APHC010413042016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3367] FRIDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 120/2016 Between: Guramkonda Malyadri @ Kondaiah, Nellore Dt., ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap Rep Pp ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: P RAVI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: Assailing the judgment dated 06.01.2016 in Crl.A.No.45 of 2012 on the file of the Court of learned IV Additional Sessions Judge at Nellore, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused by the judgment dated 16.02.2012 in C.C.No.390 of 2007 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of Fist Class at Kavali, for the offense under Section 20(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act (hereinafter referred to as “N.D.P.S.Act”), the petitioner/accused 2 filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The revision case was admitted on 12.01.2016 and the sentence imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.161 of 2016. 3. The shorn of necessary facts are that: i). On 27.02.2007 at about 09.00 A.M., on credible information, P.W.3-S.I. of Police, Kavali Rural Police Station, secured the presence of mediators P.W.1 the then Mandal Executive Magistrate, Kavali and L.W.2/Yasam Meena Kumar, at about 09.45 a.m., they reached Babul Reddy Daba Hotel, Gowravaram and found the accused, who is standing by the side of the road, with a white plastic cover. ii). On seeing the police, he tried to run away. On that, they apprehended him. On his confession, they found ganja weighing about ½ kg in the said plastic cover placed in a plastic gunny bag, seized the same after lifting the sample for chemical analysis and arrested the accused under the cover of Ex.P.1 mahazarnama in the presence of mediators. 3 iii). Basing on Ex.P.1 mahazarnama, a case in Cr.No.36 of 2007 was registered by P.W.3. On receipt of Ex.P.3 analysis report, P.W.4 filed charge sheet against the accused. 4. The case was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.390 of 2007 on the file of Court of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kavali, after full-fledged trial, found the accused guilty of the offense under Section 20(b) of N.D.P.S.Act, vide judgment dated 16.02.2012, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six (6) months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of six (6) months. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.45 of 2012, before the Court of learned IV Additional Sessions Judge at Nellore and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 06.01.2016, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the accused. 6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused. 4 7. Heard Sri P.Ravi Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Miss P.Akhila Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. 8. Now the point that arises for determination in this revision is “whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court?” 9. Sri P.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 cannot be relied upon; that the police did not follow the procedure contemplated under the Act; that the Trial Court as well Sessions Court failed to appreciate the material on record in a proper perspective, erroneously convicted the petitioner for the said offenses and the same is liable to be set aside. 10. Per contra, Miss P.Akhila Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that the testimony of prosecution witnesses coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.3 categorically proved the offense committed by the accused; that the Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence of on record and convicted the petitioner for the said offense, thereby, the present revision has no merits. 5 11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused the entire material available on record. It is the foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 cannot be relied upon in convicting the accused for the said offense. 12. As per the prosecution version, on credible information received by P.W.3, he conducted raid along with mediators P.W.1, L.W.2 Meena Kumar, P.W.2 Head Constable and other staff and found the accused in possession of ganja. 13. On perusal of the testimony of P.W.1-Tahsildhar of Kavali, on 27.02.2007, he received phone call from Rural Police Station, Kavali about the possession of ganja near Gowravaram. On the same day at about 09.45 a.m., they reached Gowaravaram near Daba Hotel. On seeing the police, the accused tried to escape and police found him in possession of half kg. ganja in a polythene cover. Then police seized the same under the cover of Ex.P.1 mahazarnama. 14. The testimony of P.W.1 is corroborated by the testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3. Nothing was elicited during cross examination to disbelieve their cogent and consistent testimony. Furthermore, it is the categorical testimony of P.W.3 that he collected sample 6 from the contraband and affixed seals and sent the same to the chemical analyst. 15. Even as per Ex.P.3 analysis report, the chemical examiner received the sample with seals, the same were intact, he examined the same, confirmed that the samples were ganja and the same was not disputed by the accused before the Courts below. Thereby, the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.3 categorically proved the seizure of contraband from the possession of accused. 16. It is the further contention of the accused that P.W.3 did not comply the mandatory provisions of the Act, thereby, the conviction against the accused is not sustained in the eye of law. 17. It is not in dispute that the search and seizure was taken place at the public place, thereby Section 42 of the Act does not apply to the case on hand. Moreover, the entire procedure was taken place in the presence of P.W.1, who is a gazette officer, however, Section 50 of the Act would apply only when there is personal search of the person. In the present case on hand, the contraband said to be seized from the polythene cover carried by the accused. Thereby, the contention of the accused that P.W.3 did not comply the mandatory provisions of the Act while 7 conducting search and seizure of the contraband has no legs to stand. 18. It is settled law as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Sing Anand1, that “in exercise of revisional powers, this Court need not undertaken in-depth and minutest reexamination of entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived by the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court”. 19. By taking into consideration of testimonies of prosecution witnesses and material placed on record, the trial Court rightly came to conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the said offense, which was affirmed by the first Appellate Court after thorough appreciation of the matter. 20. In view of the concurrent findings on facts by the Courts below, this Court being Revisional Court is not expected to set aside the same without any material of perversity or manifest error in the findings arrived by the Courts below. There is no material before this Court to discard the trustworthiness of prosecution witnesses and there is no material to disbelieve the contents of Exs.P.1 to P.3. 1 (2004) 7 SCC 659 8 21. All these facts go to show that both the Courts below rightly came to conclusion that the accused found in illegal possession of ganja and that there is no apparent failure on the part of the Courts below in appreciating the evidence on record or to arrive at a conclusion that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the said offense. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no perversity or flaw in the findings recorded by both the Courts below in convicting the accused for the said offense. 22. Now, as far as quantum of sentence is concerned, the trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six (6) months, which is a minimum punishment for the said offense as well imposed fine of Rs.5,000/-, and the same was affirmed by the Sessions Court. Therefore, no further discussion is required on the quantum of sentence in view of the nature of offense, which is nothing but against the society, committed by the accused. Therefore, the present criminal revision case is liable for dismissal. 23. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed by confirming the judgment dated 06.01.2016 in Crl.A.No.45 of 2012 on the file of the Court of learned IV Additional Sessions Judge at Nellore. The petitioner/accused is directed to surrender 9 before the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kavali to serve the sentence imposed against him, if not, the learned Magistrate concerned shall take steps against the petitioner/accused. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS Date: 31.01.2025 Krs 10 150 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.120 of 2016 ( J U D G M E N T ) DATE: 31.01.2025 Krs