JAJIMOGGALA DALI BABU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A-1, A-2 and A-3 were prosecuted for the offence under Section 34(a) of the ANDHRA PRADESH EXCISE ACT, 1968, along with others. Since A-4, A-5 and A-6 were absconding, the case against them was separated.

(2.) The prosecution case is that, on 11-11-1982 P.Ws.3 and 4 apprehended a lorry and found Ganja therein along with other material. They seized the Ganja in the presence of P.W.1 and another. The plea of the accused is that they are falsely implicated. One witness was examined on behalf of the accused in support of their defence. The evidence on behalf of the defence does not indicate that the accused were just travelling as passengers in the lorry. When the lorry was apprehended, driver and cleaner of the lorry were not available. Trip sheet did not show that the lorry was carrying Ganja. On the other hand, trip sheet showed other material for the purpose of transport. As per Ex.P-1 and the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 it is clear that Ganja which was found in the lorry was not the one that was mentioned in the trip sheet for being transported from one place to another, but the other material found in the lorry was the one mentioned in the trip sheet. Persons travelling in the lorry were A-1 to A-3, and others. Explanation of A-1 to A-3 is not convincing. Whether A-1 to A-3 were in possession of Ganja or not is for the Court to assess basing on the factual position. P.Ws.3 and 4 consistently stated about A-1 to A-3 travelling in the lorry being in possession of Ganja. According to P.Ws.3 and 4, A-1 to A-3 were travelling in the lorry and the material meant for transport was different from Ganja, as per the trip sheet. Therefore, the only inference that can be drawn from the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 is that A-1 to A-3 were in possession of Ganja inasmuch as they were not owners of the material, other than Ganja, that was being transported by the lorry at that time. A-1 to A-3 were not expected to possess the same. The lower Court believed the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4.

(3.) Though P.W.1 could not identify the accused because of lapse of seven years from the date of offence but Ex.P-1 mentions all the details thereto. After seven years, a person is not expected to remember the accused. Therefore, the plea of the accused that they were only travelling in the lorry as passengers and cannot be held to be connected with the offence has no legs to stand particularly in view of the discussion of the matter by the two lower courts as also the discussion made herein holding that the excess material found in the lorry was not accounted for. No explanation or evidence is forthcoming to show that the accused were only passengers and nothing more. Therefore, I feel that A-1 to A-3 were the persons that were carrying Ganja in the lorry.