THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2005 Date:27th January, 2011 Gollapudi Suryanarayana …Appellant v. The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor …Respondent *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.12.2004 passed in Sessions Case No.281 of 2003 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, whereby and whereunder the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge found accused Gollapudi Suryanarayana guilty for the offence under Section 8[c] r/w.20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short, ‘the Act’), and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Prosecution case in brief is:- On 05.11.2003 PW.2 V.H.V.Ramana, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Vijayawada East and PW.3 P.V.Ramanamurthy, Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Vijayawada East, along with their staff conducted raids in the afternoon. They reached near Lenin Centre at Vijaya Diary Parlour, Vijayawada, and found the accused possessing MO.1 Big Shopper Stick bag. When the accused tried to skulk away on seeking them, PW.2 V.H.V.Ramana questioned his name, identity and address. He disclosed his identity and informed of his possessing ganja in his stick bag. PW.2 V.H.V.Ramana sent Head Constable M.Radhakrishna (LW.3) to secure mediators. He secured PW.1 Bopana Venkatesh and LW.2 Killadi Sanjeev as mediators. After arrival of the mediators, PW.2 V.H.V.Ramana informed of his right to search before the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The accused stated to have reported no objection for searching of his person in the presence of PW.3 P.V.Ramana Murthy, Prohibition and Excise Inspector, who is of a rank of a Gazetted Officer. PW.2 V.H.V.Ramana searched MO.1 stick bag, which is in possession of the accused, and found MO.2 ganja with flowers and stems in the shape of nuts etc. He measured the contents of MO.1 bag and found the contents to be 1 ½ kgs of ganja. He collected MO.3 sample of MO.2 ganja, packed and sealed the sample and affixed the label. He prepared a panchanama evidencing the seizure of the contraband and collection of the samples. Ex.P3 is the mediators report. Basing on the mediators report, PW.2 V.H.V.Ramana registered a case in Crime No.25 of 2003-04 for the offence under Section 8[c] r/w.20(b) of the Act and issued Ex.P4 FIR. PW.3 P.V.Ramana Murthy took up the investigation and sent MO.3 sample to the Government Chemical Examiner of Prohibition and Excise Regional Laboratory, Kakinada. Ex.P5 is the letter of advice and Ex.P6 is the report submitted by the Government Chemical Examiner of Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Kakinada. The Chemical Examiner Report indicates that the sample is of ganja. After completing the investigation, PW.3 P.V.Ramana Murthy filed charge- sheet. 3. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge being a Special Judge for trial of the cases under the Act took cognizance of the case for the offence under Section 8[c] r/w.20 (b) of the Act and registered the same as Sessions Case No.281 of 2003. 4. On appearance of the accused and on furnishing copies of documents to him, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge framed a charge under Section 8[c] r/w.20(b) of the Act, read over and explained the same to the accused, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To bring home the guilt of the accused with which he stood charged, prosecution examined 3 witnesses as PWs.1 to 3 and marked 6 documents as Exs.P1 to P6 and exhibited three material objects as MOs.1 to 3. The plea of the accused was one of total denial of the case. 6. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 8[c] r/w.20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him as stated supra, by judgment dated 27.12.2004. Hence, this Criminal Appeal by the appellant/accused. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused submits that PW.1 is a stock witness and therefore, no reliance can be placed on his testimony. A further submission has been made that the Chemical Analyst report, which has been exhibited as Ex.P6, does not bear the ‘Dis.No.’ and therefore, there is no assurance that the sample tested by the Analyst is the same sample of the contraband allegedly seized from the possession of the appellant/accused. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State submits that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is cogent and convincing with regard to seizure of MO.2 contraband and collection of MO.3 sample and it is the same sample which has been sent to the Government Chemical Examiner, Kakinada, under the letter of advice, which has been exhibited as Ex.P5, and therefore, there is no ambiguity that the sample collected from the contraband seized from the possession of the accused is the same sample which has been tested by the Government Chemical Examiner. 10. The only issue that calls for adjudication is, whether the conviction and sentence of the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 8[c] r/w.20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act is legal and proper and can be sustained? 11. PW.1 is the panch witness for arrest of the accused and seizure of MO.2 contraband and also for collection of MO.3 sample from MO.2 contraband under the cover of Ex.P3 mediatornama. He admitted of his signatures appearing on the mediatornama. Exs.P1 and P.2 are his signatures. He categorically stated that mediatornama has been prepared in his presence and MO.2 ganja is seized from the appellant/accused and thereafter, MO.3 sample came to be collected from MO.2 ganja. There is no reason for PW.1 to speak false against the appellant/accused. PW.2 and PW.3 are the officials of the Prohibition and Excise Department. PW.2 apprehended the accused and seized MO.1 stick bag containing MO.2 ganja. He collected MO.3 sample from MO.2 ganja. He prepared Ex.P3 mediatornama. He categorically stated that he sealed the samples and affixed the label. PW.3 who is the officer of Gazetted rank witnessed the search and seizure of the bag from the possession of the appellant/accused. He categorically stated that the appellant/accused consented for his search in the presence of him (PW.3). There is no dispute that PW.3 is a Gazetted Officer. MO.3 is the sample which has been sent to the Government Chemical Examiner of Prohibition and Excise Laboratory, Kakinada, along with letter of advice. Letter of advice contains specimen signatures. The Chemical Examiner Report, which has been exhibited as Ex.P6, indicates that the sample of the substance and the seals are found to be in tact when it reached the Laboratory. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused that the absence of ‘Dis.No.’ in the Chemical Examiner Report gives any amount of doubt with regard to the authenticity of the examination of the sample of the contraband, which has been seized from the possession of the accused, has no substance. No other point has been urged by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused. The trial Court considered the evidence brought on record in right perspective and found that the appellant/accused is guilty for the offence under Section 8[c] r/w.20(b) (ii)(B) of the Act. I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the convention and sentence of the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 8[c] r/w.20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed. The bail bonds of the appellant/accused shall stand cancelled. He shall surrender before the trial Court to serve out the balance sentence of imprisonment. ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:27th January, 2011. cs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2005 Date:27th January, 2011