STATE ORISSA Vs. HARI PRASAD PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all the three cases involve identical dispute they are taken up together, and this common judgment disposes of them.

(2.) Sale opposite party in each of the first two cases and opposite parties in the third case, are accused of offence punishable under section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, the Act). Their prayer for bail was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi only on the ground that investigation of the concerned case having been conducted by the complainant in each case, there was reasonable ground for believing that they were not guilty of such offence. For taking this view, the learned Sessions Judge relied on the decision of apex Court in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan. Being of the prima facie view that this is an untenable ground and having found that this ground has been given for release of the accused persons on bail of a serious offence like the one at hand in a large number of cases, it was desired that the point may be examined by a Division Bench, and that is how the matter has been placed before us. In Suo Motu Criminal Misc. Case Nos. 885 and 888 of 1993 the opposite parties have entered appearance through M/s. N.C. Panigrahi and S.C. Dash, while there is no appearance in Suo Motu Criminal Misc. Case No. 886 of 1993 in spite of notice.

(3.) Mr. N. Prosty, learned Additional Govt. Advocate has taken us through the relevant part of the aforesaid decision in which what, had happened was that one Head Constable while coming across a person who was carrying some gram in violation of Rajasthan Food Grains (Restriction on Border Movement) Order, 1959 asked him to show documents authorising carrying of gram. As the person was not armed with such a document, to save himself from the operation of law, a bundle of currency notes containing Rs. 510/- was offered to the Head Constable as bribe, who took an exception to it and lodged the first information report for taking action against the person. Subsequently, on the case being registered, the same was investigated by the same Head Constable. The person concerned came to be convicted by the trial court and the conviction was upheld by the High Court. The matter was carried in appeal to the apex Court and it was observed that the Head Constable to whom the bribe is alleged to have been offered was the only witness and his evidence having received no support from any independent witness, the same was regarded as an infirmity bound to reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case.