The prosecution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt with clinching material, especially in cases involving stringent punishment.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Sahoo, J.

1. The appellant Mayadhar Kabi faced trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balasore in Special Case No. 13/36 of 2010 for offence punishable under section 20(b)(n)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (here after N.D.P.S. Act') on the accusation that on 05.05.2010 at about 8 a.m., he was found in unlawful possession of Ganja (cannabis) weighing 246 kg. in six plastic jerry bags in village Rampur (Sasanasahi).

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 13.03.2012 found the appellant guilty of the offence charged and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh), in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for period of one year.

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 05.05.2010 while P.W. 5 Amarendra Kumar Jena, Inspector of Excise, E.I. and E.B., Unit-II, Cuttack was performing patrolling duty along with his staff at Rampur chhak on Khaira Agarpada road during the evening hours, he got reliable information regarding possession of huge quantity of ganja in the house of the appellant and accordingly, after recording the statement of the informer, he sent a copy of the information to the Deputy Commissioner of Excise through Sarat Chandra Das, Excise Constable who was present at the spot and he also intimated this fact over phone and proceeded to the spot without requisition of the Executive Magistrate fearing concealment or whisking away of the contraband articles and after ascertaining the house of the appellant from villagers, he conducted search of the house of the appellant in presence of witnesses after observing necessary formalities of search and recovered six plastic jerry bags containing ganja which were found to be 246 kg. in toto. He seized the jerry bags and prepared seizure list and sealed the bags with proper seal taking signatures of the appellant and the witnesses. He affixed the personal brass seal on each of the bag and the brass seal was handed over in the zima of Patitapaban Kar (P.W. 4). The appellant was arrested and he was produced in the Court of Special Judge, Balasore with documents. On the direction of learned Special Judge, the learned S.D.J.M., Balasore collected samples from each bag and sent it to the Chemical Examiner who on examination found it to be ganja. After receipt of Chemical Examination Report and on completion of investigation, P.W. 5 submitted the prosecution report.

3. The appellant was charged under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During course of trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses.

P.W. 1 Hrusikesh Hota was the A.S.I., of Excise attached to E.I. & E.B., Cuttack who stated about seizure of six bags containing ganja from the house of the appellant under seizure list (Ext. 2).

P.W. 2 Narayan Ch. Behera was the R.I. at Bartana Circle under Khaira Tahsil and on the requisition of Excise Inspector to the Tahsildar, Khaira, he was deputed to the spot and he prepared the sketch map of the spot room on 19.06.2010. He disclosed that the house in question was owned by Kanhu Kabi, son of Nidhi Kabi of village Rampur. After death of Kanhu Kabi, his two sons Mayadhar Kabi (appellant) and Gayadhar Kabi possessed the house. He further stated that the appellant was residing in the spot house at the relevant point of time. Ext. 3 is the report prepared by P.W. 2 and Ext. 4 is the spot map.

P.W. 3 Krushna Ch. Pati stated about the search of the house of the appellant conducted on 05.05.2010 but he did not support the prosecution case for which he was declared hostile.

P.W. 4 Patitapabana Kar stated to have put his signature at Rampur chhak on some documents.

P.W. 5 Amarendra Kumar Jena was the Inspector of Excise, E.I. & E.B., Cuttack who not only conducted search and seizure but also the Investigating Officer of the case.

The prosecution exhibited tw