Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Unknown vs Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy on 29 April, 2026
APHC010664672009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3368]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 7/2009
Between:
1. NEERUDI DHANAMMA,, W/O KUMAR, VEGETABLE BUSINESS,
R/O H.NO. 5-143/1, BHARATHNAGAR, UPPAL,
...APELLANT
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AT HYDERABAD,
THROUGH SHO., DONKARAYI, PS., EAST GODAVARI
DISTRICT.
2. JATOSH SUDHAKAR, S/O BALYA, VAVILALA VILLAGE,
BOTIMEDHA THANDA, NELLUKUDURU MANDAL,
3. THIRUPATHI MOHAN, S/O SALMON, DRIVER,
BHARATHNAGAR, UPPAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT,
PERMANENT ADDRESS: BHESTHAVARIPETA (V), NEAR
KAMBHAM, BESTHAVARIPETA MANDAL,
4. YASA BHARATH REDDY, S/O PADMA REDDY, R/O UPPAL,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
5. JERRIPOTHULA PRABHAKAR, S/O NARASINGA RAO, HARIKA
COMMUNICATIONS, UPPAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.
6. GUDIDEVUNI SASI KANTH GOWD SASI, S/O SRISAILAM
GOWD, NEAR UPPAL BUS DEPOT, KENDRANAGAR, RANGA
REDDY DISTRICT.
...RESPODENT(S):
Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the
High Court may be pleased to to present this Memorandum of Crl.A.,
aggrieved by the Judgment in N.D.P.S.SC.No. 14 of 2008, dt. 08-12-2008
on the file of the Court of the Spl.Sessions Judge for trial of the cases
under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -cum-
1 Addl. Sessions Judge), East Godavari District, Rajahmundry.
2
IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLAMP 7 OF 2009
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may
be pleased to release the vehicle bearing No.AP 04 K 3141 (Tatasumo)
the appeal.
Counsel for the Appellant:
1. NUTHALAPATI KRISHNA MURTHY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
3
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CRL.A.No.7 of 2009
Between:
Neerudi Dhanamma, W/o. kumar,
Hindu, Aged 33 years, Vegetable Business,
R/o. H. No. 5-143/1, Bharathnagar,
Uppal, Ranga Reddy District. ...... APPELLANT/ACCUSED
AND
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderabad, and others. ...... RESPONDENTS
DATE OF ORAL JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 29.04.2026
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of Judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the
fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No______________________________
JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
4* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
+ CRL.A.No.7 of 2009
% 29.04.2026
# Between:
Neerudi Dhanamma, W/o. kumar,
Hindu, Aged 33 years, Vegetable Business,
R/o. H. No. 5-143/1, Bharathnagar,
Uppal, Ranga Reddy District. …… APPELLANT/ACCUSEDAND
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
rep. by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderabad, and others. …… RESPONDENTS! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy
^ Counsel for the Respondent : Sri C.P.Somayaji,
Addl. Public Prosecutor and
Sri A. Sai Rohit,
Asst. Public Prosecutor< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
The Court made the following:
5
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.7 OF 2009
O R A L J U D G M E N T:
Heard Sri Mohammed Sayeed Uddin, learned counsel
representing Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the
appellant, and Sri C.P. Somayaji, learned Additional Public Prosecutor,
along with Sri A. Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor,
representing the respondent-State.
2. The present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant, owner of
the vehicle, i.e., Tata Sumo bearing Registration No. AP 04 K 3141
(hereinafter referred to as “the disputed vehicle”), which was confiscated,
on the ground that it was used for transportation of narcotic substances
seized in the case, vide judgment dated 08.12.2008 passed in NDPS
S.C.No.14 of 2008 on the file of learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial
of Cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 – cum – I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District,
Rajahmundry.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that Section
60(3) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for
short, “the NDPS Act“) reads as follows:
“60. Liability of illicit drugs, substances, plants, articles
and conveyances to confiscation:
6
60.(3). Any animal or conveyance used in transporting
any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, [or controlled
substances] or any article liable to confiscation under sub-
section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be liable to confiscation,
unless the owner of the animal or conveyance proves that it
was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the
owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person-in-charge of
the animal or conveyance and that each of them had taken
all reasonable precautions against such use.”
4. He would further submit that Section 63 of the NDPS Act
prescribes as follows:
“63. Procedure in making confiscations:
(1) In the trial of offences under this Act, whether the
accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged, the court
shall decide whether any article or thing seized under this
Act is liable to confiscation under Section 60 or Section 61,
or Section 62 and, if it decides that the article is so liable, it
may order confiscation accordingly.
(2) Where any article or thing seized under this Act
appears to be liable to confiscation under Section 60 or
Section 61 or Section 62, but the person who committed the
offence in connection therewith is not known or cannot be
found, the court may inquire into and decide such liability,
and may order confiscation accordingly:
Provided that no order or confiscation of an article or
thing shall be made until the expiry of one month from the
date of seizure, or without hearing any person who may
claim any right thereto and the evidence, if any, which he
produces in respect of his claim:
7
Provided further that if any such article or thing, other
than a narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, [controlled
substance] the opium poppy, coca plant or cannabis plant is
liable to speedy and natural decay, or if the court is of
opinion that its sale would be for the benefit of its owner, it
may at any time direct it to be sold; and the provisions of this
sub-section shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to
the net proceeds of the sale.”
5. In the present case, it is contended that the disputed vehicle was
used without knowledge of the appellant, and that she had no connivance
with the accused in transporting the narcotic substances. However, the
learned Special Court did not issue any notice to the appellant, nor
provide any opportunity to adduce evidence to establish her lack of
knowledge or involvement. Therefore, the order of confiscation is not in
accordance with Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act.
6. He would submit that the appeal is maintainable against such an
order of confiscation by the owner of the conveyance, in the light of
Section 36-C of the NDPS Act, which reads as follows:
“36-C. Application of Code to proceedings before a
Special Court-Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974), (including the provisions as to bail and bonds) shall
apply to the proceedings before a Special Court and for the
purposes of the said provisions, the Special Court shall be
deemed to be a Court of Session and the person conducting
a prosecution before a „Special Court‟ shall be deemed to be
a Public Prosecutor.”
8
7. In light of the said provisions, this Criminal Appeal is maintainable,
as Section 452 Cr.P.C. enable the Court to pass orders of confiscation
and also provide for an appeal challenging an order passed under
Section 452 Cr.P.C.
8. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submits that the prosecution case is that the disputed vehicle was used
for transporting narcotic substances, and therefore, upon conviction of the
accused, the learned Special Court passed the impugned order,
confiscating the disputed vehicle. However, he fairly submits that a
reading of the judgment does not disclose that the procedure
contemplated under Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act was followed,
while passing the impugned order.
9. In light of the above submissions, the point that arises for
consideration is:
“Whether the order of the learned Special Court
confiscating the disputed vehicle, i.e., Tata Sumo
bearing Registration No. AP 04 K 3141, is sustainable in
law?”
10. P O I N T : The learned Special Court, by judgment dated
08.12.2008, ordered confiscation of the disputed vehicle, on the ground
that it was used for transporting narcotic substances, while convicting the
accused. However, a reading of the said judgment does not disclose that
9
the learned Special Court followed the procedure contemplated under
Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act. The impugned order merely states
that M.O.8 – Tata Sumo bearing Registration No. AP 04 K 3141 – used
for transportation of narcotic substances, is ordered to be sold, and the
sale proceeds confiscated to the State, after expiry of the appeal period.
11. Therefore, the impugned order indicates that the learned Special
Court did not follow any procedure before passing the said order,
particularly the procedure prescribed and contemplated under law, i.e.,
Sections 60 and 63 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the order of confiscation
of M.O.8 – Tata Sumo bearing Registration No. AP 04 K 3141 – is not
sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the point is
answered.
12. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The order of
confiscation of M.O.8 – Tata Sumo bearing Registration No. AP 04 K
3141 – passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases
under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – cum
– I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry, in
NDPS S.C.No.14 of 2008, is set aside.
13. The matter is remitted to the learned Special Court to consider the
issue afresh, by following the procedure contemplated under Sections 60
and 63 of the NDPS Act, after affording an opportunity to the appellant
and the respondent-State, and to pass orders in accordance with law.
10
14. Since the matter pertains to the year 2008, the learned Special
Court is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a period of three (03) months, from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order. This judgment be certified to the trial Court, as per
section 405 of Cr.P.C.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
29thApril, 2026
cbn
Note: L.R. Copy is to be marked
B/o.
cbn
11
93
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.7 of 2009
29th April, 2026
cbn
Note: Mark L.R. Copy
cbn