Orissa High Court
Manua @ Manoj Kuamr Rout vs State Of Odisha on 7 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.193 of 2021
Manua @ Manoj Kuamr Rout .... Petitioner
Mr. Arun Kumar Budhia
Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr.M.K.Mohanty,
Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
ORDER
07.12.2021.
Order No.
06. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. In the present application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,
the Petitioner seeks quashment of the proceedings in Special
Case No.3(A) of 2015 pending before the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Athagarh in so far as it
relates to him.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 9th September, 2015,
the Sub-Inspector of Excise, Athagarh Charge while
performing patrolling duties in Khuntuni Market, received
reliable information regarding storage of some Ganja in a
CRLMC No.193 of 2021
// 2 //
Dhaba named "Maa Dhaba" and that the said Ganja was being
supplied there from to different destinations. Proceeding to the
spot the excise staff found one Chandan Ram, owner of the
said Dhaba and one Saroj Kumar Rout present there. On seeing
the excise staff the said Saroj Kumar Rout fled away while
Chandan Ram was detained. In course of search of the Dhaba
six white colour jari basta (polythene bags) containing Ganja
were found along with a black colour Bajaj Discover Motor
Cycle bearing Regn. No.0R-02-AN-9366. The Ganja along
with motor cycle was seized and the said Chandan Ram was
arrested. In course of investigation, basing on the statement of
Chandan Ram the involvement of Saroj Kumar Rout also came
to light. Accordingly, the Prosecution Report No.53 of 2015-
16 was submitted by the S.I. of Excise in the court of learned
Special Judge, Athagarh. In course of further investigation, the
owner of the motor cycle namely, Manoj Kumar Rout, i.e. the
present Petitioner, was summoned by the I.O. to his office to
explain his role in the alleged occurrence. But despite repeated
summons, he did not appear. Since the registration certificate
stood in the name of Manoj Kumar Rout and he avoided to
appear despite repeated attempts made by the I.O., it was held
that he was also involved in the offence and accordingly final
prosecution report was submitted in the case on 21st January,
2016 adding him as an accused along with Chandan Ram and
Saroj Kumar Rout. The Petitioner is aggrieved by his
arraignment as an accused in the case and, hence, seeks
quashment of the proceedings in so far as it relates to him.
CRLMC No.193 of 2021
// 3 //
4. Heard Mr. A.K.Budhia, learned counsel for the Petitioner,
and Mr. M.K.Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the
State.
5. It is submitted by Mr. Budhia that the Petitioner is a
Government servant being employed as a driver in the Public
Works Department (R & B), Mechanical Division and on the
date of occurrence i.e. on 9th September, 2015, he was
discharging his official duties at Bhubaneswar. In support of
such contention, Mr.Budhia has referred to the copy of the
vehicle log book of Ambassador Car bearing Regn. No.0R-
02-AR-5410 of which the Petitioner is said to be the driver. It is
further contended by Mr. Budhia, that except for the fact of
ownership of the motor cycle, there is absolutely no material to
implicate the Petitioner in the case. Therefore, according to Mr.
Budhia continuance of the proceedings against the Petitioner
would amount to an abuse of the process of Court.
6. Per contra, Mr. Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel,
while fairly submitting that there is no independent material
against the Petitioner yet, contends that his very conduct raises
reasonable suspicion about his involvement. Elaborating, on
this argument, Mr. Mohanty submits that if the Petitioner was
really innocent, then there was no reason for him to evade the
summons issued by the I.O. repeatedly. Further, the Petitioner
has not offered any plausible explanation as to why the
CRLMC No.193 of 2021
// 4 //
motorcycle in question was found at the spot of the occurrence
if he had no role to play therein.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival
submissions as noted above and also perused the materials on
record including the detailed case diary and the final
Prosecution Report produced by learned Addl. Standing
Counsel. In particular, I have perused the statement of co-
accused-Chandan Ram and the witnesses namely, Anil Kumar
Mantri and Bijaya Kumar Bhanja . None of them have even
whispered a word about the so called involvement of the
Petitioner in the alleged occurrence. Significantly, in the final
P.R. submitted by the I.O. under the heading 'Findings of the
Case', it is stated as under:-
" As a registered owner of the seized Motor Cycle
I have repeated summons to Manoj Kuamr Rout
to appear before me for examine and
investigation to proof his involvement in this
case. But my repeated summons he did not appear
before me as well as he absconded from his house
during my visit to his resident to avoid arrest. So,
it prove that the owner of the seized motorcycle
Manoj Kuamr Rout highly involvement in this
case and on his knowledge his brother Saroj
Kumar Rout using the motorcycle for illegally
Ganja business."
In conclusion also it is stated as under:-
"In this case Manoj Kuamr Rout, age 44 years,
S/o.Ganesh Chandra Rout, At-Qr.No.Type-II, R-9,
CRLMC No.193 of 2021
// 5 //
Unit-VI, PWD Colony,Bhubaneswar-18 was the
registered owner of the seized motorcycle was
absconded and non-appear before me proves that
he is highly involved in this case. Who also could
not be arrested in this case for his involvement
and committed offence under Section 20(b) (ii)(C)
of NDPS Act, 1985."
Thus, it is evident that the so called abscondance of the
Petitioner and his non-appearance before the I.O. has been
taken as proof of his involvement and commission of offence
under Section 20(b)(ii) (C) of the NDPS Act, 1985. On such
facts, the question posed before this Court is, whether the same
justifies arraignment of the Petitioner as an accused in the case.
8. In this context, it would be apposite to refer to the provision
under Section 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act, which reads as under:-
"20. Punishment for contravention in relation to
cannabis plant and cannabis- Whoever, in
contravention of any provision of this Act or any
rule or order made or condition of licence granted
thereunder:-
(a) Cultivates any cannabis plant; or
(b) Produces, manufactures, possesses sells,
purchases, transports, imports inter-State,
exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be
punishable,-
(i)Where such contravention relates to clause (a)
with rigorous imprisonment for a term which
may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine which may extend to one lakh
rupees; and
(ii) Where such contravention relates to sub-clause
(b),-
CRLMC No.193 of 2021
// 6 //
(A)and involves small quantity, with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to
[one year], or with fine which may extend to
ten thousand rupees, or with both;
(B) and involves quantity lesser than commercial
quantity but greater than small quantity, with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may
extend to ten years, and with fine which may
extend to one lakh rupees;
(C) and involves commercial quantity, with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than ten years but which may extend
to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine
which shall not be less than one lakh rupees
and which may extend to two lakh rupees:
Provided that that the Court may, for reasons to
be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine
exceeding two lakh rupees.
A bare reading of the provision would make it
abundantly clear that for the same to be applied, it must be
proved that the accused must be producing, manufacturing,
possessing, selling, purchasing, transporting, importing inter-
State, exporting inter-State or using cannabis. Therefore, for to
come within the mischief of Clause (b) of Section 20 of the
Act, the accused must be proved to have indulged in any one
or more of the aforementioned acts. Coming to the facts of the
case at hand, admittedly, ganja was found stored inside the
Dhaba for being distributed to different places. There is no
allegation as such that the motorcycle found near the Dhaba
was being utilized for such transportation. It has already been
discussed herein before that there is nothing in the evidence
CRLMC No.193 of 2021
// 7 //
collected by the investigating agency to even remotely suggest
that the Petitioner was in any way involved in the alleged
storage or distribution of ganja. There is not even a whisper
that the Petitioner's motorcycle was being so utilized. On the
contrary, the only thing that has been stated against the
Petitioner is his non-appearance before the I.O., despite being
summoned repeatedly. So, only because the Petitioner happens
to be the registered owner of the motorcycle, and that it was
found near the spot, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be
said that he was also involved in the alleged occurrence. On
such flimsy ground also, the chance of conviction of the
accused appears to be entirely bleak.
9. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court,
arraignment of the Petitioner as an accused in the case is
entirely unjustified and cannot, therefore, be sustained in the
eye of law. As a corollary, it must be held that continuance of
the proceeding against him, that too, under an Act as stringent
as N.D.P.S. Act, would definitely amount to an abuse of
process of the court warranting thereby interference by this
Court in exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C.
10. For the foregoing reasons, therefore, the CRLMC succeeds.
The proceeding in Special Case No.3(A) of 2015 of the court
learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Athagarh
arising out P.R.No.53 of 2015-16 of S.I. of Excise, Athagarh
CRLMC No.193 of 2021
// 8 //
Charge in so far as it relates to the Petitioner- accused(Manua
@ Manoj Kumar Rout ) is hereby quashed.
11. The CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
(Sashikanta Mishra)
Judge
A.K.Behera
CRLMC No.193 of 2021
