SANIA PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.01.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur in 2(a) C.C. Case No. 09 of 2009 (N) convicting the accused-appellant under Sec. 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short 'the N.D.P.S. Act') and sentencing him to under R.1. for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 in default to undergo further R.1. for three years.

(2.) The prosecution case was that on 28.12009 at about 8.30 A.M. while the Inspector of Excise, Excise Intelligence and Enforcement Bureau, Berhampur along with his staff was performing patrolling duty near Haridakhandi Chouk, Berhampur received a reliable information about transportation of contraband Ganja. He immediately reported the facts to the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, his immediate superior officer, and kept watch on the road. After sometime, the present appellant was found coming on a motorcycle with one attache and one air bag tied to the backside of the motorcycle. The Inspector of Excise detained the accused on suspicion and enquired about the contents of those bags. On enquiry, the accused preferred to be searched by the Excise Inspector and accordingly, the search was conducted. It is alleged that on search 11 kgs. of contraband Ganja was recovered from the attache and 9 Kgs. 500 grams of contraband Ganja was recovered from the air bag for which the accused did not have any authority to possess. The Excise Officer weighed the Ganja, took sample therefrom, seized the materials, left the brass seal in zima of the accompanying Excise Constable and arrested the accused. Then he made a request to the I.I.C. of the nearest Baidyanathpur police Station for keeping the seized properties in the police Malkhana and after completion of investigation, final prosecution report was submitted against the accused-appellant under Sec. 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act.

(3.) In course of trial, the accused took the plea of complete denial and the prosecution examined two witnesses in support of its case as against none, preferred by the accused in defence. Learned trial Court, relying upon the evidence of the two witnesses, who were Inspector of Excise and one Excise Constable, accepted the prosecution case and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.