LAWS(APH)-2004-10-147

MANKENA RANGAIAH Vs. STATE OF A P

Decided On October 13, 2004
MANKENA RANGAIAH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mankena Rangaiah-sole accused in S.C.No.42 of 1997, on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed on him under Section 8(b) read with Section 20(a)(1) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience), preferred the present criminal appeal.

(2.) Sri Prabhakar Reddy, learned Counsel representing appellant-accused would submit that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 would go to show that what had been collected was just ganja leaves, but what is disclosed in Ex.P.4 is something different and hence, whether the same leaves, which had been collected and seized had been sent to the Chemical Examiner or not, itself is doubtful. The learned Counsel also would submit that though there is no dispute relating to the ownership of the land in Sy.No.l13/AA, it is highly doubtful whether the ganja was seized from the field, in the absence of any independent evidence, except the evidence of P.Ws.l, 2 and 3. Though it is the version of the prosecution that panchas were present, no panch witness had been examined. Even in this view of the matter and on the strength of the interested testimony of P.Ws.l to 3, conviction cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also would submit that the Village Administrative Officer, who is one of the panch witnesses, would be the best.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that it is no doubt true that the provisions of Section 42 of the Act are mandatory and are to be strictly complied with. But, here is a case where P.W.1-Mandal Revenue Officer, had gone along with P.Ws.2 and 3 and P.Ws.2 and 3 had identified the leaves as ganja and the same were sent to Chemical Analyst. The report of the analyst is positive and there is no dispute relating to the ownership of the land. Hence, the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt as against appellant-accused and hence, the conviction and sentence to be sustained.