IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K. Sahoo, J.
Pradeep Panda & Ors.. – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent
JCRLA No. 70 of 2016 & JCRLA No. 71 of 2016 (From the judgment and order dated 04.11.2016 passed by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Berhampur, Ganjam in 2(a) C.C. Case No. 20/2012(N)/T.R. No. 22 of 2015.)
Decided On : 23-09-2022
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Illegal Possession and Transportation of Ganja - Section 20(b)(ii)(C) - Summary of Acts and Sections: N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, Section 20(b)(ii)(C), Section 35, Section 54 - The court discussed the compliance of section 42, section 50, and section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act, and the burden of proof under section 35 and section 54. The court found the appellants guilty under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were found in conscious possession of 220 kilograms of ganja and transporting the same in a car without authorization. The prosecution case was based on the recovery of ganja from the appellants' possession and the vehicle, while the appellants denied the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellants guilty of illegal possession and transportation of ganja based on the evidence of official witnesses, compliance with statutory provisions, and failure to rebut the presumption under sections 35 and 54 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
Issues: The issues included non-supporting of the prosecution case by an independent witness, the conducting officer being the investigating officer, non-compliance of section 42, section 50, and section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act, and non-production of Malkhana Register.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that non-supporting of the prosecution case by an independent witness does not affect the credibility of the prosecution case. It also ruled that the investigating officer being the conducting officer does not automatically vitiate the investigation. The court found compliance with section 42, section 50, and section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act, and held that non-production of Malkhana Register was not necessary in this case.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the appellants were found guilty under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
JUDGMENT
S.K. Sahoo, J. - The appellant Pradeep Panda and Raghunath Sahu faced trial for the offence punishable under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereafter 'N.D.P.S. Act') along with co-accused Kiran Kumar Pati who was separately charged for the offence under section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with section 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act in the Court of the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Berhampur, Ganjam in 2(a) C.C. Case No. 20/2012(N)/T.R. No. 22 of 2015 on the accusation that on 04.06.2012 at about 5.30 a.m., both the appellants were found in conscious possession of 220 kilograms of ganja (cannabis) and transporting the same in a Tata Indica car bearing registration No.OR-02W-5419 without having any authority or licence to possess the same and the co- accused Kiran Kumar Pati being the owner of the said car knowingly permitted the appellants to use the car for commission of transporting ganja in contravention of the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act.
The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 04.11.2016 while acquitting the co-accused Kiran Kumar Pati of all the charges, found the appellant guilty of the offence charged and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh) each, in default to pay the fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each.
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that P.W.7 Sarat Chandra Bhanja, S.I. of Excise, E.I. & E.B.(S.D.), Berhampur received reliable information regarding illegal transportation of ganja at Dengaosta to Seragada side on 04.06.2012 at about 3.00 a.m.. He reduced the information into writing and gave written intimation (Ext.11) to his higher authority i.e. Siba Prasad Gantayat (P.W.6), who was working as Inspector in- charge of Excise, E.I. & E.B. Unit-II, Berhampur. Then P.W.7 along with other excise officials proceeded to Narasinghagada Chhak under Patapur police station to work out the information.
They reached at the spot by 5.20 a.m. and while performing patrolling duty at about 5.30 a.m., they detected one Indica car bearing registration No. OR-02W-5419 coming from the side of Dengaosta and going towards Palaspur and found two persons inside the car, one person was driving the car and another person were sitting adjacent to him in the car. After detaining the car, P.W.7 disclosed his identity to those two persons and also ascertained their identification and the appellant Raghunath Sahu was found to be driver of the vehicle and the appellant Pradeep Panda was found sitting in the front seat. Since smell of ganja was coming from inside the car, P.W.7 called P.W.1 Kali Charan Barala, who was passing by that way and requested him to remain present as a witness. P.W.7 gave written option to the appellants about their right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or an Executive Magistrate, but both the appellants expressed their willingness in writing to be searched by P.W.7.
P.W.7 gave his personal search before P.W.1 and then the car was searched and six jerry bags containing ganja were recovered, out of which three were kept at the backside seat and three were kept in the dickey of the car. P.W.7 put the Sl. Nos.1 to 6 on six jerry bags. He opened each of the bags one after another and tested a handful of ganja from each bag by rubbing the same in his palm so also by burning the same and from its smoke, colour, text and from the departmental experience of thirty three years, he came to the conclusion that the recovered articles were nothing but cannabis. He prepared drug testing chart and on weighment of each jerry bags by means of spring balance, the total quantity of ganja came to be 220 kilograms.
Since the appellants did not disclose the source from which they collected such ganja and admitted their guilt, P.W.7 sealed the jerry bags and put the impression of brass seal on each of the jerry bags so also affixed
The burden of proof under sections 35 and 54 of the N.D.P.S. Act, compliance with statutory provisions, and the credibility of official witnesses were central legal principles established in the judg....
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act vitiates the conviction, especially where the prosecution relies solely on police testimony without corroboration from independent witness....
The prosecution must provide clear, cogent, and clinching evidence to substantiate the charges under the N.D.P.S. Act, and compliance with the provisions of the Act is crucial in determining the guil....
The prosecution's burden to prove the recovery of contraband from the accused, the presumption under Section 35, and the link between the contraband and the accused were central legal principles esta....
Possession of narcotics requires no personal search compliance under Section 50 when found during public checks; evidence established conscious possession leads to conviction under the NDPS Act.
The court affirmed the conviction under the NDPS Act, emphasizing that procedural lapses do not invalidate the trial when no prejudice is demonstrated, and the prosecution established possession and ....
Non-compliance with statutory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act regarding search and seizure vitiates the prosecution case, warranting acquittal on grounds of reasonable doubt.
Compliance with procedural requirements under the NDPS Act is essential; failure to ensure due process can undermine the prosecution's case, resulting in acquittal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.