NIRMAL CHANDRA SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition being one under Section 482, Cr. P.C is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in S.T No. 22/445 of 1994 whereby he declined to discharge the petitioner from the offence under Section 20 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act).

(2.) THE petitioner, it is alleged, was having 12 kgs. of Ganja and 125 grams of Opium in this house which the police seized in presence of the witnesses, drew samples there from and sent for chemical examination. Upon examination the Analyst reported that one of the sample packets contained partly powdered can­nabis leaves (Bhang) with seeds and as regards the other sample packet, he could not find any opium therein. On charge-sheet being submitted, the learned Addi­tional Sessions Judge, framed charge under Section 20 (b) of the Act and feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner moved this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1018 of 1995. He also filed another petition vide Criminal Misc. Case No. 250 of 1994, chal­lenging the order of taking cognizance of the offence as aforesaid. Upon hearing the parties, both the Criminal Misc. Cases came to be disposed of by a common order that if a motion is made in relation to framing of charge, the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall deal with the same in accordance with law and consider whether the plea of the petitioner is acceptable. In view of such order, the petitioner ap­proached the Court below vide Annexure-l urging that materials on record do not prima facie show that he has committed any offence under the Act. Having heard the parties, the learned Additional Ses­sions Judge rejected the prayer with obser­vation that in view of the quantity of 'Ganja' seized, prosecution ought to have sent some more quantity for chemical ex­amination and if that has been done, there was possibility of coming to a definite con­clusion whether cannabis leaves were ac­companied by the flowering or fruiting tops or not. He further observed that in normal course the seized 'Ganja 'would be produced during trial and at that stage it could be ascertained whether the same has flowering or fruiting tops or not and mere­ly on the Chemical Examiner's report it cannot be said at this stage that no offence under Section 20 of the Act has been made out. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this case invoking inherent power of the Court to quash the proceeding.

(3.) IN view of discussions made above, the whole proceeding being not main­tainable is quashed. The Criminal Misc. Case is accordingly allowed. W. Petition allowed.