h -ers atld} five sisterrs;^l. 'c^{clepe ndent on him, as he is norv age d about} 65 yeals, tl i.', Court^{deems itappropriitter-o reducethe} sentence c,l n^{pt'iso:rmelrt imposed againstthe z:pp:l1altto} the pe.riorl alrt:ady^{undergone,whilemairt I Linrng fine} imposecl ag:rⁿ st^him

¶31

Acct:^'cingly, criminal^{appealis parLly al:o'r'erl.}

¶32

N{rsccll rre()us applications^{pending,f an1} ,^sh:rllst.and

¶33

closed.

¶34

Sd/. M. VIJAYA BHASKAR J()INT REGISTRAR ! '''--11;, //TRUE COPY//

¶35

SI:C'IION OFFICER

¶36

To,

¶37

1 The Special Jr d,le for NDPS cases-cum- lAdditional Ser,siors Judge, Warangal Disl ict (with record, if any)

¶38

2 Two CCs to th( F'ublic Prosecutor, High Court for tle State lf Telangana at H),derabad [O( Tl

¶39

e One CC to S,ri^). Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate [OPLC] 4 plp Two CD,loF,re +__-

HIGH COURT

DATED: 3011612023

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.12rl ot 2009

.?-=
I
\ s
a-
ri;
l':'
ll ,)
AIJE 2UN
,, J
[$
,:.

¶46

PARTLY ALL OWING THE CRL.A

¶47

,4) *\ ,,.9
),W

Choppari Narsaiah, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Choppari Narsaiah, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

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

Kotte Anil Kumar Vs K.Sunithas Shalini

Mohd Baba, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Mohd Baba , Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Gudupally Jagadeshwar, Venkatapur [v], Medak District. Vs the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad.

Mohd Irhad , Vs State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Maisala , Maisagalla Sailu, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.