Allowed¶32

Pothulboguda Veera Kumar Goud and Another v. the State of A.P.

Telangana HC17 Feb 2025CRLA/501/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court, Criminal Appeal No. 501 of 2012, decided 17.02.2025 by Justice K. Surender; appeal under S.374(2) Cr.P.C against judgment dated 11.06.2012 in NDPS S.C.No.86 of 2011 (I Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy) convicting under S.8(c) r/w 22 NDPS Act, 1985; 12 crates x 24 bottles of 650 ml toddy adulterated with diazepam (Ex.P6); PWs.1 & 2 hostile; no proof A1 employed by licence-holder A2; mere presence at scene insufficient; initial burden of proving association on prosecution, not discharged; benefit of doubt to A1; appeal allowed; bail bonds discharged; A2 died during pendency, appeal abated.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal allowed; benefit of doubt extended to Appellant No.1 (A1); since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged. ¶32

Pothulboguda Veera Kumar Goud and Another Vs the State of… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³²⁵¹ ]

¶2

NOTE:- The Accused were directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 14.06.2012 in Crl.A.M.P. No. 1'132 of 2012 in Crl A No. 501 of 2012.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 501 OF 20'12

¶8

Appeal filed under Section 37 4(2) of Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 11.06.2012 in NDPS S.C.No 86 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy,

¶9

Between:

¶10

Pothulboguda Veera Kumar Goud S/o Nara Goud, Aged about 30 years, resident of Yellapur Village, Papannapet Mandal, Medak Dist.

¶11

P. Rama Goud S/o Kista Goud, Aged about 84 years, resident of Yellapur Village, Papannapet Mandal, Medak Dist.

¶12

..APPELLANTS/ACCUSED No. 1 & 2

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENT

¶16

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri S. Sudarshan

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶18

The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT:

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶20

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.5O1 OF 2Ol2

¶21

JUDGMENT:

¶22

This appeal is filed by the appellants/Al & A.2 aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in NDPS S.C.No.86 of 2O11, dated 11.06.2012, for the offence under Section 8(cl rlw.22 of the NDPS Act, 1985, ald sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1O,OO0/- each.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M.Vivekalanda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

¶24

During pendency of the appeal, Appellant No.2/A2 died. Accordingly, the case against A2 is abated. The appeal is heard only against Appellant No. I /A 1.

¶25

PW.4 is the Prohibition ald Excise Sub-inspector. On 1O.O2.2OI7, he was conducting a routine search. He went to the Toddy shop at Yellapur village and found A1. The licence of that toddy shop was sta:nding in the name of A2. A'1 was sitting in the sales counter and conducting the toddy business on behalf of 42. On demand, A1 produced the licence copy of A2, which was verified and

¶26

¶27

found to be valid.^{On veriffing the stock, he found 12 wooden crates,} each crate containing 24^{bottles, frlled with 650 ml. toddy in each} bottle. He conducted the^{spot test and found the toddy to be free} from chloral hydrate.^{He collected three samplesof 350 ml' each in} three bottles. The samples^{were sent to the chemical examinerfor} analysis. Chemical Examiner^{sent report Ex'P6 that toddywas} adulterated with diazepam,^{which is a narcotic substance'}

¶28

Charge sheet was frled against^{the appellants'During the} course of trial, PWs. I^{and 2, wlrlo are the independentwitnesses,} turned hostile to the^{prosecution case. The accused No'l was} allegedly found in the^{shop, transactingthe businesson behalfof} Accused No.2. The^{case is one ol total denial. Accused No'1 stated} that he has nothing^{to do with the adulteration or with A2'}

¶29

PWs.1 and 2,^{who were independent witnesses,have turned} hostile to the^{prosecutioncase. PWs.3 and 4 are the Excise Sub-} inspectors, who^{went to the premises.Al is a stranger to bothPWs'3} and 4. The^{prosecutionhas not examined any customerto the shop} to substantiate that^{A1 was working fot A2. Further, no evidence is} placed on record tinat A2^{had employed A1 in the shop for selling} Toddy. In the absence^{of any proof to show that A1 was employed by}

¶30

¶31

42, mere presence of A1 at the scene will not in any manner attract penal consequences. Apart from A1, several customers were present in the shop, even according to PWs.3 and 4. Once A I denies his association with 42 and the shop, the initial burden of proving that A1 is associated with A2 is on the prosecution and the same has not been discharged by the prosecution. In the said circumstances, benefit ofdoubt is extended to A1.

¶32

7 . Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed. Since the appellant is on bajl, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.

¶33

Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO INT REGISTRAR

,TRUE COPY'

ECTION OFFICER

To,