ARJUN GOCHHAYAT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 4-12- 1998 passed by Shri J.P. Misra, Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in S.T. Case No. 18/3 of 1993 convicting the appellant under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (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 a further period of one year.

(2.) Prosecution case runs as follows: On 30-8-1992 the S.I. of Excise, Chandbali (P.W. 4) was performing patrol duty at village Naikanidihi under Chandbali Police Station in the district of Bhadrak alongwith the Executive Magistrate (P.W. 3) and A.P.R. Force. At that time he got information that the appellant was possessing contraband articles in his house at Naikanidihi. Hence P.Ws. 3, 4 and the A.P. R. Force went to the house of the appellant an a conducted search after observing the formalities of search in presence of the appellant who was alone present in the house. During the search, 35 grams of opium wrapped, in a polythene paper and two gunny bags one containing 18 Kgs and the other 12 Kgs of poppy capsules were found. After weighment of the articles in presence of the appellant and two witnesses the same were seized under the seizure-list Ext. 1/2 and a copy of the seizure-list was handed over to the appellant. The articles were sealed separately affixing paper slips containing the signatures of the witnesses and the appellant. P.W. 4 also recorded the statements of the two seizure witnesses (Exts. 2/1 and 3/1). The appellant was arrested after informing him the grounds of his arrest. P. W. 4 forwarded the appellant and the seized articles to the court of the S.D.J.M. Bhadrak on 31-8-1992 and prayed before the S.D.J.M. to send the samples of the seized articles for chemical examination. As per direction of the S.D.J.M., the seized articles were produced before him on 14-9-1992 when 10 grams of opium was drawn as sample. The sample and the balance quantity of 25 grants of opium were duly sealed by the S.D.J.M. and paper slips were affixed to the same. M.O.I is the packet containing 25 grams of opium. On the same day, 200 grams of poppy capsules were drawn as sample from each of the two gunny bags and the samples and the gunny bags were sealed .in the same process. M.Os II and III are the said samples and M.Os. IV and V are the gunny bags. The samples were sent to the chemical examiner, vide the forwarding report (Ext. 5) of the S.D.J.M. Ext. 6 is the report of the chemical examiner relating to poppy capsules and Ext. 6/ 1 is the report relating to opium which confirmed that the samples were poppy capsules and opium respectively. After completion of enquiry P.W. 4 submitted prosecution report against the appellant who stood his trial. The plea of defence is one of denial.

(3.) In order to bring home the charge against the appellant, prosecution has examined four witnesses, of whom P.W. 4 is the S.I. of Excise who detected the case and P.W. 3 is the Executive Magistrate who was present at the time of search and seizure. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are two independent witnesses to the seizure who have not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile. The defence has examined two witnesses in support of its case. They have stated that the appellant was not residing in the house in question but was residing in a Government quarters at Naikanidhihi P.H.C. allotted in favour of his father who was serving as a sweeper in the said P.H.C.