CHAINA DALAI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant having been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year for the offence under Section 20(b)(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1995, (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.D.P.S. Act') by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jajpur in S.T. Case No. 19 of 1990 has preferred this appeal. The case of the prosecution is that the Inspector of Excise, Jajpur (P.W. 1) on 19.2.1990 around 4.30 A.M. while patrolling at Sathipur along with staff namely, Abdul Latif Khan (P.W.3), A.S.I. of Excise, Jajpur and two other excise constables namely Suryamani Das and Jagannath Mishra, (P.W.2) found the appellant in possession of a white tin box and a "Jari Bag". On suspicion, P.W.1 in the presence of the witnesses took search of the tin box as well as the "Jari bag" and found the tin box containing 6 kilograms and 750 grams of ganja and there were 2 kilograms and 500 grams of ganja in the "Jari Bag". Those contraband 'ganja' were seized by P.W.1 at the spot. The appellant as well as the seized articles were produced before the S.D.J.M., Jajpur on the very day of detection of the offence. On completion of the investigation, Prosecution Report (P.R.) was submitted against the appellant to stand his trial under Section 20(b)(1) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.

(2.) The plea of the appellant was that of a complete denial of recovery of any 'ganja' from his possession as alleged by the prosecution and it was his further plea that this case has been falsely foisted against him.

(3.) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined five witnesses in ail and of them, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were the three witnesses belonging to the Excise Department. P.Ws.4 and 5 were the two independent witnesses for the prosecution on the point of seizure of the alleged contraband excisable articles from the possession of the appellant. The appellant had declined to examine any witness in his defence.