P.Satyanarayan Vs State

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short N.D.P.S. Act) for having illegal possession and transportation of five quintals and thirteen kilo grams of ganja in Truck No. ABK 799. On that count, they have sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo R.I. for further period of one month.

¶17

2. Heard Ms. Shuvra Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Jateswar Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶18

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29.05.1993 at about 6:20 p.m., while the Excise officials were on patrol duty on the main road of village Pitamahal, they intercepted a truck bearing registration No. AKB 799. The said vehicle was being driven by the accused P. Satyanarayana, and accused A. Venkata Ramana was present therein as the cleaner. Upon suspicion, the vehicle was searched in the presence of an Executive Magistrate. During the search, ten gunny bags, which had been concealed under bunches of bananas, were found loaded in the truck.

¶19

Page 2 of 12

¶20

On opening the said gunny bags, contraband ganja was recovered from each of them. The recovered ganja was duly weighed, samples were drawn therefrom, and the contraband along with the truck and the bananas were seized at the spot in accordance with law. The sample ganja was subsequently sent for chemical examination, and the report of the Chemical Examiner confirmed that the seized substance was ganja. Upon completion of investigation, prosecution report was submitted against both the accused persons. On the stance of complete denial and claim of trial, the appellants were put to trial after framing of charges.

¶21

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined five

¶22

witnesses. Out of them, P.W.1–Benudhar Mohapatro was the SubInspector of Excise, Rayagada, the checking, searching and seizing Officer. P.W.2–Udhab Pradhan was the Excise Inspector, Rayagada, an eye-witness to the search, recovery and seizure of the Ganja from the truck in question. P.W.3–Bijaya Kumar Behera was the Executive Magistrate in whose presence the search, recovery and seizure took place. P.W.4–Dhaneswar Pradhan was the Sub-Inspector of Excise and

¶23

Page 3 of 12

¶24

another eye-witness to the search, recovery and seizure. P.W.5–Laxman Behera is an independent witness to the search, recovery and seizure.

¶25

The defence has also examined three witnesses to support their case, namely, D.W.1, D.W.2 and D.W.3. D.W.1 deposed that the accused were taken to the Excise Office where the officials informed them about detection of liquor and that they neither saw nor knew the accused persons. D.W.2 and D.W.3, the President and Secretary of Surya Chandra Motor Workers Union, Mandapetta, deposed regarding maintenance of membership records of drivers and cleaners and issuance of identity cards to the members, stating that accused Satyanarayana was a member of the said Union working as a driver.

¶26

5. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, found that the accused were apprehended in a truck from which 19 gunny bags containing 5 quintals and 13 kilograms of ganja were recovered during a lawful search conducted by the Excise officials in the presence of an Executive Magistrate. The seizure was duly recorded in the seizure list and representative samples were sent for chemical examination, the

¶27

Page 4 of 12

¶28

report of which confirmed that the seized contraband was ganja. Relying upon the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, including the SubInspector of Excise and the Excise Inspector who conducted the search and seizure, the Court concluded that the accused were in conscious and exclusive possession of the contraband and were transporting the same illegally. Rejecting the defence plea that they were not the driver and cleaner of the truck, the trial Court held that the prosecution had successfully established the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500 each, in default to suffer further imprisonment for one month. Relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced herein for convenience of ready reference:-

¶29

“xxx xxx P.W.5 is the solitary independent eye-witness to the occurrence examined by the prosecution. He deposes that about seven months back, the Excise people came to Pitamahal at about 6 p.m. Two Excise Babu stayed on the road and others went into the village. One truck came and was detained by the Excise Babu on the road. Some smell was coming out of that truck. Both the accused persons were inside that truck being the Driver and Helper. Himself and another while coming on the road were asked by the Excise Babu to remain at the spot to become witnesses. In his presence Excise Babu sent for one Magistrate from Rayagada. The Magistrate came. The Dalla of the truck was covered with tarpaulin M.O.V and tied with ropes M.Os. II

¶30

Page 5 of 12

¶31

and III. In his presence and the Magistrate the tarpaulin was untied and removed from the Dalla and 300 bunches of plantains were found in that Dalla. After the plantains were removed, 19 bags were found in the Dalla which were also removed from the Dalla. The bags were stitched. On opening of the bags some substance which he was told to be Ganja was found inside the bag. In presence of the Magistrate P.W.1 drew up some quantity of Ganja from inside each bag and kept the sample Ganja in 19 separate packets. Before taking the samples all the 19 bags containing Ganja were weighed, but he cannot say the weight. P.W. 1 prepared paper slips where he put his L.T. I. Thereafter P.W.1 sealed the gunny bags containing Ganja and the sample packets with paper slip and thereafter the bags containing Ganja, sample packets, plantains, tarpaulin and the ropes were seized and seizure list was prepared. After the contents were read over, he put his L.T. I. on the seizure list. In the cross-examination he has stated that he has been residing in village Pitamahal since last 20 years and he earns his livelihood by holding a tea-stall. He has admitted that there were two Excise case against him. In one case he was sentenced to pay fine and in another case he was acquitted. He also states that by the time he reached the spot P.W. 1 was talking with the accused persons and the loaded truck was there and at about 11 or 12 mid-night the seizure etc. was over. He has also specifically denied to have come to K.N.K. Rice Mill.

¶32

9. On perusal of the seizure list- Ext. 20 Ι find that the contents of the seizure list are substantially corroborated by the oral evidence of the P.Ws. with regard to the recovery and seizure of the material objects from the possession of the accused persons and about the taking up the samples and preparation of weighnent charts, etc.

¶33

10. With regard to the sending of the samples to the Chemical Examiner P.W.1 has stated that along with the accused he produced the seized articles including the sample packets and the seizure list before the Court on 30.5.93. The court kept the sample packets and directed him to produce the seized stocks of 19 bags of Ganja, tarpaulin and ropes on the next day. On 30th the Court directed to produce the sample packets before the Chemical Examiner,

¶34

Page 6 of 12

¶35

Bhubaneswar with the forwarding letter. He proves the office copy of the forwarding letter- Ext. 23. The Chemical Examiner's report is Ext. 24. On perusal of Ext. 23 I find that 19 paper packets each containing 50 grams of Ganja with court seal were sent for chemical examination by the S. D. J.M., Rayagada. The specimen impression of the seal is also affixed in Ext. 23. Ext. 24 also reveals that 19 packets of sample were received by the Chemical Examiner and the seals of the packets were i tact and identical with the specimen impression of the seal received from the S.D. J.M., Rayagada vide S. D.T.R.L Sa, No. 315 to 333/0/93-94 and after examination the Chemical Examiner found that the sample packets contained Ganja (cannabis).

¶36

11. Thus I find that the P.Ws. are corroborating each other with regard to the search, recovery and seizure of Ganja and other articles including the truck and their evidence is supported by the recitals of the seizure list. The oral evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the production of the sample packets before the Court and sending of the same to the Chemical Examiner is also supported by the office copy of the forwarding letter Ext. 23 as well as the report of the Chemical Examiner- Ext. 24. The oral evidence of P.W.1 and the other Excise staff that the 19 gunny bags recovered from the seized truck contained Ganja which they could know from their experience and training in Ganja field finds corroboration in the report of the Chemical Examiner. Thus from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is crystal clear that Ganja was recovered from the seized truck in the night of 29.5.93. There is absolutely no material on record to presume that P.Ws. might have implicated the accused falsely.

¶37

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

¶38

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

¶39

14. On a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record. I am convicted that the accused persons were in illegal possession of Ganja in 19 bags weighing about 5 quintals 13 K.Gs. making themselves liable for committing the offence under Section 29(b) (i) of the Act.

¶40

15. In the result, both the accused persons are found guilty of the charge under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs

¶41

Page 7 of 12

¶42

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and are convicted thereunder.”

¶43

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput- Jeypore, Camp at Rayagada, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants.

¶44

7. In the present case, all the five prosecution witnesses in their oral

¶45

evidence in unison have supported the prosecution case. P.W.1 was the Inspector, who intercepted the vehicle, in which, the accused persons were carrying the ganja has deposed in the Court that on 29.05.1993 at about 6.20 P.M., they stopped the truck driven by the appellant No.1 and the appellant No.2 was there as a helper. The accused persons told that the truck is loaded with plantains. But, when it was searched, they found that 300 bunches of plantains were in the dalla of the truck along with 19 bags containing ganja. The said witness has also stated that the accused persons expressed their desire to be searched in presence of the Executive Magistrate. Therefore, requisition was sent to the Collector, Rayagada for deputing one Executive Magistrate. P.W.3, the Executive Magistrate reached at the spot at 7.00 P.M. and in his presence, the

¶46

Page 8 of 12

¶47

search was conducted. The recovery of contraband ganja affected from the dalla of the truck was weighed and it was found that 4 quintals 91 kgs. ganja was being transported in 19 bags. The sample was drawn from the seized contraband and the sample packet was marked as M.Os.1/1 to 1/18. It was also deposed by the P.W.1 that a seizure list (Ext.20) was prepared. The gunny bag seized from the truck was marked as M.Os.IV, IV/1 to IV-18. The evidence of P.W.1 reveals that as per the procedure laid down, the search and seizure was carried out.

¶48

The evidence of P.W.2 lends substantial corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1.

¶49

P.W.3 was the Executive Magistrate, who also corroborated the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. The Executive Magistrate deposed that on requisition of the police, he reached at the spot at 7.00 P.M. and found one Ashok Leyland Truck bearing No. ABK 799 on the right side of the road near village Pitamahal. He found both the accused persons standing near the truck. The dalla of the truck was covered with Tarpul (M.O.V) and was tied with ropes (M.Os. II and III). The search was made by P.W.1 in his presence. P.W.1 and the constable removed the tarpaul from

¶50

Page 9 of 12

¶51

the dalla and 300 bunches of plantains were unloaded and thereafter 19 bags which were hidden below the plantains were also recovered. Each bags were stitched and in his presence, bags were reopened and ganja was found inside the bag. P.W.1 drawn 50 grams of ganja from each bag

¶52

and kept it separately with the signature of the witnesses and his signature. After obtaining the sample, the bags were resealed and weighment charts marked as Exts.1 to 19 were prepared. Before the stitching the bags, a paper slip containing their signatures were put inside each of the gunny bag. The seizure list marked as Ext.20 where the signature appears to have Ext.20/5. This witness has been crossexamined by the prosecution but nothing could yield as to draw advantage by the defence.

¶53

P.W.4 also deposed supporting the prosecution case and landing the corroboration to the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3.

¶54

8. In this case, P.W.5 is the only independent witness, who has also supported the case of the prosecution. He has meticulously explained the sequence of event unfolded on 29.05.1993. This witness was also subjected to extensive cross-examination but nothing could be elucidated

¶55

Page 10 of 12

¶56

from his evidence to create any sort of doubt. Therefore, by reading of the evidence of all the witnesses, the exhibits, seizure list and all M.Os., it could be safely inferred that the prosecution could very successfully establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. In that view of the matter, the reasoning recorded by the learned trial Court finding the appellants guilty for offence under Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court against the appellants is upheld.

¶57

At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court has already been served out by the appellants. Therefore, no modification is required to be done in so far as the sentence is concerned.

¶58

9. Taking into consideration the fact that since the appellants have already served out the sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court, this Court finds no reason to impose any further sentence. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.02.1994 passed by the

¶59

Page 11 of 12

¶60

learned Sessions Judge, Koraput,-Jeypore, Camp at Rayagada in Sessions Case No.229 of 1993 is accordingly upheld.

¶61

10. Consequently, and as nothing further survives for adjudication, the

¶62

present Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.

¶63

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

¶64

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 16^th April, 2026/ Swarna