BATA KRUSHNA SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, having been convicted for commission of offence under section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Jaipur by judgment and order passed in 2 (a) C.C. No. 01 of 2004, has preferred this appeal.

(2.) PROSECUTION case is as follows On 2.2.2004 P.W. 8 Sub - Inspector of Excise along with P.W. 7 Inspector of Excise and other excise personnel were performing patrolling. While at Chhatia Bazar P.W. 8 received reliable information at about 2.00 p.m. to the effect that the appellant had stored ganja in his house. P.W. 8 reduced the information into writing under Ext. 5, got the veracity of the information verified, and brought Ext. 5 to the notice of P.W. 7. Thereafter, P.W. 8, and others proceeded to appellant's house where the appellant was found to be in possession of a gunny bag containing ganja M.O.I which he was shifting from his pucca house to another Use having tile roof. P.W. 8 detained the appellant and called the witnesses P.Ws. 2 and 5. Excise officials disclosed their identities to the appellant and expressed the intention of search his house. Before con ducting search, Excise Officials gave their personal search before the appellant and witnesses. An inventory list Ext. 7 was prepared in respect of articles recovered from their possession. P.W. 8 prepared the memo Ext. 8 containing grounds of search and served a copy thereof to the appellant. Upon search of the appellant's house, two more gunny bags containing ganja M.Os. II and III were recovered. On weightment M.O. I, II and III were found to contain 25 kilograms, 31 kilograms and 28 kilograms of ganja respectively. P.W. 8 sealed the recovered gunny bags containing ganja by affixing paper slips and impressions of his brass seal. Thereafter P.W. 7 prepared seizure list Ext. 6 on which specimen impression of his brass seal was affixed and arrested the appellant after serving on him copy of memo Ext. 9 containing grounds of arrest. Then he prepared spot map Ext. 11 and recorded statements of the witnesses. P.W. 8 affixed specimen impression of brass seal on a piece of paper Ext. 13 which was kept in close paper cover Ext. 12. P.W. 8's brass seal was kept with P.W. 5 on execution of zimanama Ext. 4/1 by him. P.W. 8 brought the appellant and seized articles to Cuttack. He handed over seized gunny bags to P.W. 7 who kept the same in the Malkhna after making the entry Ext. 14/1 under Malkhana register Ext. 14. On 3.2.2004, appellant and seized articles were produced in the Court of Special Judge. Jaipur and prayer was made to send samples of seized ganja for chemical examination. On being directed by the Special Judge, P.W. 8 produced the seized gunny bags before the S.D.J.M., Jaipur. In presence of S.D.J.M., Jaipur seals affixed on the gunny bags were broken and sample quantities of ganja brought out from each of the gunny bags was kept separately in three packets. The sample packets were sealed by the S.D.J.M. Gunny bags containing remaining quantity of ganja were also sealed with seal of the Court. Broken seals were kept in paper cover M.O. IV. The sample packets were produced before the Scientific Officer of State Drugs Testing and Research Laboratory at Bhubaneswar along with S.D.J.M.'s forwarding letter Ext. 15. On 4.2.2004, P.W. 8 submitted prosecution report Ext. 16 to P.W. 7. In course of investigation, P.W. 8 obtained sketch map with demarcation report of the spot Ext. 3 prepared by Amin through Revenue Inspector P.W. 4 and Additional Tehasildar P.W. 3. The appellant's brothers P.Ws. 1 and 6 were also examined in course of investigation. Result of the examination of the contents of the sample packets was communicated to the Court under chemical examination report Ext. 24 and the remaining quantity of ganja was returned in sealed cover M.O. V by the laboratory. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the appellant. The appellant took the plea of denial. In order to substantiate the charge, prosecution examined the eight witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 8 referred to above apart from relying - upon documents marked Exts. 1 to 24 and material exhibits M.Os. I to V. Appellant's brothers P.Ws. 1 and 6 as well as independent witnesses P.Ws. 2 and 5 did not support the prosecution in any manner. Learned Trial Court placing reliance and upon reference to the evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 8 as well as P.Ws. 3 and 4 held the prosecution to have established the charge against the appellant.

(3.) IN reply, learned Counsel for the State submitted that learned Trial Court has assigned cogent reasons in support of the findings recorded in the impugned judgment which is immune from interference.