The prosecution must prove possession of contraband beyond a reasonable doubt, and non-compliance with procedural requirements can undermine evidence integrity.

JUDGMENT :

D. Dash, J.

1. The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, has called in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24th September, 2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge-Cum- Special Judge, Boudh in 2(a) CC (NDPS) No.02 of 2020 arising out of P.R. No.01/2020-21 of Officer-in-Charge of Excise Station, Manamunda.

The Appellant (accused) thereunder has been convicted for commission of the offence under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, ‘the N.D.P.S. Act’). Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years and pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year commission of the said offence.

2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 02.04.2020 morning, the Sub-Inspector (S.I.) of Excise of Manamunda Station (P.W.2) with his other staff were conducting the patrolling duty at Dapala village area. During then, an information from a reliable source was received regarding storage contraband article by the accused in his dwelling house at Village-Dapala. P.W.2 thus, having immediately reduced the same into writing, informed the said fact to his Superior Authority. Due to want of time, without taking steps for obtaining the search warrant, he (P.W.2) proceeded to the spot as per the information in order to ascertain the veracity of the same. They entered into the house of the accused and after giving their identity to him, ascertained the identification of the accused. At the relevant time, when P.W.2 and others entered into the house, the accused was stitching a jari bag containing ganja and thereafter, another room in the house of the accused, being searched two jari bags were found. Those, being opened, were found to contain contraband ganja. The accused, having failed to produce any authority, those contents of the bags were placed on a tarpaulin and all those being homogenously mixed, weighment was made. P.W.2 from the preliminary test, could ascertain the contents to be nothing but ganja. He then drew two samples in envelopes each containing 50 grams of contraband ganja and marked those A/a and A/b, which were then sealed with paper slips. The rest bulk quantity of ganja kept in three numbers of bags and marked as A, A/1 and A/2. All those were seized under seizure list. The statement of the accused and witnesses were recorded. The seal used for sealing those samples packets as well as the bags was handed over to one independent witness on execution of zimanama. The accused with the seized articles then were produced before the Special Court at Boudh. P.W.2 made a prayer for sending of the sample packet (A/a) to the Divisional Excise Chemical Testing Laboratory, Berhampur for chemical examination, which was allowed and as directed, the Registrar Civil Courts sent the sample packet (one) for chemical examination. The report was received that the sample packet was containing ganja. So, final Prosecution Report was submitted before the Trial Court.

3. During Trial, the prosecution, in total has examined three (3) witnesses and the defence has examined none in support of his defence of denial of false implication. Several documents, being proved from the side of the prosecution, those were admitted in evidence and marked Exts.1 to 8.

4. The Trial Court, upon examination of the evidence both oral and documentary and upon scrutiny of the same, has held the prosecution to have established the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused, having been held guilty for commission of the offence un