THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2524 of 2004 BETWEEEN: Suneel @ Biju, S/o.Papachan … Appellant AND State of Andhra Pradesh … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2524 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The accused/appellant was convicted by the lower Court under Section 8(c)/20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, the Act) and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.2,00,000/-. Questioning the same, the accused filed this appeal through jail. It is alleged that on 22.07.2003, at 3:00 P.M., the accused was in possession of 26 Kgs. of Ganja near cloak room on platform No.6 of Vijayawada Railway Station. Plea of the accused is one of not guilty. After trial, the lower Court found him guilty of the charge. 2. It is contended by the Legal Aid counsel for the appellant that there is no compliance of Sections 42(2), 50 and 57 of the Act in this case and that the prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused does not know Telugu and knows only Malayalam language, as he belongs to Kerala State. For that reason, during the course of search of his baggage and seizure and recording his statement under Ex.P1-mediators report, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station (PW4), employed two translators apart from two mediators/punch witnesses. PW1 is one of the said mediators and PW2 is one of the translators. PW2 though belongs to Madhurai, which is near Tiruvananthapuram, knows Tamil as well as Malayalam. PW2 and another acted as interpreters between PW4 and the accused at the time of his apprehension. 3. After confirming at railway platform about the accused possessing one suit case containing 16 Kgs. of Ganja and Zip bag containing 10Kgs. of Ganja as per Mos.1 and 2, PW4 along with others, took the accused to PW3, who is the Mandal Revenue Officer for complying the alleged formality under Section 50 of the Act, as PW3 happened to be a Gazetted Officer as well as Mandal Executive Magistrate. On Ex.P1, PW3 made Ex.P2 endorsement confirming the mediators report. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that search of the accused and seizure of the contraband took place at railway platform itself before taking the accused to the Mandal Revenue Officer and that therefore, there is violation of Section 50 of the Act. The lower Court came to the conclusion that Section 50 of the Act has no application in this case and that Section 100(2) Cr.P.C. was complied with by PW4 in this case, as the search and the seizure were made in the presence of two mediators. I am also of the view that Section 50 of the Act has no application to facts of this case, since this is not a case of personal search, but it is a case of baggage search. PW1, who is a fruit vendor around the railway station area, supported the prosecution version of PW4 detaining the accused and searching the baggages in the presence of himself and another and finding them to contain total of 26 Kgs. of Ganja. On seeing PW4, the accused was trying to skulk away and in the meanwhile, he was apprehended by PW4 and his staff. Apart from seizure of Mos.1 and 2, suit case and bag containing 26Kgs. of Ganja under Ex.P1- mediators report, statement of the accused was also incorporated in it to the effect that he along with two others were transporting Ganja from State of Andhra Pradesh to State of Kerala. But PW4 could not apprehend the other two associates of the accused in the railway station. The said statement of the accused contained in Ex.P1, is relevant under Section 53(A) of the Act. Ex.P1 and evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4 proved that Mos.1 and 2 - suitcase and bag containing Ganja were in physical as well as conscious possession of the accused at the time of his arrest and their seizure. 4. PW4 deposed that he apprehended the accused on information. It is contended for the appellant that the said information was not reduced into writing by PW4 as required under Section 42(2) of the Act. Since this is not a case of entry, search, seizure and arrest in any building or conveyance or enclosed place, the question of application of Section 42 of the Act, does not arise. It is a case to which Section 43 applies where the contraband was seized from a public place and not an enclosed private place. Therefore, PW4 was not in legal obligation to comply with the requirement of Section 42(2) of the Act. Further, the lower Court rightly came to the conclusion that compliance of Section 57 of the Act is only directory and not mandatory. Therefore, failure to comply with Section 57 of the Act is not in any way fatal to the prosecution case. The Police Officer/PW4 was fair enough to employ two translators in the entire proceedings in the railway station as well as in the Mandal Office and recorded the proceedings in a scrupulous manner and also in accordance with law. There are absolutely no grounds in this appeal to question the finding of guilt of the accused recorded by the lower Court. The lower Court imposed only statutory minimum punishment to the accused. 5. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:07.09.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2524 of 2004 Dt:07.09.2011 ysk