THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2116 of 2004 BETWEEEN: The Public Prosecutor … Appellant AND Thanke Panduranga … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2116 of 2004 JUDGMENT: Questioning acquittal of the accused of the offence under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, the Act), the State filed this appeal. It is alleged that on 09.10.2002 at about 4:30 P.M., when PW3- Sub Inspector of Police and Police Constables were on patrolling duty, the accused was caught at platform No.1 of the bus-stand along with a bag and that the accused was arrested and 5Kgs. of ganja was seized from his possession. Plea of the accused is one of total denial. 2. PWs 1 and 2 are mediators in Ex.P1 panchanama. PW3 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Adilabad II Town Police Station. Out of the mediators, PW2 is the Mandal Revenue Officer. Seized ganja was marked as MO.1, out of which MO.2 sample packet was taken. Ex.P3 is chemical analysis report to the effect that MO.2 sample contains ganja. Observation of the lower Court that the prosecution did not conduct any test identification parade for the accused, is hopelessly unsustainable. When the accused was present at the time of preparing Ex.P1 panchanama and continued to remain with the Police who produced the accused in Court thereafter, there was no need for conducting of test identification parade in a case of this nature. Test identification parade is required in case of sudden happening of offence and disappearance of the accused thereafter, in case, the accused were strangers to the witnesses. 3. In this case, even as per the prosecution case, the accused was said to have been caught by PW3 at A.P.S.R.T.C. (Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation) Bus-stand while in possession of MO.1 ganja. Evidence of PW1 shows that Ex.P1 panchanama was prepared in Adilabad II Town Police Station at about 6:00 P.M., when he and PW2 signed in it. Inspite of it, the Public Prosecutor who conducted trial in the lower Court, did not treat PW1 as hostile to the prosecution and owned PW1’s evidence, which is entirely contrary to the prosecution case. The lower Court also commented mentioning of crime number on slips affixed to Mos. 1 and 2. Unless Ex.P1 panchanama is completed and it was taken to the Police Station for registration of the same and issuance of FIR thereon, there is no possibility of getting crime number. Crime number must have been mentioned on the slip containing Mos 1 and 2 subsequent to registration of the case. Since Ex.P1 was not prepared at the place of arrest of the accused and seizure of MO.1 ganja and since it was prepared in the Police Station subsequently, the lower Court rightly disbelieved the prosecution version. There are no grounds in this appeal to interfere with the said ultimate finding recorded by the lower Court. 4. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:20.12.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2116 of 2004 Dt:20.12.2011 ysk