IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2510 of 2004 DATE: 05.09.2011 Between: Vittal Ganapathigiri Gosavi …… Appellant And State of A.P, rep. by its Public Prosecutor …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2510 of 2004 JUDGMENT : The appellant/A-1 was convicted by the lower Court under Section 8(c)/20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short, the Act) and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/-. Questioning the same, A-1 filed this appeal. It is alleged that A-1 purchased 2 kg of Ganja from A-2 and was in possession of the same in a bag being carried by him and that when the Excise officials along with mediators stopped him on four road junction at Narayankhed on 09.09.1998 at about 2.00 P.M, he was found to be carrying 2 kg of Ganja in the bag. Plea of A-1 is one of not guilty and of total denial. After trial, the lower Court found A-1 alone guilty and A-2 not guilty of the charge. 2) It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that the mediator/P.W-1 in Ex.P-2 panchanama turned hostile to the prosecution and that there is no independent evidence other than the Excise officials who were examined as P.Ws 2 and 3. He placed reliance on T.Rambabu @ Bulli V. State of Andhra Pradesh[1] of this Court on this aspect. No proposition was laid therein to the effect that police officers or Excise officers cannot be relied upon in support of the prosecution case. It was a decision rendered on facts and evidence of that case and it cannot be applied herein. 3) P.W-2 was the then Sub-Inspector of Excise, Narayankhed Excise Station. He says that on 09.09.1998 he along with P.W-3 and others proceeded to old bus stand road, Narayankhed, near Centre Café by 2.00 P.M on information received by P.W-3 and found A-1 holding a carry bag and waiting for bus and that in the presence of Panchayatdar, they detained the accused and checked the bag and found 2 kg of dry Ganja in it. He says that on interrogation, A-1 voluntarily confessed that he purchased the said Ganja from A-2 and transporting the same to Maharashtra State. At that place Ex.P-2 panchanama was prepared. M.O-1 is the bag containing Ganja. Sample packets were also prepared and sealed M.O-1 Ganja bag was also seized and sealed under the cover of Ex.P-2 panchanama. In cross-examination, he deposed that they have not examined anybody at the junction as they took panchas already with them. Since this is a case where the Excise officials proceeded to the scene of offence on information, the Excise officials preferred to take mediators along with them to the scene. Evidence of P.W-3 is also on the same lines as that of P.W-2. P.W-3 further deposed that at about 1.30 P.M he received information regarding illegal possession and transport of Ganja and that he informed the same to his superiors by phone. In cross-examination he deposed that the information received by him was not reduced into writing and that he informed the information received by him to the superior officers. This evidence of Excise officials P.Ws 2 and 3 is acceptable and believable. They did not hide any facts and omissions. 4) It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that there is non-compliance of Section 42(2) of the Act in this case as the information received by P.W-3 was not reduced into writing by him and it was not forwarded to his immediate superiors within the specified time. In my opinion, Section 42(2) of the Act has no application to this case because the accused was apprehended and M.O-1 bag containing Ganja of 2 kgs, was seized at a public place. Section 42 is applicable for entry, search and seizure in a place other than public place. Seizure of the contraband and arrest of the accused in public place is governed by Section 43 of the Act. Therefore, there is no question of entry and search into enclosed place without warrant for the purpose of seizure of contraband. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that there is no substance in this appeal. Finding of guilty recorded by the lower Court on the appellant/A-1 is in accordance with law. 5) The contraband seized in this case is only 2 kgs of Ganja. The lower Court awarded sentence of one year to A- 1. I am of the opinion that the said sentence of imprisonment is on higher side. 6) In the result, the appeal is dismissed, but altering sentence of imprisonment from one year to Six months. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J September 05, 2011 ksh [1] 2010(1) ALD (Cri) 84