Compliance with statutory procedures under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is mandatory; failure to prove such compliance leads to reasonable doubt and potential dismissal of the prosecution case.

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This criminal appeal by the convict is directed against the impugned judgment dated 17.06.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Athagarh in Special Case No.05 of 2022 arising out of Excise Mobile-II, Cuttack P.R. No.78 of 2022-23 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable U/S. 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, “the Act”) and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default whereof, to undergo RI for a further period of 1 year with benefit of set off of pre-trial detention against the substantive sentence.

2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that on 23.07.2022 at about 4.30 A.M., while PW.4-Sanjeet Barla, Inspector of Excise was performing patrolling duty at Kuspangi road along with staff, received reliable information that a Mahindra Bolero is coming from Khuntuni side carrying Contraband Ganja and accordingly, PW.4 reduced the said information into writing and immediately informed the Superintendent of Excise, Cuttack over phone. At about 5.15 AM, PW.4 and staff noticed one Bolero jeep coming from Khuntuni side and they accordingly, stopped the vehicle near Banadurga Temple near Bali Chowk for verification and found the accused driver-cum-convict along with one packet on the seat of the driver and two other packets on the middle seat of the vehicle behind the driver seat. PW.4 then searched the bags and recovered 21Kgs of Contraband Ganja each from the three bags; all total 63Kgs of Contraband Ganja in presence of witnesses. PW.4 accordingly, procured one independent witness PW6-Satyajit Sahu and seized the Contraband articles and arrested the convict and produced him along with the seized Contraband article before the learned Special Judge, Athagarh. PW.4 also made prayer to the concerned Court for drawing of sample and accordingly, the samples were drawn and sent to the Excise Divisional Laboratory, Central Division, Cuttack through PW.1- Manmath Singh. Further, PW.4 also took up the investigation of the case which culminated in submission of Prosecution Report (PR) against the convict for commission of offence punishable U/S.20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act.

2.1. Finding prima facie materials, the learned Special Judge, Athagarh took cognizance of the offence U/S.20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Act and proceeded further resulting in the trial in the present case, when the convict pleaded not guilty to the charge for commission of aforesaid offence. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 06 witnesses, proved 21 documents under Exts.P-1 to 21 and identified Material Objects MO-I to MO-V including the samples as against the oral evidence of four witnesses DWs.1 to 5. In the course of trial, the plea of the convict was denial simplicitor and false implication. In addition, the convict also took a plea in his statement U/S.313 of CrPC that on the relevant day and time, while he was returning to Bhubaneswar from Naktideol after dropping the passenger, he was caught at Tangi Tollgate and the Excise staff demanded Rs.30,000/- from him, but when he denied they took Rs.20,000/- from his money purse, but when he protested, they planted a false case against him.

2.2. On conclusion of trial, after analyzing the evidence on record upon hearing the parties, the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment convicting the appellant and sentenced him to the punishment indicated supra. Being dissatisfied with the conviction and sente