NDPS Act | APHC Sets Aside 'Totally Disturbing' Conviction Wherein Negative Burden Was Put On Accused To Prove He Did Not Own Cultivated Land

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that to prove that an individual is the owner of land, the prosecution needs to file documentary evidence or examine the revenue officials and cannot rely on recitals of mahazarnama, to convict an individual under section 20 of the NDPS Act. “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 admitted before Excise police in mahazar that he is the owner of the land and it is sufficient to prove the case.” The Bench had also called the observation of the lower court 'disturbing' wherein it held that if the accused/appellant was not the owner of the said land, it is for him to prove the same. 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.” The case of the prosecution was that, upon conducting a regular visit to a cotton field, they found that Ganja plants were being grown as mixed crops in the plantation. 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.” CrlP no.750 of 2023 Counsel for Appellant: Shaik Mohammed Ismail representing C. Sharan Reddy Click Here To Read/Download Order