Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Ori) 100

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Sibo Sankar Mishra, J.
Bijaya Kumar Sahu & another - Appellants
Versus
State of Odisha - Respondent
CRA No.205 of 1995
Decided On : 12-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Debi Prasad Pattnaik, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mrs. Sarita Moharana, Additional Standing Counsel

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 recovery beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 20(b)(i) - Conviction for possession of ganja - Appellant found guilty and sentenced to four years imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/- - Appeal survives only for one appellant due to death of co-accused - Prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt through consistent official testimonies - Minor procedural discrepancies deemed non-prejudicial - Conviction affirmed but sentence modified to one year imprisonment - Fine maintained. (Paras 1, 18, 20)

(B) Due process under NDPS Act - Compliance with sections and procedures outlined is crucial yet minor non-compliance does not vitiate the trial if no prejudice is shown - The burden of proof remains on the prosecution to establish possession and recovery of contraband. (Paras 12, 16)

(C) Evidence assessment - Reliance on credible official witness testimony can validate conviction despite discrepancies with independent witnesses' accounts; the defence argument regarding false implication deemed improbable. (Paras 7, 14)

Table of Content
1. conviction under ndps act for possession of ganja. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. defense argues evidence inadequacies and procedural faults. (Para 5 , 7)
3. court affirms trial court's findings based on credible testimonies. (Para 6 , 10 , 12)
4. statutory presumption of possession recognized under ndps act. (Para 8 , 16)
5. sentence modified; conviction upheld. (Para 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.06.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Balangir in Sessions Case No. 8 of 1995, whereby the appellant and the co-accused were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “NDPS Act”) and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years each and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- each, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year each.

2. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant No.2 (Bidyadhar Sahu) is stated to have expired and accordingly, the appeal survives only in respect of appellant No.1, namely Bijaya Kumar Sahu. In so far as the deceased appellant No.2 is concerned, the appeal stands abated in the absence of application under Section 394 of Cr.P.C. by his L.R. or next friend. The written instruction is already on record.

3. Heard Mr. Debi Prasad Pattnaik, learned counsel, for the appellants and Mrs. Sarita Moharana, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

4. The prosecution case in brief is that on 14.10.1994, P.W.1, a Constable attached to G.R.P.S., Titilagarh, while performing train guard duty in Hirakhand Down Express along with P.W.2 and other staff, entered the 1^st Class compartment of the train at Kesinga Railway Station and found the appellant and the co-accused sitting alone inside the compartment along with three attaché cases and two air-bags. On being questioned, both the accused persons claimed ownership over the said containers. P.W.1 noticed smell of ganja emanating from the said containers and on further questioning, the accused persons admitted that the containers contained ganja. When the train reached Titilagarh Railway Station, P.W.1 with the help of his colleagues, brought the accused persons along with the said luggage to G.R.P.S., Titilagarh and submitted a written report before P.W.6, the Officer-in-Charge, who is an empowered officer under the NDPS Act. Thereafter, P.W.6 called local witnesses, opened the containers in the presence of witnesses and the accused persons, found ganja inside the containers, got the same weighed through P.W.4 and found the total weight to be about 31 kilograms. P.W.6 seized the contraband and the containers under seizure list Ext.2, collected samples from each container, sealed the same in presence of witnesses and the accused persons, arrested the accused persons and forwarded them along with the seized articles to the Court. The samples were subsequently sent to R.F.S.L., Sambalpur and the chemical examiner’s report confirmed the samples to be ganja. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted.

5. The plea of the defence was one of complete denial. The stand taken was that the accused persons had gone to the railway station to receive their relatives and were falsely implicated by the G.R.P. staff on account of refusal to pay the alleged subscription for Dussehra festivities. The prosecution examined 6 P.Ws. In support of their defence, the accused persons examined themselves as D.Ws.

6. The learned trial Court, upon meticulous appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had successfully established the charge under Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court relied primarily upon the consistent and cogent testimonies of the official witnesses, particularly the evidence of the constables who first inter