LALITMOHAN SA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein calls in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him in S.T. No.157 of 1991 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Sundargarh. The learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh vide the impugned judgment held the appellant guilty of the charge under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the "N.D.P.S. Act") and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo further R.I. for one year.

(2.) Prosecution case placed before the trial court is that on 28.04.1991 while the Inspector of Excise, Sadar, Sundargarh along with staff were on duty, getting information about possession and sale of 'Ganja' by the appellant, searched his house in presence of witnesses and recovered 750 grams of 'Ganja' and seized the same, drew sample of 25 grams of 'Ganja', sent the same for chemical examination, examined the witnesses, arrested the appellant and requested the Tahasildar, Sundargarh to depute an Amin to demarcate the house, ascertained about its ownership and after completion of enquiry, submitted P.R. against the appellant and, accordingly, cognizance was taken. The learned trial court placing reliance on such case of the prosecution, framed charge against the appellant who pleaded not guilty to the charge, trial was held, in course of which, prosecution examined six witnesses, exhibited certain documents and Material Object to bring home the charge. The appellant in his defence did not adduce any oral evidence.

(3.) During course of hearing of this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment is contrary to law as there is no evidence on record to establish exclusive ownership of the appellant over the house in question and his conscious possession of the seized contraband 'Ganja'. Moreover, there is no independent corroboration and above all, mandatory provision of Sections 42, 52(1) and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act were not complied, for which the judgment of conviction should be set-aside. In the alternative, keeping in view the small quantity of seizure of 'Ganja', the sentence is unduly harsh and excessive.