A RAJESHWAR PATRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjan, Berhampur, in S.C. No. 14/93 under Section 18 of S.C. No. 3/93(GDC)The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.D.P.S. Act').

(2.) The accused-appellant, A. Rajeshwar Patra was prosecuted for having committed an offence under Section 18 of the N.D.P.S. Act, being in possession of six bags of opium puppy capsules, found from the shop room and the adjacent room to the shop, which on weightment came to 85 K.Gs. in contravention of the provisions of Section 8 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

(3.) The prosecution case shortly stated is that on 30-10-92 at 2.30 p.m., the Excise Sub-Inspector getting reliable information regarding possession of opium puppy by the accused-appellant in his house at Raghunath Bazar, he proceeded along with his staff and conducted search of the shop and the house of the accused, after observing all formalities, in course of search, 6 bags of puppy capsules were found from the shop room and the room adjacent to his shop. The Excise Sub-Inspector after making necessary burning test and smell test and having come to know from his own experience that the seized articles are opium puppy capsules he prepared the seizure list in presence of accused and witnesses etc. On weighment the tota1 contents came to 58 K.Gs. The bags were sealed. Accused was arrested. The accused was forwarded to the Court of J.M.F.C., Kodala along with the seized puppy capsules. The J.M.F.C. collected samples and forwarded to the Drug Testing and Research Laboratory. The investigation was taken up. The Chemical Examiner's report, which was received, revealed that the sample packet contained opium puppy capsules. Prosecution report was filed. The accused appellant's plea was of total denial. However, it appears from the accused statement that the plea was that he resides with his parents and brothers in joint family and he has been falsely implicated. The father of the accused has, however, been examined as D.W. 1 to substantiate the stand of joint living.