KANHU CHARAN MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. No.28/226 of 1990 is under challenge in here in this criminal appeal. The learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri vide the impugned judgment and order while acquitting the appellant of a charge under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "N.D.P.S. Act"), held the appellant guilty of a charge punishable under Section 47(a) of the Bihar & Orissa Excise Act and convicted him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.

(2.) Tersely stated the case of the prosecution before the trial court was that on 23.06.1989 at about 4.30 p.m. while the S.I. of Excise, Sadar Mobile, Puri (P.W.2) was patrolling at Satpada area with his staff, he got a reliable information that the appellant was selling opium, Ganja and Bhang in his shop located near Satpada Bazar and, as such, he raided that shop of the appellant observing the formalities and during the course of such raid, he found 12 grams of contraband opium wrapped with a polythene paper, 700 grams of non-duty paid Ganja in a polythene packet and 500 grams of non-duty paid Bhang in another polythene packet, as such, he seized those articles and also the other incriminating materials, such as, the weighing balance used for selling the opium and Ganja with the weights of different denominations and the sale proceeds of Rs.50/-. Thereafter, he arrested the appellant and forwarded him to the court and also sent the seized opium, Ganja and Bhang for chemical examination on 24.05.1989 to the State Drugs Testing and Research Laboratory, Bhubanewar through the S.D.J.M., Puri and after completion of investigation, being satisfied of the fact that the appellant was in possession of the aforesaid contraband articles, submitted the prosecution report against the appellant.

(3.) The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and has also pleaded false implication as there was neither any shop nor any house of him at Satpada Bazar. In view of such denial, the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses and exhibited certain documents and also the material objects. The appellant, who had taken the aforesaid plea, did not adduce any independent evidence in his defence.