GANAPATI PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the Judgment of conviction & order of sentence passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Berhampur in S.T. Nos. 19 of 1991 (S.C. Nos. 18 of 1991 GDC) convicting the Appellant for commission of offence under Section 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 & sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years & to pay of fine of Rs. 2,000 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.05.1990, the Sub-Inspector of Excise, E.I.B., Berhampur (P.W. 3) & his constable (P.W. 2) were on patrolling duty at Goilundi bus stand of Berhampur town. When it was around 10.00 A.M., it is alleged that the Appellant carrying gunny bag over his head arrived there. P.W. 3 raised suspicion that it contained ganja. Then he called some persons present there. It is stated that P.W. 3 disclosed before the Appellant his intention to search his bag as he suspected the bag to be containing ganja. It is also stated that the Appellant was asked to exercise his option of being searched in presence of the Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer & when he refused, after observing necessary formalities, P.W. 3 searched the gunny bag & finally after weighment found it to have been containing 14 kgs. of ganja. Such possession of ganja being without any authority, the seizure was made by preparing the seizure list. It is also stated that the samples were drawn & the Appellant was forwarded to the Court on that day with the documents which were also placed before the Court. The samples were sent for chemical analysis & the report came in affirmative. So, the prosecution was launched against the Appellant. He accordingly faced the trial being charged for above offence.

(2.) The Appellant in the trial took the plea of complete denial with further explanation that when he was going for work as labourer, he was forcibly taken & falsely implicated in this case. In the trial, from the side of the prosecution, three witnesses have been examined. Besides seizure list Ext. 3, chemical report Ext. 6, & other documents were admitted in evidence. The gunny bag containing ganja being produced in the trial has been marked as M.O. 1. Apart from that other material objects were also produced in the trial. The defence has not examined any witness.

(3.) The Trial Court upon analysis of evidence of the prosecution witnesses & upon their evaluation has arrived at a finding that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that it is the Appellant who was possession of 14 kgs. of ganja. In view of the same, the Trial Court held the Appellant guilty of the above offence & awarded sentence as aforesaid, which are now impugned in this appeal.