Strict proof is required for stringent provisions, and failure to follow mandatory requirements in search and seizure can cast doubt on the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT

S.K. Panigrahi, J. - The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 18.06.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judgecum Special Judge, Nayagarh in T.R. Case No.2 of 2011 convicting the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the instant case are that on 14.09.2010, the IIC of Sadar P.S. Nayagrah Sri Jagal Kumar Mallik was performing patrolling duty on the Mahipur and Malisahi Road. At around 6.15 P.M., a Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.OR-02AP-2595 sped past the patrolling vehicle towards Malisahi thus arousing the IIC's suspicion. The IIC proceeded to chase the vehicle and apprehended it between village Chahili and Raipur.

3. Upon stopping the vehicle, the IIC confronted and questioned the two occupants as to why there was a strong pungent smell emanating from the vehicle. The occupants then allegedly, admitted to carrying and bringing 'ganja' in the vehicle from the Jeypore Chitrakonda area. As the area where the vehicle was apprehended was a forest area, the vehicle and its occupants were moved to the nearby Malisahi O.P. The accused gave their identities as Bulu @ Jagabandhu Sahoo, i.e., present appellant and Bikali Singh and they chose for the vehicle to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate and a Senior Police officer. The IIC accordingly made a requisition to the S.P., in pursuance of which Sri Kalpataru Behera, O.A.S. Tahasildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Nayagarh accompanied by S.D.P.O., Nayagarh arrived at the spot and the vehicle was searched in their presence at Malisahi O.P. A huge quantity of 'ganja' in 14 gunny sacks was recovered, which weighed 156 kgs and 150 grams. The weighing machine was seized and sealed samples of the 'ganja' were collected by the IIC using his brass seal. The mobile phones of both the accused were also seized for further investigation. The IIC arrested the accused persons and drew up a plain paper F.I.R. himself on his own information.

4. The IIC himself took up investigation of the case and during the course of investigation recorded statements of the witnesses, seized the vehicle and its documents. The matter was put before the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Nayagarh as T.R. Case No.2 of 2011, wherein after an elaborate examination of all the evidence, submissions and counter submissions, the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Nayagarh vide his order dated 18.06.2014 was pleased to convict the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default of which the present appellant would have to undergo six additional months of rigorous imprisonment.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial court has arrived at its conclusion of conviction erroneously by ignoring the material discrepancies in the prosecution's witness testimonies. The counsel for the appellant contends that the depositions and other materials available on record were not verified properly and thus incorrectly relied upon. It is also strongly contended by the counsel for the appellant that the learned trial court did not take into consideration the mandatory provisions of detection, search and seizure in the instant case highlighting certain aspects of the search and seizure that occurred in the present case.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State has vehemently denied any material irregularities in the entire search and seizure that occurred in the present case. The learned counsel for the State also contended that the learned trial court's order is very well reasoned and no error is ap