Mandatory compliance with statutory provisions under the NDPS Act is essential for lawful search and seizure; deviations may compromise evidential integrity and lead to wrongful convictions.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The appellants question the correctness of the judgment passed by learned Special Judge, Gajapati, Parlakhemundi in G.R. Case No. 19 of 2013 on 15.09.2014, whereby they were convicted for the offence under Sections 20 (b)(ii)-C/29 of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 12 years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each and in default, to undergo R.I. for one year each for the offence under (b)(ii)-C/29 of NDPS Act.

2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 11.07.2013 at about 4 a.m. the IIC of Mohana P.S. received information that some unknown persons were transporting contraband ganja in a vehicle from Antaraba to Berhampur, basing on which he made a Station Dairy Entry No.212 dated 10.07.2013 and instructed the S.I., Sri Murnal Kalo and other police staff, who were already on patrolling duty for the car festival, to proceed towards the spot and to intercept the vehicle. On receipt of such information, the S.I., Sri Kalo, who is the authorized officer of the case, left for Atharanala Chhak on the same night at 10 p.m. and found a vehicle coming from Kirting and was proceeding towards Berhampur. When the police party asked the vehicle to stop, it did not, whereupon the police party chased the vehicle and managed to intercept the same near Atharanala. It was found that the vehicle was occupied by its driver, Narayan Bira and a person was sitting at the rear seat with the other accused persons, namely, Suraj Bahadur and Jyoti Mali @ Sukanta (the present appellants), who belonged to Antaraba area. On being asked, the accused persons are said to have admitted that they were transporting contraband ganja in seven jari bags. The authorized officer thereafter arranged two local witnesses and informed the IIC to depute a Gazetted Officer for search of the accused persons, who exercised their option as such. A weighman was also called to the spot. Thereafter, observing all necessary formalities, the vehicle and the accused persons were searched. Seven jari bags containing contraband ganja to the tune of 105 KGs 635 grams were recovered from the vehicle, which were collected, seized and sealed at the spot after drawing the samples by the authorized officer. The accused persons were thereafter produced before the IIC, arrested and the case was registered. Upon completion of other formalities and investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Sections 20 (b)(ii)-C/29 of NDPS Act and the accused persons were put to trial.

3. The accused persons took the plea of denial and false implication.

4. To prove its case, prosecution examined 9 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents. The prosecution also proved 16 material objects. The defence on the other hand did not adduce any evidence.

5. After analyzing the evidence on record and considering the contentions raised by the defence, learned Special Judge held that the mandatory requirements of the statute as per Section 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act were complied with. It was further held that there was clear evidence to show that the requirement of Sections 55 and 57 of the Act was also duly complied with. Thus, from the evidence, the possession of the contraband ganja being fully established learned Special Judge convicted the accused persons and sentenced them as aforesaid by the impugned judgment.

6. Heard Mr. G.K. Behera, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. P. Tripathy, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

7. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction, Mr. Behera has raised the following p