SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ori) 737

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.
Nandi @ Nandakishore Das & Another - Appellants
Versus
State of Orissa - Respondent
CRA No.46 of 1997
Decided On : 25-09-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ms. Subhashree Sen, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent: Mrs. Sarita Maharana, ASC

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.

Headnote:(A) N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 - Section 20(b) - Criminal appeal against conviction under N.D.P.S. Act alleging non-compliance with Section 42’s statutory safeguards - Prosecution failed to establish compliance with search and seizure protocols, leading to apprehensions regarding the integrity of the evidence. (Paras 8, 12, 16)

(B) On examination of witnesses, critical discrepancies emerged in the testimonies regarding the timing and handling of seized articles, undermining the prosecution's case. The contraband was not adequately secured as mandated under Section 55 of the Act. (Paras 9, 13)

(C) Appellants were acquitted due to insufficient evidence substantiating the charges and the existence of reasonable doubt concerning the prosecution's claims. (Paras 16, 18)

Facts of the case:
Appellants were convicted for possessing 73 kgs. of ganja and fined; trial court relied on testimony from official witnesses, many of whom turned hostile during proceedings.

Findings of Court:
Trial court conviction overturned due to insufficient evidence and non-compliance with statutory provisions regarding search and seizure.

Issues: Whether the statutory safeguards under Sections 42 and 55 of the N.D.P.S. Act were violated; whether discrepancies in witness testimonies could vitiate the prosecution case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that fundamental non-compliance with statutory procedures in search and seizure rendered the prosecution's case untenable; the benefit of doubt must favor the accused when evidence is lacking.

Result: Criminal Appeal allowed; appellants acquitted.

Table of Content
1. criminal appeal overview. (Para 1)
2. details of the seizure and evidence. (Para 5 , 6)
3. trial court's conviction rationale. (Para 7)
4. appellants' non-compliance argument. (Para 8)
5. witness testimonies and their discrepancies. (Para 9 , 10)
6. doubts concerning timing of search. (Para 11 , 12)
7. legal implications of section 50 and 55. (Para 14)
8. judgment on compliance with statutory provisions. (Para 15)
9. appellants' acquittal announced. (Para 16)
10. conclusion of the appeal. (Para 18 , 19)

Judgment :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal filed by the appellants under Section 374 of the Cr. P.C., is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.09.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, Dhenkanal- Angul, Dhenkanal, in Special Case No.21 of 1994/Trial Case No.21 of 1994, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted each of the accused-appellants for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for four years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo further R.I. for one year each.

2. The present case is pending since 1997. On repeated calls on several occasions, none appeared for the appellants. Therefore, Miss Subhashree Sen, Advocate has been appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in this case. The present appeal was heard on 07.08.2025 and after hearing learned counsels for both the parties, judgment was reserved. The parties were directed to submit their respective written note of submissions.

3. Earlier, Mr. Gopal Krushna Mohanty, learned counsel was appearing for the appellants. On 18.09.2023, he had filed the written notes of submission. After hearing was concluded, Miss Subhashree Sen, learned Amicus Curiae has filed another written notes of submission, which has been taken on record.

4. Heard Ms. Subhashree Sen, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants and Mrs. Sarita Maharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State.

5. The prosecution case in brief and terse is that on 27.07.1994, when P.W.9, Rabindranath Sahu, the then S.I. of Excise (E.I. & E.B.), Angul, his staff along with P.W.3, the then C.I. of Police, Angul and Sri R.N. Deo, C.I. of Town Police Station, Angul were performing their duty at village Badakera, late A.K. Tripathy, the then Executive Magistrate, Angul was also with them with the A.P.R. force. At about 1 P.M., on receipt of the information from the reliable source that the accused Nandakishore Das was selling ganja in his house, they immediately proceeded to the spot and raided the house at Jakub. P.W.9 after observing all the formalities of search and seizure, when conducted the house search in presence of the two independent witnesses namely P.Ws. 1 and 2, he recovered 3 gunny bags containing ganja which were kept in a room having tiled roof. He also recovered another bag tied in the carrier of a moped which was contained ganja powder. On weighment, the ganja became 73 kgs. The ganja powder became 8 kgs. P.W.9 seized the above ganja bags (M.O.I, II, III and IV), the moped (Bajaj M-80) (M.O.VII) along with its documents, one consumer card, one Driving License which had contained the photograph of accused Nanda Korhore Das, one alluminium weighing scale (M.O.V), some batakaras (M.O.VI) and one deer’s skin under the seizure list marked Ext.3. He also recovered cash of Rs.1,02,200/- in shape of currency notes of different denominations kept in a paper cartoon under the same seizure list (M.O. VIII). He kept all these articles in different sealed packets affixing his own monogram and paper slips. Before keeping the ganja packets in sealed packets, he collected samples from each gunny bag in presence of the Magistrate and the witnesses which he also kept in different sealed packets. Hence, the F.I.R. After investigation, charge sheet was filed and charges were framed of the offence under Section 20 (b) of the N.D.P.S. Act. On the stance of de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top