SURENDRA SABUTA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein calls in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him in Sessions Case No.33 of 1991 (N) on the file of the Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Berhampur. The learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Berhampur vide the impugned judgment and order held the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") guilty under Sec. 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "N.D.P.S. Act") and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000.00, in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of six months.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 05.01991 at about 4.30 p.m. while S.I. of Excise, E.I.B. - Prasanna Kumar Mohanty (P.W.3) patrolling near Goilundi Bus stand, Berhampur with his constable - Fakir Charan Sahu (P.W.2), found the accused proceeding towards bus stand carrying a gunny bag emitting smell of 'Ganja'. Suspecting the accused, P.W.3 detained him and found the gunny bag containing 7 Kgs. of 'Ganja'. After observing all formalities, P.W.3 collected samples of said 'Ganja' from the gunny bag, seized the 'Ganja' with gunny bag, arrested the accused, produced him before the Sessions court, sent the sample of 'Ganja' for chemical examination to the State Drugs Control and Research Laboratory, Bhubaneswar. On completion of investigation, P.W.3 files prosecution report against the accused for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sec. 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The accused being charged for the aforesaid offence and having pleaded not guilty, faced trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Ganjam-Berhampur. On conclusion of the trial, basing on the evidence of official witnesses viz. P.Ws.2 and 3, the learned trial court returned the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as aforesaid discarding the defence plea of denial and false implication.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that since the learned trial court placed absolute reliance on the uncorroborated testimony of tainted official witnesses and the only independent witness (P.W.1) having not supported the prosecution version, and there being no clinching evidence that what was sent for chemical examination was the article kept in the gunny bag allegedly seized from the possession of the accused, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are unsustainable.