Orissa High Court
Satya Sundar Swain vs State Of Odisha on 1 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 3002 of 2022
Satya Sundar Swain .... Petitioner
Ms. Babita Sahu, Advocate
Mr. D.R.Bhokta, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. T.K.Praharaj, SC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
01.12.2022
Order No.
01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is filed at the
behest of the petitioner for quashing of the F.I.R., issuance of NBWA
dated 28th December, 2009 passed in T.R. Case No. 7 of 2009 and
the entire criminal proceeding in connection with G.R. Case No. 02
of 2009(N) corresponding to Jarada P.S. Case No. 100 of 2009
pending in the file of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
Ganjam-Gajapati at Berhampur on the grounds stated therein.
3. Copy of the F.I.R. as at Annexure-1 indicates that Jarada
P.S. Case No. 100 of 2009 was registered under Section 20(b) and 29
of the NDPS Act against the named accused persons.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all other
accused persons have been acquitted of the charges levelled against
them after a full-fledged trial and that apart, the complicity of the
petitioner is alleged on the strength of confessional statement of co-
accused and under the above circumstances, it would be unjustified
to subject him to a trial as the same would amount to abuse of
process of law. A judgment of this Court in respect of some of the
accused persons, a copy of which is at Annexure-3, is referred to by
the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the contents of the
F.I.R. i.e. Anneuxre-1 to suggest that the involvement of the
petitioner is entirely based on the confession of co-accused. It is
claimed that the petitioner was not present at the spot whereas the
accused persons were at the place of interception and apprehended
but later on in course of enquiry they disclosed the name of the
petitioner and hence, on such a disclosure and on the strength of
confessional statements recorded, the petitioner's involvement is
alleged. That apart, since other accused persons have been acquitted
in Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 2012 and batch of cases and few
others who faced trial independently also stood acquitted of the
charges, no real purpose would be served to subject the petitioner to
a full-fledged trial and therefore, the criminal proceeding which has
been initiated and pending before the learned Special court should be
quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the Court.
5. Mr. Praharaj learned counsel for the State on the other
hand submits that the entire of the evidence is to be examined so as
to find out the nature of involvement, if at all the petitioner is
implicated on the basis of the confessional statement simplicitor. It is
claimed that there is some material to indicate that the petitioner is
involved in and dealing with contraband substance. It is claimed by
Mr. Praharaj learned counsel for the State that the whole lot of
evidence collected during investigation is to be gone through and
therefore, the petitioner should be left to face the trial.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in response to the above
submits that if the Court is not inclined to interfere with the criminal
proceeding, the petitioner should at least be directed to surrender
before the learned court below and released on bail as he is involved
in an offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
7. Considering the nature of allegations and the offence
alleged vis-à-vis the petitioner notwithstanding acquittal of other
accused persons vide a judgment of this Court as at Annexure-3, the
Court is of the view that the petitioner may have been implicated on
the strength of the confessional statements or otherwise which is to
freshly examined and since at present NBWA is pending execution
against him, he should participate in the trial and defend himself
against the charge under Section 29 of the NDPS Act. Having said so,
the Court is of the view that though the other accused persons have
been acquitted of the levelled charges, the petitioner should face the
trial. In other words, the Court is of the view that it is not a case
where inherent jurisdiction should be exercised to quash the criminal
proceeding and all the questions which should have been raised
before the learned court below should be left open for a decision
during the trial by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,
Ganjam-Gajapati at Berhampur.
8. Accordingly it is ordered.
9. In the result, CRLMC stands disposed of however with a
direction to the petitioner to surrender before the learned court of
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Ganjam-Gajapati at Berhampur in
connection with T.R. Case No. 7 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. Case
No. 02 of 2009(N) arising out of Jarada P.S. Case No. 100 of 2009
on or before 20th December, 2022 and in the event he surrenders
within the time stipulated, the court below shall release him on bail
subject to conditions and the petitioner is also granted liberty to raise
all the grounds and defend himself during trial which shall be
considered as per and in accordance with law.
10. Urgent certified copy be issued as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
kabita
