AP High Court overturns a troubling conviction under the NDPS Act, stating that it was unfair to place the burden on the accused to prove they did not own the cultivated land

Case: K. Chinna Rami Reddy vs. The State, rep. by the Station House Officer

Coram: Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu

Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.750 OF 2009

Court Observation: “The Prohibition & Excise party did not examine any revenue officials to ascertain as to who are in possession of the land in question…the signature of A.3 on the mahazarnama was not in dispute and his contention that he signed in the mahazarnama in the police station is not tenable and that A.3 (appellant) admitted before Excise police in mahazar that he is the owner of the land and it is sufficient to prove the case.”

“Those findings are totally disturbing. The judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge reveals that he put negative burden on A.3 stating that if really A.3 was not the owner or possessor of the land, he has to file documentary proof to prove the said aspect.”

“Here is a case that A.1 and A.2 were physically present by attending agricultural operations. Having put negative burden on A.3 that he has to file proof that he was not the owner or possessor of land, the learned Additional Sessions Judge extended benefit of doubt against A.1 and A.2 on the ground that the prosecution did not file any Adangal to show that A.1 and A.2 raised crop in the land…The whole approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in appreciating the evidence on record is not in accordance with law.”

Previous Posts

The Delhi High Court asserts that the accuracy of information provided cannot be determined in proceedings under the RTI Act

If the accused simply avoids being found for a long time, it doesn’t automatically mean they are guilty: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court states that the prosecution should not be presumed guilty just because they choose not to present certain witnesses

IBC: If a case is heard on a specific date but the order is delivered later, the Supreme Court directs that the NCLT should not include the date of the hearing on the order

Lawyers must check case facts independently, even though they draft legal documents and argue based on client instructions: Supreme Court

Keywords

AP High Court overturns