KUNDETI DURGA RAO Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant/accused was convicted of the offence under Section 8(c)/20(b)(ii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, the Act) and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge under the Act, Vijayawada by the impugned judgment in Sessions Case No. 49 of 2003. Aggrieved by the same, the accused filed this appeal.

(2.) It is alleged that the accused was arrested while in possession of M.O-1 Polythene bag containing 6 1/2 kgs of Ganja. Plea of the accused is one of total denial and not guilty. After trial, in which P. Ws 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-7 and M. Os 1 and 2 were marked, the lower Court found the accused guilty of the charge.

(3.) In this appeal, the Appellant's counsel contended that P.W-1 who is one of the mediators in Ex.P-1 to P-3 mediators' report, is an interested withess in as much as he worked as Home Guard in police Department and worked as jeep driver of many police officers and that he is also a stock witness for the police as he figured as one of the mediators in 6 or 7 cases relating to Nunna Rural Police Station P.W-1 admits the above facts relating to the said argument. Simply because P.W-1 happened to work as Home Guard for some time, during which period he drove jeeps of some police officers, it cannot be taken as a disqualification for P.W-1 to function as mediator in a criminal case booked by the police P.W-1 deposed in cross-examination that Nunna Rural Police Station is 1/2 Km, away to Santhi Nagar, where his house is situated and where the occurrence took place. Therefore, P.W-1 is a resident of the same locality in which detection of the offence took place. Apart from P.W-1, two more mediators were employed in this case for recording Exs.P-1 to P-3 Panchanamas. No such attributions were made to the other two mediators. Therefore, even though P.W-1 functioned as a mediators in 6 or 7 other cases, he being a resident of the locality where the offence was detected, he is a competent witness in the transaction.