BAIDYANATH PANIGRAHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By judgment dated 19-11-1992 passed in S.T. No 108/92, the learned Sessions judge, Sundargarh has convicted the appellant under Sec 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (For short the NDPS Act) and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a floe of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I for one year. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) According to the prosecution, on the evening of 8th July 1992, Rabindranath Mohapatra (PW 5) S.I. of Police of Tangarpli P.S. was on patrol duty along with S.R. Mallik (PW 4) S.I. of Police, Havildar Amarendra Patnaik (PW 3) of Tarapur out-post. On receiving information that accused Baidyanath Panigrahi of Laxmi market was selling Ganja, he proceeded to the spot along with the police personnel. He called independent witnesses and after giving search of their persons to the witness, entered the house of the accused and recovered 250 grams of Ganja which was concealed under a cot. As the accused was not able to produce any permit/licence authorising him to possess Ganja, it was seized list ExI. 1. However, out of the seized Ganja, a quantity of 10 grams was kept apart as sample vide seizure-list ExI. 2. Both the seizure-lists were signed by the accused. These are Ext. 1/3 and Ext. 2/1 respectively. The seized Ganja was kept in separate packets and sealed in presence of witnesses. On these packets the signature of the witnesses and also the accused was taken. Thereafter, the accused was taken to the police-station along with the seized articles and was forwarded to the Court.

(3.) The sample of seized Ganja was sent for chemical examination to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Amthapaii, Sambalpur through the SDJM, Panposh. The report of the Chemical Examiner (Ext. 3) showed that the seized sample was Ganja. Initially a prosecution report was submitted under Sec. 47(a) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act on the impression that Ganja was covered under that Act. But subsequently it was corrected, find a prosecution report was submitted under Sec. 20(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The plea of the defence is one of denial.