SAGENA RAMESH RAMESH Vs. STATE OF AP.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in S.C.No.285 of 2010 dated 28.11.2011, whereby the appellant/A1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with Section 22 (b) (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the Act") and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 25.02.2010 at about 0025 hours, the Sub Inspector of Police, Afzal Ganj Police Station, received information from main Control Room over VHF set with instructions to check at Room No.117, Suguna Lodge, Jambagh, since one person was possessing Ganja. On the said Information, he passed on the message to P.W.4- Inspector of Police in writing, rushed to the spot along with A.S.I. of Police, PC 9392 and PC 4991 and found one person in Room No.117 along with a Rexine bag containing the substance of Narcotic Drug (Ganja), as such, PW.4 summoned P.W.1, who is a Gazetted Officer and two mediators viz., Syed Munawar Hussain (L.W.7) and P.W.3. After their arrival and after complying with all legal formalities, PW.4 conducted search of Rexine Bag of suspect in the presence of P.W.1 and found 6 K.Gs. of Ganja in it and on enquiry, the said person has revealed his identity as Sagena Ramesh @ Ramesh (Appellant/A1). As such, PW.4 recorded the confession-cum- seizure panchanama of the appellant/A1 in the presence of PW.3 and PW.1 and seized the Rexine bag containing ganja. Basing on the confession-cum-seizure panchanama, PW.4 registered a case in Crime No.152 of 2010 under Section 20 (b) of the Act and took up the investigation. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the accused under the aforesaid offence.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant/A1 submitted that the judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The trial Court failed to consider the evidence in proper perspective and as per the settled law of the land. The trial Court passed orders on surmises and guess work without appreciating the evidence on record. It is also stated that the trial Court ought to have seen that the procedure laid down under Section 50 of the Act was not followed and the trial Court also ought to have appreciated that the Gazetted Officer was called by the Investigating Officer prior to reaching the scene of offence. It is also submitted that the trial Court ought to have appreciated that there is no relevant record to show that the appellant went to the lodge and even the Investigating Officer did not produce the register of the Lodge. It is also stated that the trial Court ought to have appreciated that as per Section 42 of the Act immediately after arrest the same has to be intimated to the superior authority, but the same was not done in the instant case. It is further submitted that the trial Court ought to have considered that the Investigating Officer has not followed the procedure under Sections 57 and 65-B of the Act.