Allowed

Yelakanti Mallaiah, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Telangana HC9 Jun 2023CRLA/182/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal appeal and acquitted appellant convicted under NDPS Act for cultivating ganja. Found prosecution failed to establish exclusive possession of land due to lack of boundary demarcation and neighbour examination, creating reasonable doubt.

What did the court decide?

Appellant acquitted; criminal appeal allowed; judgment quashed; regular bail bonds discharged.

Yelakanti Mallaiah, Vs the State of a.P., Rep by Pp. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 16-02-2009 in Crl.M.P.No.2'13 Crl.R.C No.182 of 2009.

¶2

[³²⁵¹ I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 182 OF 2009

¶8

Criminal Appeal Under Section 374(2) of Crl.P.C against the Judgment^Dated 12-02-2019, in S.C.No. 143 of 2OO4 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for NDPS Cases-cum-lst Additional Sessions, Judge, Warangal. Between:

¶9

lelakanti Mallaiah, S/o. Narasaiah, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mohammadapur Village, Duggondi Mandal, Warangal District.

¶10

...APELLANT/ACCUSED

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of A.P., Rep.by Public Prosecutor,^{High Court} of^{A.P., Hyderabad.}

¶13

...RESPODENT

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. A. PRABHAKAR^RAO

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

The Court made the following:

¶17

Hr )N'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENI)I)R

¶18

CRTMINAL APPEAL No.182 CrF 20C19

¶19

JUDGMENT':

¶20

The alri c lant is cronr,icted lor tt e oo:ltr: :en1.ion oI Scctior-r 6(b) 1 r-rnishablir uncler Section 2l ,tl' Ir arr:otic Drugs ancl Psvchotr': I c Sultstanccs t\ct (for short 'NDI)ll Act')

¶21

Brie f'11. [:: casc of Lhc prosecutior: is :Lat P.W.2-Sub Inslrector. alo r:1 u,ith ltis staff found ganja (tu 1 ,ar.ion in \ Y" acrt:s of l,rn,1 : Sy.No. 1ii ol'i,loharnrnadaFur vrllrrl3r. In ai1, the pr)lice ibrrncl I i'6 ganla 1;larnts. IJavrng lolLorvr:r1 Llti' procedure prcscnbeC Lrrr li.r the Nl)l)S Act, P.W. i/SI sent. l:,r'independent rvil-nesses; ir:, P.W1.-I)unchaYat Socretaly arrl a,tother and conclucte .l rr,^{'r,:hal.rnt:L} r-tnder Exs.l)2 and lll Frior to the p:rnchan:LmeL i;r.l)1 noticc r,r,a s also placecl b1,^r. *i.2 informing that no oric sl :r11 deal v,,ith ganja p1:rnts ir ani, r ritrrller. Plants werc plu--1<r:il r nl sea.ccl thcrtr aLrd tl-rcleaftc r' lr:.r,rne takcn pcrrnissic,r-r rrr cler EXPI 0 ltrr clcstruction, lhr: s ir cL tlants were dr:stro1-ec aft, r- obtaining sarnples ol the plalr 1,.i. 'lhe san-rple w21s sent to irr lrSL t'itlrout being clepol;itr:cl r rto the Court Ilar,ing r-r,ct:iv rl the aitrtL..,st rellort trndcr Dx. t) t.l tlrat the saicl

¶22

¶23

¶24

plant was positive for ganja, charge sheet was also filed lor the said offence.

¶25

Learned Sessions Judge having examined p.Ws.l to 4 and marking Exs.p1 to p14 found that the appellant was guilty of the said offence and convicted the appelrant for three years rigorous imprisonment ald Rs.1.OO lakh fine, in default to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years vide judgment in SC No. 143 of 2004, dared t2.O2.2OOg.

¶26

Learned counsei appearing for the appellant would submit that the police have mechanicaJly prepared the panchamana without even ascertaining whether the appellant had anything to do with the land. Only pahani was hled and since the Panchayat Secretary has stated that the land belongs to appellant, conviction was recorded. However, the neighbours of the land were not examined by the Court to determine that the land where ganja plants were found belongs to the appellant. Further, the police have not deposited the part of the samples before the Court to enable

¶27

¶28

tl'rc :rppel1ar-rt I,r sernd it lbl ar-ralvsis, srnce he ]uts, lost va,luablc right, the appr.llirnt has to be acquitted.

¶29

On 1l-re o Lrer hancl . learned Additionrrl PtLrlir: Prosecutor submittecl t r: L the Court has not r:omrritLc<l any error in cor-ivictit-tg tlr r: r ppellant when the eviden ce (l )l c.c _ed b1. the policc uncrr'1-. ,1', ltoint tou,ards ttre guilt oI tre :rppe1lanl. The grourids r:rist:r lty the appcllar-rl canltot be corLr;.,1r:r:d ar-rd the cor-n'iction hrrs to be upl-relcl.

¶30

, Accorclirrr to P.\V. 1. Panchayat Slecr,:,r, ry and the investigat-on r: lrducted. total 4^r,/z acres of lat'rrl ,.; ir. S_r,.No.48. P.W.I visitecl lhr: lancl on carlier occasions anrl i.rr_tltd that the appcllartt t rr. ,;ultir.atir.rg ll're lartd. DurirLsl t rc cortrse of panchanamtr. -']:cept lor 1l'rt: stateme'nt of P.\,. L t-ltiLt the lancl belongs to thr lrppellant, no other investigaticn u,rts clone to asccrtarn th(t orrect bc,undar-ies of the la,rd ol he appellant. Sirrr:c Sy.No.4 :3 is splr:aci over Acs.4^t/2., 1.h<: Crrty of the prosecution is t-o pin-poir-rt the bou,daries ,1 tlL. appcllant's I:rncl for rlrc:^(lr rrrt to conclucle u'ithout hesLta[icrr t h lt the lanr] belongs L<. rt,tt- r) clse exccf)t the appe)Jar-rt. (-

¶31

¶32

¶33

There is an element of doubt in the prosecution case for the reason of the police laiiing to demarcate the land of the appellant in Sy.No.48. Ncither the neighbours o[ the land were examined nor the land of thc appellant was fenced or any boundaries fixed to indicate that the land whether the ganja plants were found was in the exclusive possession of the appellant and cultivated by him. When the prosecution case is found with such inconsistencies, it give rise to reasonable doubt whether the land was in fact in possession and cultivation of this appellant. This aspect could not be positively determined by the prosecution.

¶34

In the absence of the prosecution failing to piace on record, the exclusive possession of the land where ganja plants were found, the conviction cannot be sustained. Since the case of the prosecution gives rise to reasonable doubt regarding the 1n complicity of the appellant in cultivation and being exclusive possession of the land, this Court has no hesitation to extend the benelit of doubt to the appellant. Accordingly,

¶35

the appel rrr: I ;rrccceds and the aplteal is a1lou :C acqLrrtting the altpell rnI

¶36

In t1:c rr:.;r. lt, the Cr.iminal Appeal is aLloi,",:rl b1r setting asidc tlre j.rl-sg n:nt i. S.C.No.143 ol- 2004. cteLlr::l 12.02.2009 passcd by th. ipecial Judge for NDpS cas rs ctr:L-l Addilional Sessions ., urlg;,^,, W'aralgal. Since the appc lian.t i,.; on bail, his bail bonds sl all stand clischargecl. As a s:r lrie I thcreto,, misccllaneorrs >cti:ions, rl:rny, pendir_rg, shr1ll 51'l1rrls closcd.

¶37

//TRUE COPY//

¶38

Sd/- IlI.^{/IJI\YA BHASKAR} .lOltlT REGISTRAR a- r-,lCr

¶39

r:iECTION OFFICER

¶40

To,

¶41

The Sc,e( al^{Judge for NDPS Cases-cunr-l'1 Adrlitic'nalSessions'} Judge,^rA' 'rirngal^{(with records)}

¶42

2 The Superi^{rtondent, Central Prison,Warangal}

¶43

The Stalicr^{F ouseOfficer, Duggondi Police Stati()n'\n/z rtrngal}

¶44

TWo CCs^{t') lhe Public Prosecutor, High Court frlr the31 lte cf Telangana,at} Hyderab,ac^(OUT).

¶45

One CC to^{SRl.A. PRABHAKAR RAO,Advocat'r[OPLIC I}

¶46

Two CD^{C :,Pes}

Dl-

HIGH COURT

KS,J

DATED:09/06/202^:l

ti'
:a -1' s14rF
t)
z
JIJT ?IM C)

¶55

ORDER

¶56

CRLA.No.182 of : 009

¶57

AI-LO\rlNCi tflF.⁽ I(IMINAI- z\PPEAL

¶58

@413 *o'X{az

Yelakanti Mallaiah, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yelakanti Mallaiah, v. the State of a.P., Rep by Pp.

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

Anumakonda Shashidar Vs the State of A.P.

Smt. Shobha Omprakash Yadav Vs the State of A.P.

Krishna Takre Vs the State of A.P.

Somi Reddy Sampath Reddy Vs The State of Telangana Rep by its P.P

Vanamala Sathyanarayana Vs the State of Telangana

Kuthadi Srikanth Vs The State of Telangana