Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1438 (AP)

Ragipindi Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-11-07

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

body2023
JUDGMENT A.V.RAVINDRA BABU,J. - The judgment, dtd. 18/3/2010, in Sessions Case No.755 of 2007 on the file of the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur (for short, 'the learned Additional Sessions Judge'), is under challenge in the present Appeal filed by the appellant, who was unsuccessful accused in the aforesaid Sessions Case and faced charge for the offence under Sec. 20(a) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act'). 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the aforesaid charge, convicted him under Sec. 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C') and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months. 3. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience. 4. The State, represented by Station House Officer (SHO), Prohibition and Excise Station, Tadipatri filed charge sheet in Crime No.37 of 1999-2000 for the offence under Sec. 8(b) R/w.20(i)(a) of the NDPS Act. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: (i) On 9/11/1999 at about 04:30 p.m. on reliable information about the ganja plantation in the lands of the accused i.e., Survey No.182, LW.3 - U.G. Sathya Narayana, Inspector of Police, Tadipatri Rural Circle along with LW.4 - B. Umamaheswara Reddy, SI of Police, Yellanur Police Station, LW.5 - R. Md. Rafiq, Head Constable, Yellanur Police Station including other staff members, LW.6 - D. Nagabhushanam, Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Tadipatri and his staff accompanied by LW.1 - K. Syed Basha, Mandal Revenue Inspector (MRI), Yellanur Mandal and LW.2 - B.L. Madhava Rao, Village Administrative Officer (VAO), Mallagundla proceeded to the lands of the accused, situated at a distance of 1 K.M. west to Gaddamvaripalli village. They found the accused watering the lands. He tried to run away on seeing the Police but with the assistance of his staff, LW.3 surrounded and detained him. Accused revealed his identity on interrogation and admitted that the lands in Survey No.182 to an extent of Ac.7.00 cents belong to him. They found the accused watering the lands. He tried to run away on seeing the Police but with the assistance of his staff, LW.3 surrounded and detained him. Accused revealed his identity on interrogation and admitted that the lands in Survey No.182 to an extent of Ac.7.00 cents belong to him. LW.3 informed his intention to search the fields and searched the fields of accused and found in between the cheeni trees and groundnut crop, ganja plants to an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in the middle of the lands of the accused. On enquiry, accused disclosed that he raised ganja plants to earn more money. There are totally 3,250 ganja plants raised by the accused. The boundaries of the lands of the accused in Survey No.182 are as follows: East - groundnut fields of Kristipadu Basi Reddy, West - cheeni garden of Krishtipadu Basi Reddy, North - groundnut field of Vennapusa Venkata Reddy and South- rastha leading to the fields from Gaddamvaripalli village by the side of cheeni garden of Kotakinda Nagi Reddy. (ii) LW.3 - Inspector of Police, Tadipatri with the assistance of his staff and mediators, removed the ganja plants from the land and took two plants as sample for chemical analysis and sealed the samples and labeled it. They destroyed the remaining plants on the spot. They arrested the accused under the cover of mahazarnama and returned to Yellanur Police Station and registered the same initially as a case in Crime No.80 of 1999 for the offence under Sec. 8(b) R/w.20(i)(a) of the NDPS Act. (iii) The accused was forwarded to the judicial remand on 10/11/1999. The investigation revealed that the accused raised ganja plants in his land and used to look after his ganja plants. The villagers of Gaddamvaripalli chastised the accused for raising the ganja plants but he did not heed to their advice. During investigation, LW.3 obtained the adangals pertaining to the lands of the accused in Survey No.182. (iv) On 3/12/1999, LW.3 transferred the case to LW.6 - SHO, Prohibition and Excise Station, Tadipatri to take further action. LW.6 - Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Tadipatri received the case and registered it as a case in Crime No.37/1999-2000 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Tadipatri. During the course of investigation, he forwarded the samples to the Chemical Examiner, Chittoor who opined that they are of ganja plants. Hence, the charge sheet. 5. LW.6 - Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Tadipatri received the case and registered it as a case in Crime No.37/1999-2000 of Prohibition and Excise Station, Tadipatri. During the course of investigation, he forwarded the samples to the Chemical Examiner, Chittoor who opined that they are of ganja plants. Hence, the charge sheet. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge took cognizance of the case under the above provision of law and after compliance of necessary formalities under Sec. 207 of the Cr.P.C, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge under Sec. 20(a) of the NDPS Act against the accused and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution, in order to establish the guilt against the accused, examined PWs.1 to PW.3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-6 and MO.1. 7. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution, for which he denied the incriminating circumstances and stated that he has no defence evidence. 8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the charge under Sec. 20(a) of the NDPS Act, convicted him under Sec. 235(2) Cr.P.C and, after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him as above. 9. Felt aggrieved of the same, the un-successful accused filed the present Appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in convicting him under Sec. 20(a)(i) of the NDPS Act. 10. Before going to frame the points for determination, this Court would like to make it clear that as the accused was not prosecuting the Appeal, properly, this Court secured the presence of the appellant/accused by issuing a Non Bailable Warrant and he was directed to be produced before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and as of now the accused is undergoing the sentence of imprisonment in pursuance of execution of Conviction Warrant entrusted by the trial Court, pending disposal of the Appeal. 11. 11. Now, in deciding this Appeal, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: 1) Whether prosecution before the learned Additional Sessions Judge proved that the accused was cultivating the ganja plants on 9/11/1999 at about 04:30 p.m. in his lands situated in Survey No.182 of Gaddamvaripalli by raising the same, in the manner as alleged? 2) Whether the prosecution proved the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 3) Whether the judgment, dtd. 18/3/2010, in Sessions Case No.755 of 2007, is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? POINT Nos.1 to 3: 12. Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/accused, would strenuously contend that the Investigation Officer did not follow the mandatory provisions of Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act, which contemplates receipt of information and consequent reduction of the same into writing and search of any building, conveyance or enclosed place. Non compliance of Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act is fatal to the case of prosecution. Apart from this, Sec. 52(A) of the NDPS Act with regard to the destruction of the seized property was also not complied by the Investigating Officer and it is also fatal to the case of prosecution. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant/accused relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mangilal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh,2023 LiveLaw (SC) 549. State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh,LAWS (SC) 1994-3-27. and a decision of the High Court of Telangana in Athram Kashiram v. State of Telangana,LAWS (TNLG) 2022-1-50. The allegation of the prosecution is that the accused was found cultivating the ganja by raising the same in his entire extent of land. In Ex.P-1, it was alleged that the accused was the owner of the land for an extent of Ac.7.00 cents and in the middle of the land, ganja plantation was found in an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in between cheeni trees. The Investigation Officer did not produce any adangal and did not examine any revenue authorities in this regard. PW.1 did not identify the lands of the accused. According to Ex.P-2, accused was owner of land for an extent of Ac.3.60 cents only in Survey No.182. If that is taken into consideration, how the boundaries of entire extent of Ac.7.00 cents were furnished in Ex.P-1. PW.1 did not identify the lands of the accused. According to Ex.P-2, accused was owner of land for an extent of Ac.3.60 cents only in Survey No.182. If that is taken into consideration, how the boundaries of entire extent of Ac.7.00 cents were furnished in Ex.P-1. So, the accused has no probability to raise ganja in the centre of Ac.7.00 cents of land. According to PW.1, VAO identified the lands of the accused. According to the case of prosecution, VAO identified only Ac.7.00 cents of land but VAO was not examined in this case. When the accused was owner of only Ac.3.60 cents of land and when the ganja plantation was alleged to be found in the middle of the entire extent of Ac.7.00 cents, it cannot be held that accused was cultivating the land in the entire extent of Ac.7.00 cents. The presence of the accused watering his cheeni plants would not lead to any conclusion that he raised ganja plants. Prosecution miserably failed to establish that the ganja plants were found in the lands possessed by the accused. When this serious contention was raised before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the learned Additional Sessions Judge without proper reason believed the case of prosecution on the ground that VAO identified Ac.3.60 cents of the land of the accused but according to PW.1, VAO identified Ac.7.00 cents of land only. If really, VAO was present and identified Ac.3.60 cents of the land of the accused, there would not have been boundaries for the entire extent of Ac.7.00 cents of land. So, the prosecution miserably failed to connect the plantation of ganja in the lands of the accused and on such factual aspects appellant/accused is entitled for an acquittal by extending benefit of doubt. Learned counsel further relied upon a decision of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Shaik Bande Ali v. State of Andhra Pradesh,LAWS (APHC) 2000-3-10. 13. Sri N. Sravan Kumar, learned Special Assistant, representing learned Public Prosecutor, would canvass a contention that there is no need to comply Sec. 52(A) of the NDPS Act because the Investigating Agency did not seize any ganja from the lands of the accused. It destroyed the ganja plants and could lift only two ganja plants as sample for chemical analysis. Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act has no application to the case on hand. It destroyed the ganja plants and could lift only two ganja plants as sample for chemical analysis. Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act has no application to the case on hand. The decisions cited by learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the present factual scenario. There is consistency in the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 about the presence of the accused and his watering the lands. He did not dispute his presence during the entire cross-examination of PW.1 to PW.3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge with cogent reasons recorded an order of conviction as such the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. PW.1 is the then MRI, who claimed to have participated in the raid conducted by the Police party. PW.2 is the then Head Constable who took part in the raid. PW.3 is the then Prohibition and Excise Inspector who participated in the raid and arrested the accused. 15. The evidence of PW.1, in brief, is that on 9/11/1999 the Circle Inspector of Tadipatri Rural Circle requested him to accompany him. He obliged his request. They went to Gaddamvaripalli Village of Yellanur Mandal. They visited the land bearing Survey No.182. They found one person in the field. He could not identify the said person. On seeing the Police, the said person tried to ran away. The Police apprehended him. They found orange garden and groundnut crop. They also found ganja plants. Police plucked all the ganja plants. The plants are more than 3,000, out of which 2 plants were taken for sample. All the sample plants are sealed separately and the remaining plants are destroyed. MO.1 is two ganja plants. The mahazar was drafted at the spot. The Police arrested the said person under Ex.P-1. The Revenue Officials granted pattadar passbook in favour of the accused for the land bearing Survey No.182. Xerox copy of the pattadar passbook entry is Ex.P-2. The original passbook must be with the accused. 16. Coming to the evidence of PW.2, Head Constable, on 9/11/1999 at 03:00 p.m., he accompanied the Sub-Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police to their station. The Circle Inspector of Police took them along with RI, VAO and excise staff to Gaddamvaripalli village. They visited the land bearing Survey No.182, which is at a distance of 1 K.M from the village. They found the accused in his land. The Circle Inspector of Police took them along with RI, VAO and excise staff to Gaddamvaripalli village. They visited the land bearing Survey No.182, which is at a distance of 1 K.M from the village. They found the accused in his land. They found ganja plants in the field which were raised by the accused in between orange plants and groundnut crop. They counted the ganja plants and found around 3,250. They plucked all the ganja plants and took two ganja plants for sample and destroyed the remaining plants in the garden. MO.1 is the property already marked. He along with PW.1, VAO, CI of Police and others signed on Ex.P-1. The extent of the land is Ac.7.00 cents. They mentioned the boundaries of the lands of the accused in Ex.P-1. CI arrested the accused and registered the FIR and took up investigation. Ex.P-3 is the attested copy of FIR. The original record was misplaced before the trial Court and the trial Court reconstructed record as such the xerox copy is marked. 17. Turning to the evidence of PW.3, on 9/11/1999, he received a message from Inspector of Police, Tadipatri about the offence. Then he himself, his staff, Rural CI, Tadipatri and the SI of Police Muchukota and their staff went to Yellanur. They collected the SI of Police, Yellanur and his staff. They also picked up mediators at Yellanur and went to Gaddamvaripalli village. They went to the cheeni garden of the accused in Survey No.182 at 04:30 p.m. Accused was there watering his field. He tried to escape on seeing them but they apprehended him. They informed to the accused that they are going to search the field. The extent of the land is Ac.7.00 cents. They searched the entire field in the presence of the accused. They found cheeni garden as well as the groundnut crop. They found 3,250 ganja plants in his field in an extent of Ac.0.30 cents. Accused admitted that he raised ganja plants. They plucked all the plants and out of it they took 2 ganja plants for sample purpose and destroyed rest of the property. They also noted the boundaries of the field in the mahazar. They arrested the accused. After that the SI of Police registered the FIR. Later, it was transferred to the concerned Police Station. They plucked all the plants and out of it they took 2 ganja plants for sample purpose and destroyed rest of the property. They also noted the boundaries of the field in the mahazar. They arrested the accused. After that the SI of Police registered the FIR. Later, it was transferred to the concerned Police Station. He registered it as a case in Crime No.80/1999 for the offence under Sec. 8(b) R/w. Sec. 20(a)(i) of the NDPS Act. He sent sample to the chemical analysis, who opined that the samples are of ganja plants. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. 18. The allegation of the prosecution is that the accused was the owner of Ac.7.00 cents of land in Survey No.182 and he raised cheeni garden and groundnut crop and in between the two he raised ganja plants in an extent of Ac.0.30 cents. Coming to the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act is not complied by the Investigating Officer, the trial Court found that the compliance of the said Sec. was not necessary. It is to be noted that Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act contemplates the power of the officers mentioned therein that if they have reason to believe from persons knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that a particular narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act is available, he may search the building, conveyance or enclosed place. As rightly contended by learned Special Assistant representing learned Public Prosecutor, the search is not relating to any building, enclosed place or any conveyance, it is relating to open fields alleged to be of the accused. Under the circumstance, as rightly held by the learned trial Court Judge, compliance of Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act is not at all necessary. Apart from this, Sec. 52(A) of the NDPS Act contemplates certain procedure with regard to destruction of property seized before the Magistrate. The findings of the learned trial Court Judge are that its compliance is not necessary. It is to be noted that, absolutely, in this case there was no seizure of narcotic drugs. On the other hand Police party claimed to have found plantations of ganja and they plucked ganja plants and destroyed it except two plants meant for chemical analysis. The findings of the learned trial Court Judge are that its compliance is not necessary. It is to be noted that, absolutely, in this case there was no seizure of narcotic drugs. On the other hand Police party claimed to have found plantations of ganja and they plucked ganja plants and destroyed it except two plants meant for chemical analysis. Hence, I find force in the contention of learned Special Assistant representing learned Public Prosecutor that compliance of Sec. 52(A) of the NDPS Act is not necessary. 19. Insofar as the contention of appellant that Ss. 42 and 52(A) of the NDPS Act are violated, the above said contention deserves no merit. In Mangilal (1st supra) and Balbir Singh (2nd supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with Ss. 42 and 52(A) of the NDPS Act, as the case may be. They are of no use to the appellant. Apart from this, in Athram Kashiram (3rd supra), the Telangana High Court dealt with a situation where charge was framed in a particular provision of the NDPS Act and conviction was given under different provision. It has nothing to do with the present situation. In Shaik Bande Ali (4th supra), admittedly, it has some relevance to the present case on hand because the factual matrix in the above said case were also that the appellant in the particular case was alleged to have cultivated the ganja in the lands and the prosecution failed to prove the allegations. 20. Needless to point out here that in the light of the charge framed against the accused that he raised ganja plants in an extent of Ac.0.30 cents itself in the entire extent of Ac.7.00 cents, prosecution is bound to prove the same with consistent evidence. So, this Appeal has to be decided basing on the factual aspects and by analyzing the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial Court. 21. So, the prime consideration in deciding the charge against the accused is as to whether the accused was found cultivating ganja in Survey No.182 in an extent of Ac.0.30 cents out of total extent of Ac.7.00 cents in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. 22. As seen from Ex.P-1, which is the copy of mahazar, the sum and substance is that the raiding party proceeded to the lands of the accused in Survey No.182, which is an extent of Ac.7.00 cents. 22. As seen from Ex.P-1, which is the copy of mahazar, the sum and substance is that the raiding party proceeded to the lands of the accused in Survey No.182, which is an extent of Ac.7.00 cents. They found groundnut crop and orange trees therein and in the middle of the orange trees in about Ac.0.30 cents, ganja plants were found and the accused canvassed that he raised ganja plants. Needless to point out here that the so called confession alleged to be made by the accused cannot be a basis to this Court to support the case of prosecution. Ex.P-1 discloses the boundaries of the so called extent of Ac.7.00 cents of the land of the accused as that of east - groundnut land of K. Obi Reddy; west - orange garden of Kristipadu Basi Reddy, north - groundnut land of Vennapusa Venkata Reddy and south - rastha to reach Gaddamvaripalli fields from the village. Even in the charge sheet also the prosecution furnished the boundaries. So, right from Ex.P-1 and to the stage of charge sheet, allegation of the prosecution is that the accused is owner of an extent of Ac.7.00 cents in which he raised cheeni garden and groundnut and in the middle of it in an extent of Ac.0.30 cents, he raised ganja plants. When it comes to the evidence, prosecution got marked Ex.P-2, the so called zerox copy of pattadar passbook entry. During crossexamination, PW.1 deposed that Ex.P-2 was not issued during his period. So, PW.1 is not the author of original of Ex.P-2, entry in the pattadar passbook. Though, it is alleged that the Investigation Officer obtained relevant adangal copies of the lands of the accused from the Revenue Authorities, but they are not filed before the trial Court. Even he did not cite the revenue authority who was alleged to have issued the so called copies of adangals. As seen from Ex.P-2, some new facts are apparent to the effect that in Survey No.182, accused was shown as possessing an extent of Ac.3.60 cents only and it is his ancestral property. So, basing on Ex.P-2 during the course of trial, the prosecution forwarded another theory that the accused is owner of an extent of Ac.3.60 cents of land only. 23. PW.1 during the course of cross-examination deposed that the VAO identified the land in Survey No.182. VAO identified the land orally. So, basing on Ex.P-2 during the course of trial, the prosecution forwarded another theory that the accused is owner of an extent of Ac.3.60 cents of land only. 23. PW.1 during the course of cross-examination deposed that the VAO identified the land in Survey No.182. VAO identified the land orally. The extent of the land was Ac.7.00 cents, which was informed by the VAO. The Excise Police already plucked the ganja plants from the land and placed it at one place. He did not observe plucking of ganja plants by the Police. He denied that he never accompanied the Police to the lands of accused and nothing was seized there. 24. Coming to the evidence of PW.2 in cross-examination, he deposed that the ganja plants are in about Ac.0.30 cents of land out of Ac.7.00 cents located in the centre of the land. It is true that the boundaries are given for the entire land of Ac.7.00 cents in the mahazar. 25. Coming to the evidence of PW.3, the Investigating Officer, he deposed the overt act against the accused as if the accused was watering the lands. The said overt act though was mentioned in Ex.P-1 but was not deposed by PW.1 and PW.2. It is a fact that the accused did not dispute his presence in the cheeni garden and groundnut garden, during the course of cross-examination of PW.1 to PW.3 but that itself is not sufficient to prove that it is the accused who raised ganja plants. During the course of crossexamination of PW.3, accused put forth a suggestion that ganja plants were not in the land and no samples were taken from the land and he denied the same. So, initially in Ex.P-1 it was alleged that accused was the owner of an extent of Ac.7.00 cents of land and he raised cheeni garden and groundnut crop and in the middle of the entire extent of Ac.7.00 cents, he raised ganja plants in an extent of Ac.0.30 cents. The prosecution relied upon Ex.P-2, which negatives the case of prosecution to any extent. If Ex.P-2 is considered to be true, accused was owner of an extent of Ac.3.60 cents of land in Survey No.182. So, by introducing Ex.P-2, prosecution destroyed its case. Though PW.1 testified that the VAO identified the land but his evidence is that VAO identified Ac.7.00 cents of land. If Ex.P-2 is considered to be true, accused was owner of an extent of Ac.3.60 cents of land in Survey No.182. So, by introducing Ex.P-2, prosecution destroyed its case. Though PW.1 testified that the VAO identified the land but his evidence is that VAO identified Ac.7.00 cents of land. The Investigating Officer did not prepare any rough sketch showing the total extent of land in Survey No.182 and further demarking the land of Ac.3.60 cents of land, owned possessed by the accused and further showing the cheeni crop, groundnut crop and the ganja plants. Had the Investigating Officer prepared a rough sketch containing these details, it would have unraveled the ambiguity on account of Ex.P-2 but he did not do so. 26. As evident from the judgment of the trial Court, accused raised a serious contention that as Ex.P-2 discloses an extent of Ac.3.60 cents only as owner and possessor, how the prosecution could establish that the ganja plants were found in his possession especially when Ex.P-1 discloses the boundaries of an extent of Ac.7.00 cents. Accused also raised a contention that the prosecution did not prove that ganja plants were found in the lands allegedly possessed by the accused and boundaries of Ac.3.60 cents of land were not given and there is every doubt as to whether the ganja plants were in actual extent of land owned and possessed by the accused in an extent of Ac.3.60 cents. The learned Additional Sessions Judge took into consideration the fact that according to the evidence of PW.1, VAO identified the land where ganja plants existed in Survey No.182 and that VAO is the competent person to identify the existence of lands in a particular survey number but he was not examined as he died. Basing on that the trial Court found favour with the case of prosecution. 27. It is to be noted that according to the evidence of PW.1, VAO identified Ac.7.00 cents of land. It is not his answer in crossexamination that VAO identified Ac.3.60 cents of land owned and possessed by the accused. In fact, throughout, from Ex.P-1 and till filing of the charge sheet, prosecution asserted accused was owner of Ac.7.00 cents. Looking into the contents of Ex.P-2, the trial Court held that, according to Ex.P-2, accused was owner and possessor of Ac.3.60 cents of land only. In fact, throughout, from Ex.P-1 and till filing of the charge sheet, prosecution asserted accused was owner of Ac.7.00 cents. Looking into the contents of Ex.P-2, the trial Court held that, according to Ex.P-2, accused was owner and possessor of Ac.3.60 cents of land only. The learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the contention of prosecution as if VAO identified the land of accused. But as pointed out, PW.1 never disclosed that VAO identified Ac.3.60 cents of land out of Ac.7.00 cents or Ac.7.20 cents as the case may be as held by the trial Court. So, it is very clear that the prosecution has alleged something in Ex.P-1 and filed charge sheet as if accused was owner of Ac.7.00 cents of land and got marked Ex.P-2 which reveals that accused is owner of only Ac.3.60 cents of land. As pointed out, there was no rough sketch showing the entire extent of Ac.7.00 cents and demarking Ac.3.60 cents of land and describing the crops that were alleged to be cultivated by the accused. It is to be noted that the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court is that the total extent of land in Survey No.182 was of Ac.7.20 cents out of which accused had Ac.3.60 cents. If that is considered, the allegations in Ex.P-1 as if accused was found cultivating the ganja plants in the centre of Ac.0.30 cents out of the entire extent of Ac.7.00 cents cannot stand to any reason. If the fact the accused was owner of Ac.3.60 cents is only taken into consideration, it means that the accused was alleged to have cultivated ganja plants almost in the middle of entire extent of Ac.7.00 cents, which is nothing but on the edge of Ac.3.60 cents of land. No prudent person would venture to cultivate the ganja which is in the boundary of his land. So, the case of prosecution must have been that in the middle of Ac.3.60 cents, accused was found cultivating the ganja but in fact it is not the case of prosecution that accused cultivated ganja in the centre of his extent of Ac.3.60 cents. So, it is very clear that the prosecution miserably failed to show where the land of Ac.3.60 cents was located out of Ac.7.00 cents in Survey No.182. PW.1 and PW.2 did not speak any overt act against the accused. So, it is very clear that the prosecution miserably failed to show where the land of Ac.3.60 cents was located out of Ac.7.00 cents in Survey No.182. PW.1 and PW.2 did not speak any overt act against the accused. According to PW.3, accused was watering his plants. The presence of the accused in his land watering the cheeni plants or groundnut crop would not prove the guilt against him. Even his presence at the land in Survey No.182 would not prove the guilt of the accused. The prosecution should have presented a consistent case where the land of Ac.3.60 cents, out of Ac.7.00 cents in the Survey No.182, is located. In the absence of the same, it is very difficult to say that the accused was found cultivating the ganja plants by raising the same. 28. The learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in appreciating the evidence by giving a finding that the VAO identified the land of the accused. In the light of the above, I am of the considered view that the evidence on record does not prove that the accused was responsible for cultivation of ganja plants in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. As the prosecution miserably failed to locate as to where Ac.3.60 cents of land is out of an extent of Ac.7.00 cents in Survey No.182, benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused. Under the circumstances, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in convicting and sentencing the accused. Hence, the judgment in Sessions Case No.755 of 2007, dtd. 18/3/2010, is not sustainable on facts as such it is liable to be interfered with. 29. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment in Sessions Case No.755 of 2007, dtd. 18/3/2010, on the file of the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur as such the appellant/accused stands acquitted of the charge under Sec. 20(a) of the NDPS Act. The fine amount, if any, paid by the accused shall be refunded to him after Appeal time is over. In view of the acquittal, the Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa is directed to release the appellant/accused forthwith, if he is not required in connection any other case or crime. 30. The fine amount, if any, paid by the accused shall be refunded to him after Appeal time is over. In view of the acquittal, the Superintendent, Central Prison, Kadapa is directed to release the appellant/accused forthwith, if he is not required in connection any other case or crime. 30. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment forthwith, by electronic mode, to the Central Prison, Kadapa as well as to the trial Court for taking immediate steps to release the appellant/accused. Further, the Registry is directed to forward the record to the trial Court within one week from this day. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.