Partly allowed

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

Telangana HC8 Jun 2023CRLA/789/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two criminal appeals arising from NDPS convictions for possession of ganja. The bench found no violation of procedural mandates during search and upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone as 18 years passed since the incident.

What did the court decide?

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

Smt. Shobha Omprakash Yadav Vs the State of A.P. — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO

¶3

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos: 437 & 789 of 2009

¶7

Criminal Aooea I No.437 of 2009

¶8

Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code aggrieved by the Judgment dated: 04-03-2009 passed in N.D.S.C.No.23 ot 2006 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge under the N.D.P.S. Act-cum-l-Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Kridnna Takre, S/o Nathuji, Aged about 45 years, Occ:Coolie, Caste: Kapu, Rt/o Bannera Village, Amaravathi, Maharashtra State. (A-1)

¶11

.AppellanUAccused no.1

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of A.P., through the Sub-lnspector of Police, Asifabad P.S. Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶14

...RespondenUComplainant

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI S. SURENDER REDDY

¶16

Counsel forthe Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

Criminal Appeal Nc 7tl9 of 2009

¶18

Criminal Appeal urrd :r Section 374 (2) ot Criminal Procedure Oc Je aggrieved by the Judgment dated: 04 0:l-2009 passed in N.D.S.C.No.23 of 200rl o I the file of the Court of the Special lulge under the N.D.P.S. Act-cum-l-Addit orral liessions Judge, Adilabad.

¶19

Between:

¶20

Smt. Shobha On prakash Yadav, W/o Omprakash, ,\ged atrout 35 years, Occ: Coolie , Rl/o Barn rra Village, Amaravathi, Maharashtra Stat r. (A-2)

¶21

.Appel anl/Accused No.2

¶22

AND

¶23

The State of A.P., lrhrough the Sub-lnspector of Police Asifabi;d P.S., Rep. by the Public Prost:cr tcr, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶24

... Respon derrUCom plainant

¶25

Counsel for the App:llant: SRI S. SURENDER REDDY

¶26

Counspl for the Resl rondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR J

¶27

The Court made the 'ollowing: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶28

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶30

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 437 & 789 0F 2009

¶31

COMMON JUDGMENT:

¶32

Crl.A.No.437 of 2OO9 is preferred by Accused No.1 and Crl.A.No.7B9 of 2OO9 is preferred by the Accused No.2 aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Special Judge under the NDPS Act-cum-I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, for the offences punishable under Section 2o(b)(i) of the NDpS Act, 1985 for being in possession of 16 Kgs. and 13 Kgs. of ganja, respectively, and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a I ) period of two years, each and to pay a Iine of Rs. 1,000/_, each.

¶33

Since both the appeals arise out of the same Judgment of the Sessions Court, both are head together and disposed off by this common judgment.

¶34

The case of the prosecution is that these two appellants and another who died during pendency of the trial, were found in possession of 13 Kgs., 16 Kgs. and 1O Kgs. of ganja, respectively. The said persons were apprehended by pWl and his team when they were carrying the said ganj a in Asifabad town area. PW1 and others were performing patrolling duty in the said area when the accused were caught.

¶35

l:-; z-

¶36

¶37

Acco-c[ n,3 to the evidence of PWl, tl'r e ii:rpellzLnts were stopped ulrcl :r suspicion of possessing gan ja an:1 u,e:c informed that thc-y^(rzl l be searched before a gazelted <,1;'ice^-, horvever, panchanarn:r i\ as conducted thereafter ancr giu-t il r.l,as seized by follou,ing drrr: procedure

¶38

Sarnple ; ,vere drawn from the ganj a foLlr d irr d sernt for the purpos,:^, ,f analysis. The analysis report Dx..rr 10 confirmed that the martr: iirl seized from these appellants -. s gatr.ja.

¶39

Learrrr:c[ t]ounsel appearing for tht. irpl)€ llarrts \l,ou1d submit thal t, rere are violations of mandatc,ry pr or:erdure under Sections 42. i O and 57 of the NDPS Act for r,.,hic, r rr:ason, the convictior-r ha: trr be set aside

¶40

As secn fl'om the record, the Poiice hirvt' lollorved the procedure' prt: r<:ribed and nowhere the mandat rr.v' provrsions have been vi:lr tr:d. The incident happened on 1l I . i .21105 and I do not find i, n.r infirmitl, with the findings o' Lhr. learned Sessions .fucigr i r convicting the appellants

¶41

Whe;-r 11u.:,.tioned, learned Additional prrblir, pr.osccutor would subrnit hat apart. from this case th:re v.r:.e no other

¶42

¶43

cases against these appellants. Thcy were neither involved in any criminal cases either before the present case nor after being released on bail.

¶44

In the said circumstances, since the case is of the year 2005 and 18 years have passed, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone

¶45

Accordingly, both the Criminal appeals are partly allowed reducin g the sentence of imprisonment of the appellants to the J period already undergone. The fine component remains unaltered.

¶46

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this criminal

¶47

appeal, shall stand closed.

¶48

¶49

//TRUE^COPY//

¶50

Sd/.B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT^REGISTRAR

L.]D

t \

SECTIOi\i^OFFICER

to'r. -n" Special Judge under the N'D'P S Aclcum-l-Additional Sessions^Judge' Adilabad.^{(wthrecords</sup>}

¶55

Adilabad.^{(wthrecords</sup>}

¶56

1. The^{Station Ho"" d#ot'' Asifabad Police Station' Adilabad District'} i. ii'tl^{si,p""'tendent'District Jail' Adilabad} ' -^' ; iil; il;^; "te nd e nt'^{""';#"n:'it; il;'E"} "^{n' r t''} ifrt$Y":^{:1 "il;iffi '}

¶57

"te nd e nt'

¶58

1. Two^{ccs to the pubric prosecutor, High coirrtror the Stateof relanganaat} Hvderabad'(OUT)

¶59

Hvderabad'(OUT)

¶60

1. 3L:, #iltiiilsuner'roen^{REDDY' AdvocatetoPUCl}

¶61

Two^{CD CoPies}

kam

HIGH COURI

DATED:08106t2t023

a:
l I I'\ N8

COMMON JUI)GMENT

CRLA.Nos.43'' & 789 of 2009

¶68

BOTH THE CRIMINAL APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunder Matta , Vs R.Vijay Kumar and Another

The State of Telangana Vs Kanakam Siddeshwar Siddu

Mohammed Sayyad Vs Bandla Somi reddy

Anumakonda Shashidar Vs the State of A.P.

Krishna Takre Vs the State of A.P.

Panuganti Chandramouli Vs The State of Telangana