PURNA CHANDRA SUAR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged the judgment dated 12.7.1996 passed by Shri P. C. Patro, Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. No. 18 of 1994 convicting him under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of six months.

(2.) PROSECUTION case runs as follows : On 15.1.1994 at about 9 p.m. while the S.I. of Town Police Station. Puri (P.W.2) accompanied by another S.I. of the said Police Station (P.W.5) and Havildar (P.W.4) proceeded to Para Nolia Sahi for investigation of Town P.S. Case No. 3/94, on the way found the appellant coming from the opposite direction. P.W.2 detained the appellant on suspicion and interrogated him. After observing the formalities of search, he searched the person of the appellant and recovered a paper packet containing heroin, one twenty -five paise coin, one jerry bag and napkin and seized the said articles under the seizure -list Ext. 1 On weighment the paper packet containing brown sugar weighed 300 Mgs. He drew two samples of the seized brown sugar, each weighing 50 mgs and sealed the said two sample packets and the balance quantity of 200 Mgs. of heroin kept in another packet. Since the appellant could not show any authority to possess heroin, he was arrested and taken to the police station. P.W. 2 prepared a plain paper FIR (Ext. 2) and after returning to the police station he registered the case under Section 27 of the Act and directed P.W.5 to take up investigation. On the next day, i.e., 16.1.1994, P.W.5 forwarded the appellant to Court and on 18.1.1994 prayed before the Court for sending the sample of the seized contraband article to S.F.S.L., Bhubaneswar for chemical examination and the S.D.J.M., Puri sent the sample packet for chemical examination, vide his forwarding letter Ext. 4. On 28.9.1994 P.W.5 handed over charge of the case to the Officer -in -charge of the Police Station, who in his turn directed P.W.3 to complete the investigation and submit charge -sheet. P.W.3 after receipt of the chemical examination report (Ext.5) confirming that the sample was heroin, completed the investigation and submitted charge -sheet against the appellant under Section 21 of the Act. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellant under Section 27 of the Act and the appellant stood his trial. The appellant has been convicted under Section 21 of the Act though he had been charged under Section 27 of the Act.

(3.) IN order to bring home the charge against the appellant prosecution has examined five witnesses of whom P.W.2 is the S.I. of the Police who detected the case, P.W.5 is the investigating officer, P.W.I is a goldsmith who weighed the contraband article and has stated about drawing two samples of the said article each weighing 50 Mgs. P.W.3 has stated to have taken up charge of investigation from P.W.5 and to have submitted the charge -sheet in the case. P.W.4 is the Havildar of the police station who had accompanied P.W.2 when the case was detected. The defence has examined none. Relying on the statements of P.Ws. 2, 4 and 5. the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty and convicted him.