LAXMIDHAR PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 28-2-1994 passed by Shri B. K. Patel, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. No. 32/273 of 1992convicting the appellant under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short '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 a further period of one year.

(2.) Prosecution case runs as follows :On 19-4-92 the Sub-Inspector of Excise (Mobile), Bhubaneswar (P.W.3) was performing patrol duty with A.S.I. of Excise (P.W. 2) and some excise constables in Banpur area and received information that the appellant was selling opium in the market area. Therefore, he waited in the market area. At 4.45 p.m. the appellant came to Bisarapatna crossing and purchased betel from a betel shop and stood there. P.W. 3 interrogated the appellant and observing formalities of search, he took personal search of the appellant and recovered from his shirt pocket 35 small paper packets kept in a big paper packet. It is alleged that each small packet contains one gram of opium. Besides cash of Rs. 1873/- was also recovered from another pocket of the appellant. The opium and cash were seized under the seizure list Ext. 1. Before the search, the appellant was given option to be searched in presence of a Magistrate but he denied. P.W. 3 took 10 grams of opium as sample and sealed the sample packet and the other packet containing balance quantity of opium. P.W. 3 arrested the appellant and took him along with the seized articles to his office at Bhubaneswar. On the next day, i.e., 20-4-92 he produced the appellant along with the seized articles before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Banpur and prayed for sending the sample opium for chemical analysis. The J.M.F.C., Banpur sent the sample for chemical analysis vide his forwarding letter (Ext. 5). The Chemical examination report (Ext. 7) dated 23-10-92 confirmed that the sample was opium. Hence after completion of enquiry P.W. 3 submitted prosecution report under Section 18 of the Act and the appellant stood his trial.

(3.) The defence plea is one of denial.