Orissa High Court
Bhikari Charan Sahoo vs State Of Odisha on 7 March, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No.132 of 1995
Bhikari Charan Sahoo ..... Appellant
Mr. N. Jena, Amicus Curiae
-versus-
State of Odisha ..... Respondent
Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
07.03.2025
Order No.12
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. N. Jena, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the
Appellant and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate
appearing for the State.
3. The present appeal has been filed challenging the impugned
Judgment dtd.22.04.1995 so passed by the learned second Addl.
Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Sessions Trial No. 194 of 1992/34 of
1992 arising out of G.R. Case No.215/1990.
4. It is contended that on 04.05.1990 when a search was made in the
shop premises of the present Appellant, 80 grams of Ganja (M.O. I)
was found. Accordingly, Salipur P.S. Case No. 88 dtd.04.05.1990
was registered against the present Appellant for the offence under
Sec. 20-b (i) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Accordingly, Appellant faced
the trial for the offence under Sec. 20-b (i) of the Act before the
learned second Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Sessions Trial No.
194 of 1992/34 of 1992.
4.1. It is contended that on such initiation of the proceeding the
Appellant was arrested and remained in custody. It is further
contended that save and except the statement of P.W. 10, all other
P.Ws indicated nothing against the Appellant and the learned trial
court solely relying on the statement of P.W. 10, convicted the
Appellant for the offence under Sec. 20-b (i) of the Act.
4.2. It is contended that since the quantity of NDPS material seized
is only to the tune of 80 grams of Ganja and that was also recovered
from the shop where the Appellant was a salesman, taking into
account the quantity involved, the conviction and sentence passed
awarding imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
and in default to undergo R.I. for six (6) months basing on the
statement of P.W. 10 only is not sustainable in the eye of law.
4.3. It is also contended that out of the sentence so imposed,
Appellant remained as an undertrial Prisoner for a pretty long period
and after pronouncement of the Judgment on dtd.22.04.1995, the
Appellant remained in custody till he was released on bail vide order
dtd.19.05.1995. It is also contended that the Appellant at no point of
time has violated the terms and condition of bail. It is accordingly
contended that taking into account the imprisonment already
undergone, the appeal be disposed of by modifying the sentence to
the period undergone.
5. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate basing on the
available materials contended that since it is well proved by the
prosecution that the Appellant was in possession of 80 grams of
ganja, taking into account the materials placed and the evidence laid
by the prosecution, the Appellant has been rightly convicted and
sentenced to undergo the imprisonment so awarded. It is accordingly
contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the
impugned Judgment.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the
Appellant was arrested in connection with possession of 80 grams of
ganja. This Court finds that the same was duly proved by the
prosecution and the seized material was also found to be ganja.
Therefore, this Court taking into account the available materials,
though is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment
dt.22.04.1995, but is inclined to modify the sentence to the period
already undergone.
7. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal stands disposed of.
8. Registry is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the learned
Amicus Curiae towards his professional fees.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
