THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2278 of 2004 BETWEEEN: Ramavath Nanu … Appellant AND State of A.P. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2278 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellant/accused was convicted by the lower Court under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, the Act) and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of three years and fine of Rs.2,000/-. Questioning the same, the accused filed this appeal. It is alleged that the accused cultivated land in S.No.19/39 of Ippalapally village with cotton crop and in the midst of cotton crop, he raised 30,000 ganja plants illegally and that during raid by the Police officials along with the revenue officials, it was detected on 30.11.1999. Plea of the accused is one of total denial and not guilty. After trial, the lower Court found the accused guilty of the charge. 2. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that there is no proper proof of the accused raising ganja in that land and that the prosecution failed to examine pattadar of the land to show that the land was in possession of the accused and that there were no independent mediators for the panchanama prepared by the Police and that the Police did not follow mandatory provisions of the Act in this case. 3. PW6 is the Sub Divisional Police Officer, NagarKurnool Sub-Division, who headed the raid party. PW5 is Inspector of Police, Amrabad Circle, who accompanied PW6. The land in S.No.19 consisted of 30,000 acres, out of which pattas are stated to have been given to several persons who occupied the said land and cultivated the same. PW2 who was Mandal Revenue Officer, Amrabad Mandal, deposed that the land in S.No.19/39 in the forest area was cultivated with ganja in between cotton crop. PW2 also accompanied the raid party to the scene. According to PWs 2, 5 and 6, the Village Administrative Officer of Ippalapally Village who is PW3, also accompanied them to the scene. PW3 issued Ex.P3 Pahani for the land in S.No.19/39 of the village. He says that as per Ex.P3, the accused was found in possession of S.No.19/39 in an extent of Ac.3.00 cents for which patta stood in the name of his elder brother. For reasons best known to PW3, he turned hostile to the extent of conducting panchanama, Ex.P1 at the scene under which ganja plants were plucked and destroyed retaining some ganja plants as sample. The sample sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) by PW6 was opined to be ganja as per Ex.P5- FSL report. In cross-examination, PW3 admits that he signed in Ex.P1- pachanama after going though the contents. He says that Ex.P1 reads that panchanama was conducted in field of the accused. He says that none of the officials like Deputy Superintendent of Police or Mandal Revenue Officer threatened him to sign on Ex.P1. PW3 gave no reason as to why he signed in Ex.P1 and what prompted him to sign in Ex.P1 when he did not go to the land along with the Police party and Mandal Revenue Officer at the time of conducting panchanama in the land. It is suggested to him that out of fear for the extremists, he was speaking falsehood in Court. PW3 has no obligation for the police or fear for the Police. PWs 2, 5 and 6 also speak to the presence of PW3 at the time of raid and conducting panchanama at the land. Therefore, PW3’s evidence in Court on Ex.P1 cannot be accepted. 4. Admittedly, Ippalapally Village and other three villages are in reserve forest area and it is highly naxal-infested area. According to PW6, except children and infirm persons, no other persons were available in those villages. Therefore, there was no possibility of bringing any mediators from those villages to the scene to act as mediators. In those circumstances, the Police party picked up revenue officials, PW2 who is Mandal Revenue Officer and PW3 who is Village Administrative Officer as mediators in this case. In that view of the matter, T.RAMBABU ALIAS BULLI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[1] of this Court has no application to facts of this case. In that reported decision, the accused were arrested by the Police in front of market yard at Sathenapally and inspite of it, the Police did not call any mediators at the time of panchanama. Whereas in the case on hand, the offence was detected in reserve forest area where there was no possibility of securing mediators. Therefore, the Police are justified in preparing in Ex.P1 panchanama in the presence of responsible revenue officials like PWs 2 and 3. 5. The accused was not available at the scene at the time of raid and plucking of ganja plants and destroying the same after collection of samples therefrom. Non-examination of brother of the accused who is pattadar of the land is in no way fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when there is evidence of revenue officials like PWs 2 and 3. Though PW3 did not support Ex.P1 panchanama, supported Ex.P3- Pahani in which the accused is noted as possessor of the land and his elder brother is noted as pattadar of the land. Therefore, the lower Court is justified in holding that the land in question where 30,000 ganja plants were grown, was in possession of the accused. 6. Since the scene of offence is an open agricultural field, Section 42 of the Act has no application herein. There is no personal search of the accused or any person in this case and therefore, Section 50 of the Act has no application herein. Though Section 41 of the Act enables a Magistrate to issue arrest warrant and search warrant, failure to obtain the same in the case of a cognizable offence of this nature, is not in any way detrimental to the prosecution case. Since the contraband in this case consisted of huge quantity of 30,000 ganja plants, PW6 has chosen to destroy all the plants except those collected by way of sample. It is in no way contrary to Section 52 of the Act. The appellant has failed to substantiate that any mandatory provisions of the Act are not complied with in this case. Having regard to the entire evidence on record, the lower Court is justified in holding that the accused is guilty of the charge. There are no grounds in this appeal to interfere with finding of conviction recorded by the lower Court. 7. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, altering period of imprisonment from three years to two years. __________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:27.12.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2278 of 2004 Dt:27.12.2011 ysk [1] 2010-ALD(Cri)-1-84\