JUDGMENT

S. PUJAHARI, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance)-Cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.28/15(A) of 2004 convicting the accused (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”) for commission of offence under Section 20 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh), in default, to undergo R.I. for one year more.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 21/22.01.2004, Debendra Kumar Mallik (P.W.7), the then S.I. of Police,

Kuhudi Police Outpost received a reliable information that ‘Ganja’ was being transported in a Maruti 800 car bearing registration No.WNW-1043 and the car was being parked on the road side of N.H-5 near Jayamangalpur Chhak its tyre having got punctured. P.W.7 reduced into writing the information received and at once sent intimation to the Superintendent of Police, Khurda, Bhubaneswar and without affording an opportunity to the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of the offender, he immediately rushed to the spot and found the questioned car was being parked on the side of the road and two persons were removing the rear wheel of the car. On being asked, they disclosed that ‘Ganja’ had been kept inside the car and was being transported to Old town, Bhubaneswar. Thereafter, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder, P.W.7 seized the car, contraband articles, drew representative samples and thereafter produced the accused and seized articles at the Police Station, and on completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against those two persons. Both the accused persons faced trial, but the present accused when remained at large and absconded, his case was split-up from the other accused. Once he was apprehended, his trial proceeded separately and on conclusion thereof, the trial court placing reliance on the materials on record held him guilty and sentenced him as aforesaid.

3. The learned counsel for the accused submits that there is no incriminating material to indicate that the accused was in “conscious possession” of the alleged contraband articles found in the vehicle. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that on the selfsame evidence when the co-accused – Sura Gauda acquitted by this Court in a separate appeal, this accused is also entitled to an order of acquittal. The further argument is that the accused being not the registered owner of the car nor found inside the car, even if any such car with alleged ‘Ganja’ was seized, the accused being a stranger to that seizure, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is unsustainable.

4. Assailing such contention, the learned counsel for the State contends that the accused is the owner of the car and he was travelling in that car on the date of occurrence and, therefore, the recovery of ‘Ganja’ was from his exclusive and conscious possession whether or not at the relevant time of his apprehension he was inside the car.

5. Rival contentions need careful evaluation of the evidence on record. So, I sifted the evidence with all care and caution. I am convinced that there is clear and clinching evidence pointing to the fact that the questioned car was detected on N.H.5 near Jayamangalpur Chhak and the raiding party found ‘Ganja’ was being stacked in that car. There is no dispute to it. This aspect is also not challenged. However, on close scrutiny of record, I do not find any pinch of material to hold that the accused was travelling in the aforesaid car nor there is any document to show that he was a registered owner of that car. Admittedly, he was apprehended while the front wheel was being attended. No other evidence being brought on record to inculpate the accused with the