Disposed¶23

Satya Priya Panda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC12 Mar 2026CRLREV/625/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLREV No.625 of 2025; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; Justice V. Narasingh; decided 12.03.2026; NDPS Act Section 25 charge; discharge rejected under Section 227 Cr.P.C.; Additional Sessions-cum-Special Judge, Boudh; Special Case No.21 of 2014 (NDPS); vehicle owner petitioner; ganja more than commercial quantity; no nexus with seizure; mini trial shunned at discharge stage; State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 Larger Bench relied upon; revision not entertained/disposed; expedite trial; driver sole accused deceased; State of Odisha opposite party.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; revision disposed of without interference. The learned Trial court was requested to expedite the trial, and it remains open to the Petitioner to raise all grounds available in law to prove his innocence in the ongoing trial.

Satya Priya Panda Vs State of Odisha — Narcotics (NDPS) | Orissa HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction, should entertain the Criminal Revision assailing the rejection of the Petitioner's discharge application (Section 227 Cr.P.C.) in the NDPS trial. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The approach of Courts while considering charge is settled law, laid down by the Apex Court in its Larger Bench judgment in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568, which is 'no longer res integra' and 'has stood the test of time'; the Petitioner's submissions cannot displace it.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Though the Petitioner's submissions appeared attractive at first brush, they militate against the Apex Court's law because the Petitioner is admittedly the owner of the vehicle from which the contraband (ganja), more than commercial quantity, was recovered.

¶19

Key takeaways

The ground urged for interference (absence of nexus) would amount to conducting a 'mini trial', which has to be shunned while considering an application for discharge.ratio¶21
On considering the rival submissions, the Court is not inclined to entertain this criminal revision.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court (Cuttack) — Justice V. Narasingh — CRLREV No.625 of 2025, decided 12.03.2026: Criminal Revision against the order dated 21.04.2025 of the learned Additional Sessions-cum-Special Judge, Boudh, in Special Case No.21 of 2014 (NDPS), rejecting the Petitioner's (vehicle owner) discharge application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. from charge under Section 25 NDPS Act, NOT entertained and disposed of. Relying on the Apex Court Larger Bench ruling in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568 ('stood the test of time'), the Court held that since the Petitioner is admittedly the owner of the vehicle from which ganja more than commercial quantity was recovered, his plea of no nexus with the seizure would amount to conducting a 'mini trial', to be shunned at the discharge stage. Trial court requested to expedite the trial; Petitioner free to raise all lawful grounds therein.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.625 of 2025

¶2

Satya Priya Panda

¶3

Petitioner

¶4

Mr. B.K. Ragada, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha …. Opposite Party Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

ORDER

12.03.2026

Order No.

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶13

Assailing the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions-cum-Special Judge, Boudh in Special Case No.21 of 2014 (NDPS) rejecting his prayer for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. from charge under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, the present Criminal Revision has been preferred.

¶14

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that even if the prosecution case is accepted at its face value, keeping in view that the Petitioner is admittedly the owner of the offending vehicle and the driver, the sole accused having passed away in the meanwhile, there is no material

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

on record to connect the Petitioner with the alleged offence. Hence, directing him to through the travails of the trial would only be a waste of precious time of the Court and he also ought not to be driven to go through such ignominy.

¶17

And, it is his further submission that the prosecution has not been able to establish the nexus of the Petitioner even remotely with the seizure.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand opposes such prayer and referring to the contours of exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court submits that the ground on which interference is sought cannot be pressed into service at this stage. 5. So far as the approach of the Courts while considering charge is no longer res integra having been settled by the Apex Court in the Larger Bench judgment of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568 , which has stood the test of time.

¶19

Though the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner in the first brush appeared to be very attractive but, on a close scrutiny the same would militate against the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Debendra Nath Padhi (supra), taking into account that the Petitioner is admittedly the owner of the vehicle from which, the

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

contraband (ganja) which is more than commercial quantity was recovered. And, the ground urged seeking interference would amount to conducting a ‘mini trial’ which has to be shunned while considering an application for discharge.

¶22

On considering the rival submission, this court is not inclined to entertain this criminal revision.

¶23

The CRLREV accordingly stands disposed of. 9. The learned Trial court is requested to expedite the trial and it is needless to state that it shall be open for the Petitioner to raise all grounds available in law to prove his innocence in the ongoing trial.

¶24

(V. Narasingh) Judge

¶25

Santoshi

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTOSHI LENKA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 13-Mar-2026 17:50:47

¶28

Page 3 of 3

Satya Priya Panda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Priya Panda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pintu Mallick Vs State of Odisha

Sourav Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Ashok Mandal Vs State of Odisha

Sumit Kumar Dash @ Sumit Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha

Lalatendu Pratap Deo Vs State of Odisha

Manas Ranjan Samal Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur