Partly allowed

Gutala Raju and 4 Others v. the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp

Telangana HC12 Mar 2024CRLA/1200/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal under Sections 374(2) Cr.P.C., the High Court of Telangana addressed the dispute over the judgment convicts the appellants for offenses under the N.D.P.S. Act. The Court dismissed the appeal upholding the conviction but exercised judicial discretion to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants.

What did the court decide?

Conviction confirmed; sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine increased to Rs.50,000/- each.

Gutala Raju and 4 Others Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

BAIL sLlP : The petitioner/ Accused was directed to be rereased on bair by the order of the High court dated 03.12.2012, in crr.A.M.p.No .2542 0f 2012, in crr.A. No. 1200 of2012.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABhD

¶3

TUESDAY THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMI NAL APPEAL NO:1200 oF 2012

¶7

criminal Appear Under section of 874(2) crr.p.c against the Judgment Dated 30 11.2012 inSC.No.10 of 2011 onthefireof the court of thespeciar Judgefor Triar of cases under NDps Act-cum-r Additionar sessions Judge, Khammam. Between:

¶8

'1. Gutala Raiu, S/o. Venkata Ramana, Occ: Auto Driver, Rl/o. Rekapally Village, V.R.puram Mandal, Khammam Oisiiict.^{- -'-*}

¶9

Jallarapu Shivaii Ganesll,, Slo. Venkata Narsaiah, Occ: Student, No. 21 1i106, Rekapaliviuage, V.n.ptira, ruir"*oji xnl.,i,rr"iji.iii""i',,.' '""

¶10

Bethi Raju, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Occ: Student, No. 21_1lOg, Rekapally Viilage, V.R.puram Mandal, Xnammambisiiiii

¶11

4 P.rLO, Anoju Kumar,, S/o. Veeraiah, Occ Surya Daily Reporter, R/o. Chinna Mattapaily Village, V-R.puram MinOjt,-(t rriiam District.

¶12

Bandam Muthvata $.o., S/q.Qylaiah, Occ: . Student, Rl/o. tppaiagumpu, Ramavaram, Vetairpad M;"d"t; ffi;;niai'b].,n",.

¶13

AND

¶14

...APELLANTS/ACCUSED 1T04&6

¶15

The State of A.P. Rep., by its public prosecutor, High Court of Andhra pradesh, at Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPODENT

¶17

Counsel for the Appellants : Sri. Nimmagadda Satyanarayana Counsel for the Respondent : Khaja Vizarath Ali Assistant p.p

¶18

The Court made the following

¶19

¶20

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI ]USTICE E'V' VENUGOPAL} R MI A PP L 2 1

¶21

J U ENT:

¶22

The^{present Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellants/Accused} Nos.1 to^{4 and 6 aggrieved by the judgment dated 30'11'2012in} S.C.No.10^{of 2011 passed by the learned Special Judge for trial of} cases under^{NDPS Act-cum-I Additional SessionsJudge'Khammam} (for short,^{"triaI Court")'}

¶23

The brief^{facts of the case are that on 25'05'2010'} Appellants/Accused^{Nos'1to 3 were transporting ganja illegally on a} motor^{cyclebearingNo'AP2OR1138from Motu to Kalimela' on the} instructions^{of AccusedNo'4 and 6' Under suspicion' they were} caught and^{search was made in the presenceof Gazetted Officer} Ramesh^{Venu GopalaSrinivas'Medical Officer' Aswaraopetand in} the^{presenceof panchasand GovernmentOfficials' Subsequently'} AccusedNo.6WaSapprehendedandganjawasrecovered. Confessions^{of AccusedNos'1 to 3 and 6 were recorded'Basedon} the complaint,^{the case was registered for the offences under} Sections^{B (c), 20 (ii) and 22 (b) of N'D'P'S'Act' Accused No'6was} arrested^{on 05.06'2010and 15 kgs of ganja was recovered from} him. Accused^{No.4 approached the police with anticipatory bail vide} tn Crl. P. [4.^{P. No.11688of 2010 and Crl.P.No.6B66of 2010 dated}

¶24

¶25

2l.O7.2OtO. Subsequently, Accused No.5 was also arrested afld separate charge sheet is also filed. Basing on the charge sheet filed against the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6, the same was. numbered as S.C.No.10 of 2011 on it" file of the learned Special Judge for triar of cases under NDps Act-cum-I Additionar sessions Judge, Khammam for the offence punishable under Sections g (c), 20 (ii) and 22 (b) ot N.D.p.S. Act. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6.

¶26

On behalf of the prosecution, pws.1 to 7 were examined and marked Exs.pl to p7 and MOs.l to 3. In defence, none were examined and no document was marked.

¶27

The trial Couft after hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and basing on the materiar avairabre on record vide judgment dated t3.t7.2012 in S.C.No.10 of 2011 convicted the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 for the offence under sections B (c), 20 (ii) and 22 (b) of N.D.p.S. Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (3) months against each of the offence. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 have preferred the present appeal.

¶28

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vizarath Ali learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent/State. Perused the record.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellants/accused Nos.l to 4 and 6 contended that there are many discrepancies in the evidence of witness. The^police failed to follow the^procedure contemplated in under the N.D.P.S. Act. It is also contended that the police failed to apprehend the person from whom the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 have purchased the ganja. It is also contended that the investigating officer has not authorized to conduct investigation and that after a long gap, the appellants/ accused were apprehended. It is further contended that there are serious discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witness with regard to search and seizure and also the weight of the contraband.

¶31

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State submitted that the trial Court after careful consideration of the evidence and the material available on record passed the impugned^judgment, therefore, interference of this Court is unwarranted and seeks to dismiss the Criminal Appeal.

¶32

¶33

¶34

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also contended that the trial Court also found that all the^{witnesses,including} panchas had supported the case of the prosecution. It is also contended that basing on the confession of the appellants/accused, the contraband was recovered from^{AccusedNo.6. AccusedNo'4 is} the main^person in managing the transport of^{ganja, Accused No.5is} selling the ganja after^purchasing from all the other^{accused and} hence prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Appeal.

¶35

It is also contended that the trial Court^{found that the} appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 are^{found guilty for the offences} under Sections B (c), 20⁽ⁱⁱ⁾ and 22^(b) ot^{N.D.P.S.Act, and the said} finding does not call for an intefference of this court^{while exercising} the appellate^jurisdiction under Section 374^{(2) Cr.P.C.}

¶36

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor also^contended that there are no valid^grounds to interfere with the^{well-considered} judgment of the trial Court and hence sought for dismissal of appeal.

¶37

It is to be seen that in the instant case while examining the evidence on record, the discrepancies, if any, shall not affected are vitiate the case of the^prosecution in any manner.^However, having'.regard -\ to the submissions made by the learned counsel^for tne resiective parties and taking into consideration the^mental agony and^hardship suffered by appellant/accused^{Nos.1 to 4 and 6}

¶38

¶39

for all these years, this Court is inclined to take a lenient view and reduce the sentence imposed by the trial Court to the^period already undergone by the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6.

¶40

L2. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed, while confirming the conviction recorded against the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 for the offence punishable under Sections 8 (c), 20 (ii) and 22 (b) of N.D.P.S. Act, however, reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellants/ accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6. The appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 and 6 are further directed to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each to the credit of the trial Court within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. In default, the judgment 30.11.2012 in S.C.No.10 of 2011 passed by the trial Court holds good in all respects.

¶41

Pending miscellaneous applications , if any, shall stand closed.

¶42

Sd/. K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Special Judge^{for Trial of casesunder NDPSAct-cum-l Additional} Sessions Judge, Khammam,^{Khammam District.(With records)}

¶48

One CC to Sri. Nimmagadda^{SatyanarayanaAdvocate} IOPUC]

¶49

Two CCs to Public Prosecutor,^{High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶50

Two CD Copies

DUgh

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210312024

ORDER

GRLA.No.1200 oi 2012

iHE ST4 l-6.
f-
(o .i.
)
7
-.) [ 7 llAY 2021 a)
ri] *
)SSrtra-C'\ eo

¶57

@ 2?hu"l

¶58

DISMISSING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL

Gutala Raju and 4 Others v. the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gutala Raju and 4 Others v. the State of A.P. Rep., by Its 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

N. Jangaiah Vs Smt. Sridevi

Kurva Shyamappa Vs the State of A.P.

Firoz Basha, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Kohilakonda Satish Kumar Vs the State of Ap.

Gugulothu Reddy, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Kande Sammaiah, Karimnagar., Vs Md.Abdul Hussain, Karimnagar and Anr, Rep Pp.