Orissa High Court
Ranjit Karada @ Karad vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party(S) on 22 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4230 of 2024
Ranjit Karada @ Karad .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. S. S. Ray (2), Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. Tej Kumar, ASC
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 22.11.2024
01. 1. Heard.
2. The petitioner is one of the accused in the F.I.R. dated
30.04.2022 in Padmapur P.S. Case No.51 of 2022 for the offences
under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/27-A/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 30.04.2022, while
the informant and his team were performing patrolling duty, they
received information regarding illegal transportation of contraband
ganja in one Mahindra Bolero Pick up van bearing Registration
No.OD-07-H-6112, which was coming from the side of Adava and
was proceeding towards Rayagada. To verify the genuineness, they
proceeded to the spot and detained the Bolero Pick Up van. They
cordoned the vehicle and able to nab the accused one Ananda
Majhi, who was one of the occupants of such vehicle. However,
two other accused persons including the present petitioner could
escape from the vehicle and disappeared in forest. On being asked,
the apprehended person disclosed their name. After verification,
they recovered 1085 kg of contraband ganja from the possession of
the accused persons. The accused persons were also unable to show
any valid document in relating to those contraband articles. Hence,
the F.I.R.
4. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed on
14.11.2023 for the alleged offences under Sections
20(b)(ii)(C)/25/27(A)/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act against the petitioner.
Out of four accused persons, one Ananda Majhi was arrested from
the spot and was forwarded to the Court on 01.05.2022 and
accordingly subjected to trial. The other three accused persons
including the present petitioner being accused No.4 were
absconded. The trial qua the apprehended accused namely Ananda
Majhi was spilt-up. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Judge, Gunupur in T.R. Case No.62 of 2022 vide judgment
dated 30.08.2024 recorded an acquittal in favour of the said
accused. The judgment of acquittal recorded in favour of the co-
accused namely Ananda Majhi has been placed on record.
5. Perusal of the judgment of the learned Court below, it
reveals that the learned trial Court while appreciating the evidence
adduced by the prosecution vis-à-vis the said accused Ananda
Majhi has come to the conclusion that the evidence is not reliable
and suffers from infirmity. Therefore, recorded an acquittal.
Relying upon the said judgment, the present petitioner, who was an
absconding accused has filed the instant case seeking quashing of
the entire criminal prosecution.
6. Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently
argued that the petitioner has been made an accused on the basis of
the confessional statement of the co-accused, who has faced the
trial and has been acquitted. Apart from the confessional statement
of the co-accused, there is no other evidence worth the name
coming forth in the instant case implicating the present petitioner.
Therefore, he submits that after the acquittal of the only accused,
who was arrested and disclosed the name of the present petitioner,
even if, the petitioner is put to trial, it would lead to acquittal of the
petitioner. Therefore, pressing the principle laid down by the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh
vs. State of Punjab and another reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303
and B.S. Joshi & others vs. State of Haryana & another reported
in (2003) 4 SCC 675, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is entitled to the relief he sought in this petition.
7. I have gone through the materials placed before this Court
and carefully analyzed the judgment of the learned trial Court dated
30.08.2024, whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the co-
accused person namely Ananda Majhi. I am of the considered view
that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence, which borne on
record qua the accused, who faced the trial and recorded the
acquittal. The benefit of the said judgment cannot be pressing to
service by the present petitioner, who has been absconding. The
petitioner has also relied upon the order of this Court dated
31.01.2024 passed in CRLMC No.279 of 2023 in the case of
Rakesh Chandra Sahu vrs. State of Odisha. In the said order, in
the similar circumstances, this Court has given benefit of the
acquittal order of the co-accused and quashed the entire proceeding.
But, in that case, this Court had taken note of the fact that the
prosecution has not placed on record the chemical examination
report which eventually went in favour of the accused, who faced
the trial and was acquitted. However, in the instant case, the
prosecution has placed on record the chemical examination report
of the contraband article seized from the possession of the co-
accused and the report is placed on record as Exhibit-22. Hence, the
petitioner cannot derive the benefit of the order of this Court passed
on 31.01.2024 in CRLMC No.279 of 2023 in the case of Rakesh
Chandra Sahu vrs. State of Odisha.
8. Regard being had to the aforementioned discussion, I am
not inclined to entertain the petition at this stage. However, liberty
is granted to the petitioner to appear/surrender before the learned
Court below on or before 20.12.2024 and resort to the remedy
available to him under law.
9. Since the F.I.R. was registered on 30.04.2022 and charge-
sheet has already been filed and the co-accused has also faced the
trial vide a detailed judgment he has been acquitted, this Court feels
it appropriate to direct the learned trial Court to do well to see that
the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within
a period of six months.
10. With this observation, the CRLMC is disposed of.
Reason: Authentication (S.S. Mishra)
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 26-Nov-2024 18:57:43 Judge
Swarna
