RADHA KRISHANA SINGHARI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the above two appeals the appellants challenge their conviction under S. 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short 'the Act') and sentence of R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00 each in default to undergo R.I. for one year.

(2.) Prosecution case is, on 5-3-1993 at 7-00 P.M. P.W. 1 Officer-in-charge of Puri Town Police Station after receiving intelligence report that the appellants were trafficking in narcotic substances, made a station diary entry to that effect and proceeded with the raiding party to Condua Chaura crossing. At a distance from the Chandini (Mandap) near the crossing they found these appellants with some others on the Monday. Seeing the raiding party, some of them escaped from that place where these two appellants were caught red-handed. On search in presence of the D.S.P., P.W. 1 recovered two polythene packets each containing 260 m.gs. of heroin from the possession of each of the appellants. After recovery he seized and sealed the same in presence of the witnesses. Prosecution having been lodged, the appellants faced their trial and were convicted as stated above. The appellants denied the indictment.

(3.) Learned Additional Sessions Judge being satisfied with the truthful version of the prosecution witnesses held that the above quantity of heroin was in fact recovered from their possession. Though Mr. R. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants raised several contentions touching the illegality in the seizure, non-compliance with the mandatory provisions under Ss. 41, 42, 50, 51 and 52 of the Act and absence of total evidence with regard to the custody of the substance seized and inconsistency in the evidence relating to sealing of the packets, the main thrust of his argument is with regard to non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act which vitiated the trial. Mr. D. Das, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, supported the judgment of conviction and sentence by submitting that the court below did not commit any mistake/error in finding that in fact the above quantity of Heroin was seized from the person of the appellants.