MUDDAIAH Vs. STATE OF A P NARCOTIC DRUGS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) accused persons who were convicted in C.C.No. 4 of 1994 under Section 8(c) r/w Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Each of them was sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and was also fined with Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine they had to suffer further imprisonment of 21/2years. Charge-sheet was filed against 24 accused, out of which Accused No. 10 died and the name of Accused No. 17 was deleted as it was found that Accused No. 1's name was repeated as Accused No. 17.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Some of the record was not available which was summoned, toddy the record has been received and I have perused the record.

(3.) The allegations against the appellants- accused is that, Accused No. 1 was vendor of toddy and Accused 2 to 24 were the licence holders of toddy shop T.F.T. Regadi Mailwar under the range of Kodangal. On 20th February, 1991 at about 6.30 p.m. when the Excise Inspector along with some other officials of the Excise Department being P.Ws. 2 to 4 visited the shop, they found A-1 conducting sale of toddy, on demand he showed the licence to the visiting Excise officials. The licence was in the name of Accused 2 to 24. The officers found 10 wooden cases of toddy each containing 24 bottles of toddy, each bottle contained 650 ml. of toddy. The officers collected certain quantity of toddy from each bottle into a pot. A sample was taken and a test tube was used for analyzing the sample. The toddy was mixed with chloral hydrate according to the findings of the Excise officials. Thereafter, they took the samples into two bottles which were sealed. A panchanama was also drawn. Remaining toddy was destroyed as according to the visiting Excise officials it was not fit for human consumption. A-1 was arrested and was released on bail. A crime was registered under the provisions of A.P. Excise Act. The samples were deposited in the Court and an application was made to the Magistrate concerned to send one of the bottles for chemical analysis. The Chemical Examiner examined the sample and gave his report being report No. 66391, dated 27-2-91. On the basis of this evidence a charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons before the Magistrate under the relevant provisions of A.P. Excise Act for infraction of provisions of A.P. Excise Act. It appears from the record that suddenly a report came into existence from another Public Analyst which was produced by the Excise Inspector before the Magistrate which revealed that the sample contained a psychotropic substance namely Dizepam. Thereafter, the Magistrate took steps to transfer the case to the Special Court and the Special Court tried the accused under the provisions of N.D.P.S. Act Although it is not clear from the record as to how the second report of the Public Analyst came on record but it appears that when the Magistrate was trying the accused under the provisions of A.P. Excise Act during the recording of evidence the Inspector had produced the report.