K BOOSAIAH Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by A-l in C.C. No.6 of 1992 against the judgment dt. 22-10-1992 passed by the learned I Additional District and SessionsJudge, Chittoor, convicting and sentencing him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal briefly stated are these: A-l was a resident of Kothakasaram village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam district. A-l was a resident of Mallayyagunta of Tirupathi. On 19-6-1989 at about 2-30 p.m.,P.W.l-Assistant Excise Superintendent, Tirupathi, and P.W.2- Additional S.I., Tirupathi, along with their staff were on patrol in discharge of thier duties, and when they were at Tanapalli road on the way from Tirupathi to Tiruchanoor, they noticed A-l and A-2 moving on bicycles with some packages. In view of conduct of A-l and A-2 on seeing them, they entertained suspicion and detained A-l and A-2. They noticed a package of 4 Kgs. containing ganja on each of the bicycles. Two constables were sent to secure mediators. As the constables failed to secure mediators, Ex.P-1 special report was prepared and Exs.P-2 and P-3 acknowledgments were taken from 1-Aand A-2 respectively on Ex.P-1. M.Os.l and 2 cycles and M.Os. 3 and 4-ganja packages in urea bags were seized. A-1 and A-2 were arrested. A case in Crime No. 174 of 1989 was registered at Tirupathi Excise Police Station against A-1 and A-2 and samples of seized ganja were sent to Government Regional Excise Laboratory, Chittoor, for analysis. Ex.P-5, analysis report, revealed that samples were of ganja. After completion of investigation, accused land 2 were prosecuted. The plea of accused was one of denial. The defence of A-l was that he came to Tirupathi on pilgrimage and that he was falsely implicated in this case and his signature on Ex.P-1 was obtained under duress and coercion. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced each of them to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Sec. 8(c) read with Sec. 20(b) of the Act. The accused No.1 has challenged his conviction and sentence in this appeal.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the evidence of P.Ws.l and 2 is highly interested and ought not to have been accepted in the absence of any corrobora tion by independent evidence. The appellant was a resident of a village in Khammam district. He was allegedly travelling on a hired bicycle with a pack of 4 Kgs of ganja on it. P.W.2. had examined the owner of the cycle, but did not record any statement. He did not even peruse the register maintained by the cycle-owner. When the possession of the alleged bicycle was denied by the accused-appellant, it was the duty of prosecution to establish as to how the accused-appellant came into possession of the cycle from its owner. The evidence of the owner of cycle taxi and register maintained by him, would have established as to whom the bicycle was given on hire. Absence of this evidence is fatal to the prosecution case.