RANJIT SENAPATI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 23-9-1998 passed by Shri A. P. Das, Second Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in G. R. Case No. 2262 of 1996 (Tr. No. 2/97) convicting him under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N. D. P. S. Act') and sentencing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years.

(2.) Prosecution case runs as follows :On 30-12-1996 at about 2.30 p.m. the informant (P.W.1), a Sub-Inspector of Police, Malgodown Police Station, Cuttack wasperforming patrol duty with P.W. 5, an A.S.I. of the said Police Station at the College Square, Cuttack and he received reliable information that the appellant who was working as a Collection Agent in the Sulabh Sauchalaya at Station Road, Cuttack was residing with his wife in one of the rooms of the said Sulabh Sauchalaya and was dealing in brown sugar. Since the informant had no sufficient time to obtain a search warrant from Court, or to requisition the services of an Executive Magistrate and as there was chance of the appellant concealing the brown sugar and escaping from the Sulabh Sauchalaya, the informant communicated the fact to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Cuttack who directed him to proceed to the spot and guard the spot till arrival of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (P.W. 7). Accordingly P.W.1 and his staff went to the spot. At about 3 p.m., P.W. 7, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cuttack, reached the spot with two lady Constables. Two local witnesses were called and all of them went to the room where the appellant and his wife were residing. Since the door of the room had been closed from inside, the appellant was called and he opened the door. His wife was found inside the room. After completion of the formalities of search and taking the consent of the appellant and his wife, the room was searched. During the search, two polythene packets, one containing twenty-three small paper packets and the other containing twenty two small paper packets, were seized along with cash of Rs. 67.06 paise and small pieces of paper, probably kept for packing brown sugar, one tin Diba containing an empty matchbox, ash, cigarette buds and one burnt Jari. It is alleged that fortyfive small paper packets found in the polythene packets contained brown sugar as opined by the Scientific Officer (P.W. 4) and on weighment the same was found to be 23.450 grams. The services of a goldsmith was requisitioned for weighment of the same. Samples were drawn from each polythene packet and the polythene packets as also the samples were duly sealed using a brass seal and paper seals containing signatures of the accused persons, the goldsmith and other witnesses. The brass seal used in the process was then left in the Zima of a witness named Nabakishore Hout, who has been examined as D.W. 1 in this case. The appellant and his wife could not produce any authority to possess brown sugar. Hence P.W. 1 prepared the report Ext. 5 and send the same to the Police Station for registration of the case, through P.W. 5 and took up preliminary investigation. He arrested the appellant and his wife and took them to the Police Station. The Inspector-in-charge of the Police Station (P.W. 6) registered the case and took over charge of investigation. During investigation P.W. 6 re-sealed the material objects with his own brass seal and kept the same in the Malkhana of the Police Station. He sent information to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (City) as also to the Superintendent of Police, Cuttack and visited the spot. He forwarded the appellant and his wife to Court in custody along with the material objects on 31-12-1996 and prayed before the S.D.J.M. for sending the material objects for chemical analysis and on 3-1-1997 the sample packets were sent for chemical examination. After receipt of the chemical examination report, the investigation was completed and charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and his wife who stood their trial.

(3.) The plea of the defence is one of denial. According to defence, the appellant and his wife had come to Cuttack for medical examination of the wife of the appellant due to her pregnancy and they had gone to the Sulabh Sauchalaya for answering call of nature and that the contraband article was not seized from their conscious and exclusive possession.