IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI FRIDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 545 OF 2009 Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C, against the Judgment in S.C.No.206 of 2004, dated 17.04.09 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapur. Between: Boya Pienti Anjaneya, S/o Adi Basappa,aged about 35 years, R/o Madanahalli Village, D.Hirahal Mandal, Anantapur Dist. ...APELLANT AND The State Of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the Petitioner / Accused on bail in CRLA No.545 of 2009. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri. Arun Showri G (Legal Aid) Counsel for the Respondent :Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court made the following : « 1*? v'- f APHC010301362009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 545/2009 Between: BOYA PIENTI ANJANEYA, S/0 ADI BASAPPA, R/O MADANAHALLI VILLAGE, D.HIRAHAL MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DIST. ...APELLANT AND THE STATE OF A P, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AMARAVATI. ...RESPODENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1.ARUNSHOWRI G 2.LEGAL AID Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: Impugning the judgment of conviction in Sessions Case No.206 of 2004 the file of the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur, dated 17.04.2009, the Appellant / Accused preferred the present appeal. Heard Sri G. Arun Showri, learned counsel for the Appellant and on 2. learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for Ms.K.Priyanka Lakshmi, Respondent/State. Learned counsel for the Appellant would submit that there is no evidence to prove that the alleged ganja plants were found in the land of the Appellant. Learned counsel would further submit that the land, in which the Ganja plants were found, belongs to the father of the Appellant. Learned 3. 2 counsel would further submit that the procedure contemplated under Section 52-A of NDPS Act has not been followed. It is submitted that P.Ws.1 and 2 turned hostile and there is no independent evidence to corroborate the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal. 4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that there grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned trial Judge. Assistant Public Prosecutor would further submit that are no Learned as per the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5, the Accused was found in the land watering to the crop and 253 ganja plants were found mixed with the tomato garden. It is submitted that the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge is well-reasoned. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. The Appellant/Accused was convicted for the offence under Section (a) (i) of NDPS Act by the learned trial Judge in S.C.No.206 of 2004 vide judgment dated 17.04.2009 and 20 was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 6. As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5, who are the Excise Officials, they inspected the land in R.S.Nos.66-A, 66-B, 74-A and 74-B and on 04.08.2002 at 5.00 p.m., and found the Appellant/Accused in the said land, wherein, they found 253 ganja plants. As rightly held by the learned trial Judge, there is no hard and fast rule that the evidence of Excise cannot be relied on. Police Officer As seen from Ex.P.8 copy of pattadar passbook, it established that the said land belongs to the father of the Appellant and since was his father was a blind person and was incapable to cultivate the said land, the Appellant was cultivating the said land. Further, there is no contra evidence from the Appellant/Accused to prove that be was not cultivating the said land. Admittedly, the Ganja plants were raised in four rows in the middle of Tomato crop, but they were not found here and there in the entire land. As rightly held by the learned trial Judge, the Prosecution clearly established that the Ganja plants were cultivated in the said land and that the Appellant/Accused was found in possession of the said land by raising crops including Ganja plants. Further, non-compliance of the procedure envisaged under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is not a fatal to the case of the Prosecution, in view of the corroborative evidence to prove the cultivation of the said Tomato land including the Ganja plants by the Accused. In such circumstances, this Court J, - • • . T • is of the view that the Prosecution could prove the case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 20(a)(i) of NDPS Act. Therefore, this Court does not find any force in the contentions of the Appellant / Accused. In that view the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Judge does not brook interference of this Court in the present appeal. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. 7. / SD/- S.V.S.R. MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapur.(with records) 2. The Superintendent, District Jail, Anantapur 1. The I 3. The Station House Officer, Rayadurga Excise Police Station Anantapur District. 4. One CO to Sri. Arun Showri G (Legal Aid) Advocate [OPUC 5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati [OUT] 6. The Secretary AP High Court Legal Services Committee, at Amaravati. 7. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 8. Three CD Copies YM HIGH COURT DATED:03/01/2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.545 of 2009 ^0 5 AUG 2025 Sectio eaiSB THE CRIMINAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED