RABINARAYAN MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substan­ces Act, 1985 (Act 61 of 1985) (hereinafter referred to as the Act') and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for 3 years. He is also convicted under Section 20 (b) (it) of the said Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,0001-, in default to undergo R.I. for 6 months. Both the sen­tences have been directed to run concur­rently.

(2.) THE appellant along-with two others were tried for having committed offences under Sections 18 and 20 (b) (ii) of the Act on the allegations that they were found to be in possession of 180 grams of opium, 650 grams of Ganja and 650 grams QI Bhang. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 19-4-1988, the Officer-m-charge of Pipili Police Station (P. W. 6) on receipt of reliable information that contraband ar­ticles such as opium, Ganja, etc. were being sold in the shop of the appellant at Satasankh Bazar, went there along-with the then Circle Inspector of Police, Pipili P.S. (P.W. 5) and another Sub- Inspector of Police (not examined) and raided the shop of the appellant. It is alleged that while the appellant ran away on seeing the police people, two other accused persons who have been acquitted were selling opium. P.W 6 thereafter searched the shop and recovered one polythene bag containing 155 grams of opium, 126 packets contain­ing 25 grams of contraband opium, 650 grams of duty-paid Ganja and 650 grams of Bhang. He seized the articles and drew up plain paper F.I.R. sampIesdrawn from the articles were sent for chemical examina­tion and after receipt of the report of the Chemical Analyst, charge-sheet was sub­mitted.

(3.) APART from the two official wit­nesses (P.Ws. 5 and 6), prosecution had examined some outsiders as P.Ws. 1 to 4, but they have not advanced the prosecu­tion case in any manner. In fact, P.Ws. 2,3 and 4 have been declared hostile by the prosecution. The trial Court relying upon the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 held that though the licence of the appellant had expired, the contraband articles were being sold from the said shop under the possession of the appellant. It further hold that though the other two accused persons were selling excisable articles in the shop of the present appellant, they had nomensrea and as such acquitted the other two accused persons while convicting the present appellant under Section 18 and 20 (b)(ii)of the Act.