Orissa High Court
Dambarudhara Dash vs State Of Odisha on 18 March, 2025
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA NO.650 of 2024
(An appeal U/S.374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 against the judgment passed by
Shri P.K. Sahoo, Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Spl.
Judge, Athagarh in Special Case No.05 of 2022/C.I.S.
No.05 of 2023 arising out of Excise Mobile-II, Cuttack
PR No.78 of 2022-23).
Dambarudhara Dash .... Appellant
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. B.C. Ghadei, Advocate
For : Mr. S.K. Rout, Addl. PP
Respondent
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:18.03.2025 (ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. This criminal appeal by the convict is directed
against the impugned judgment dated 17.06.2024
passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Judge, Athagarh in Special Case No.05 of
2022 arising out of Excise Mobile-II, Cuttack P.R.
No.78 of 2022-23 convicting the appellant for
commission of offence punishable U/S. 20(b)(ii)(C) of
Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (in short, "the Act") and sentencing him to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 10 years and
to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default whereof, to
undergo RI for a further period of 1 year with benefit
of set off of pre-trial detention against the
substantive sentence.
2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that on
23.07.2022 at about 4.30 A.M., while PW.4-Sanjeet
Barla, Inspector of Excise was performing patrolling
duty at Kuspangi road along with staff, received
reliable information that a Mahindra Bolero is coming
from Khuntuni side carrying Contraband Ganja and
accordingly, PW.4 reduced the said information into
writing and immediately informed the Superintendent
of Excise, Cuttack over phone. At about 5.15 AM,
PW.4 and staff noticed one Bolero jeep coming from
Khuntuni side and they accordingly, stopped the
vehicle near Banadurga Temple near Bali Chowk for
verification and found the accused driver-cum-convict
along with one packet on the seat of the driver and
two other packets on the middle seat of the vehicle
behind the driver seat. PW.4 then searched the bags
and recovered 21Kgs of Contraband Ganja each from
the three bags; all total 63Kgs of Contraband Ganja
in presence of witnesses. PW.4 accordingly, procured
one independent witness PW6-Satyajit Sahu and
seized the Contraband articles and arrested the
convict and produced him along with the seized
Contraband article before the learned Special Judge,
Athagarh. PW.4 also made prayer to the concerned
Court for drawing of sample and accordingly, the
samples were drawn and sent to the Excise Divisional
Laboratory, Central Division, Cuttack through PW.1-
Manmath Singh. Further, PW.4 also took up the
investigation of the case which culminated in
submission of Prosecution Report (PR) against the
convict for commission of offence punishable
U/S.20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act.
2.1. Finding prima facie materials, the learned
Special Judge, Athagarh took cognizance of the
offence U/S.20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Act and proceeded
further resulting in the trial in the present case, when
the convict pleaded not guilty to the charge for
commission of aforesaid offence. In the course of
trial, the prosecution examined altogether 06
witnesses, proved 21 documents under Exts.P-1 to 21
and identified Material Objects MO-I to MO-V
including the samples as against the oral evidence of
four witnesses DWs.1 to 5. In the course of trial, the
plea of the convict was denial simplicitor and false
implication. In addition, the convict also took a plea
in his statement U/S.313 of CrPC that on the relevant
day and time, while he was returning to Bhubaneswar
from Naktideol after dropping the passenger, he was
caught at Tangi Tollgate and the Excise staff
demanded Rs.30,000/- from him, but when he denied
they took Rs.20,000/- from his money purse, but
when he protested, they planted a false case against
him.
2.2. On conclusion of trial, after analyzing the
evidence on record upon hearing the parties, the
learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment
convicting the appellant and sentenced him to the
punishment indicated supra. Being dissatisfied with
the conviction and sentence, the convict has
preferred this appeal.
3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Bikram
Chandra Ghadei, learned counsel for the appellant,
however, strongly criticizes the impugned judgment
by arguing that not only the impugned judgment is
unsustainable in the eye of law, but also the same
has been rendered without appreciating the evidence
on record. It is further submitted by him that the
mandatory procedure of Sections 42 & 52-A of the
Act has not been complied with by the Excise
Officials, but ignoring such non-compliance, the
learned trial Court has proceeded to convict the
appellant. Mr. Ghadei also points out that the sample
was sent to the chemical laboratory on 23.07.2022,
but it was received by the Asst. Chemical Examiner-
cum-PW.5 on 25.07.2022 and the safe custody of the
sample was never established by the prosecution and
therefore, the prosecution case being suspicious and
tainted, the conviction together with sentence of the
appellant is violative of his right to liberty. It is also
argued by Mr. Ghadei that the brass seal which was
used in sealing the Contraband articles has never
been produced before the Court and there are
material contradictions in the evidence of witnesses
and therefore, the conviction of the appellant is
unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Accordingly,
Mr. Ghadei prays to allow the appeal by acquitting
the convict of the charge.
3.1. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Rout, learned
Addl. Public Prosecutor, however, supporting the
impugned judgment submits that the recovery of
Contraband Ganja from the exclusive and conscious
possession of the appellant having been established
by the prosecution, no fault can be attributed to the
prosecution and the prosecution having duly complied
with the mandatory provisions of the Act, the
conviction of the appellant cannot be said to be
unsustainable in the eye of law. He further submits
that not only PW.4 has established the recovery of
Contraband Ganja from the exclusive possession of
the appellant, but also has established the
compliance of Sections 42 as well as 52-A of the Act
and, therefore, the appeal being unmerited is liable to
be dismissed. Accordingly, Mr. Rout prays to dismiss
the appeal.
4. After having considered the rival submissions
upon perusal of record, since the appellant
challenges his conviction not only for erroneous
appreciation of evidence, but also for non-
compliance of the mandatory provisions of Act, this
Court now embarks upon the oral testimony of the
witnesses to examine the legality of the conviction of
the appellant. In sequence, coming to the testimony
of witnesses, it is reminded that once again the
independent witness to the search and seizure has
become hostile to the prosecution case as it appears
from the evidence of PW.6 that on 23.07.2022, while
he was in his house, the staff of Excise Office,
Cuttack came and called him without assigning any
reason and he accompanied with him to the office of
Excise Department near the Krushak Bazar, Cuttack
and there the Excise staff gave him some forms and
asked to sign thereon and accordingly, he put his
signature on the papers as per their instruction. It
is, however, his categoric evidence that he does not
know anything more about the case. True it is that
the independent witness has not supported the
prosecution case and even his cross-examination by
the prosecution after declaring him hostile has yield
no result, but still then the prosecution can establish
its case against the accused through the evidence of
other witnesses.
5. PWs.1 to 3 are the three Excise Constables,
who had taken part in the raid along with PW.4 and
PWs. 2 & 3 have testified more or less alike, but
differently on materials point of recording
information by PW4, in the Court, however, their
evidence transpires that in the course of performing
patrolling duty at Kuspangi road, at about 4.30 A.M
PW.4 got information that a Bolero carrying Ganja is
coming and PW.4 sent the information record receipt
to the Superintendent of Excise through Constable
Gajanan Behera(PW.3) and they, accordingly,
detained the said vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-15-
C-0900 and recovered the Contraband article, but
PW.1 being another Constable, who had
accompanied the patrolling party has testified in the
Court that in the course of patrolling, the Inspector
of Excise detected a case of Ganja and after
compliance of recovery and other procedure, at
about 4.15 PM, the Inspector directed him to
produce the collected sample before the Asst.
Chemical Examiner, Excise Divisional Laboratory,
Cuttack along with a command certificate. His
evidence, however, does not reveal about PW4
recording any information and sending a copy
thereof to immediate official superior, although he is
a member of raiding party. Further, the evidence of
PW2 does not transpire with regard to PW4
recording any information. On the other hand, PW3
who is also a member of raiding party deposed
about PW4 recording the information into writing
and submitting the same to Superintendent of
Excise. It is, therefore, very confusing inasmuch as
PWs. 1 to 3 has stated differently with regard to
recording of information and sending a copy thereof
to next higher official by PW4 and the evidence of
none of the witnesses ever reveal about sending a
copy of information to the official superior which is
mandatory in nature U/S. 42(2) of the Act.
6. This being the evidence of the official
witnesses accompanying PW.4, this Court now
considers it imperative to see the evidence of PW.4,
who has deposed before the Court that on the day
(23.07.2022) at about 4.30 AM when he along with
the staff were performing patrolling duty at
Kuspangi road, received a reliable information about
transportation of Ganja in a Mahendra Bolero which
is coming from Khuntuni side and he reduced the
information into writing at about 4.50 A.M. and
immediately informed the Superintendent of Excise,
Cuttack about the said information over phone and
he commanded the Excise constable-PW3Gajanan
Behera to produce the information record receipt
before the Superintendent of Excise. Accordingly,
PW.4 has exhibited the information so prepared by
him under Ext.P-14, but fact remains that Section 42
of the Act prescribes the procedure for taking down
the secret information received by the Excise official/
or officials referred to in that Section, however, such
information ordinarily be recorded in a book/diary
prescribed for it, but no such information has been
recorded by PW4 in any book/diary prescribed for it.
On the other hand, perusal of Ext.P-14 reveals that
information has been recorded on a printed form
under the heading "Information Recorded
Receipt" in which there are four sub-headings, such
as; (i) date and time of information record, (ii) place
of information recorded, (iii) name of the informer,
and (iv) information recorded by whom along with
another sub-heading without any number as
"recorded information". The evidence of none of the
witnesses has made it very clear about the recording
of information in a book, much less the evidence of
PW1 transpires nothing about receipt of information
by PW4 and reducing such information by him into
writing, whereas the evidence of PW2 does not
transpire about PW4 reducing the secret information
into writing, however, PW3 has testified that PW4
had received information of NDPS case and reduce
the same into writing. It is not to be forgotten that
PWs. 1 to 3 had accompanied PW4 at the time of
detection of the case, but all these witnesses had
spoken differently with regard to receipt of
information and reducing such information into
writing to prove compliance of Sec. 42 of the Act.
7. Be it noted, compliance of Section 42 of the
Act is not an empty formality and it is a mandatory
procedure prescribed for detection, search and
seizure of Contraband Articles on a particular
contingency and it lays down the procedure when
any officer referred to in Section 42 of the Act has
reason to believe either from personal knowledge or
information given by any person and taken down in
writing that any narcotic drug or psychotropic
substance, or controlled substance in respect of
which an offence punishable under this Act has been
committed or any document or other article which
may furnish evidence of the commission of such
offence or any illegally acquired property or any
document or other article which may furnish
evidence of holding any illegally acquired property
which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture
under Chapter V-A of this Act is kept or concealed in
any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may
between sunrise and sunset enter into and search
any such building, conveyance or place, seize such
drug or substance and all materials used in the
manufacture thereof and any other article and any
animal or conveyance which he has reasoned to
believe to be liable to be confiscation under this Act
xx xxx xx and detain and search, and, if he thinks
proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to
believe to have committed any offence punishable
under this Act, provided further that if such officer
has reason to believe that a search warrant or
authorization cannot be obtained without affording
opportunity for the concealment of evidence or
facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter
and search such building, conveyance or enclosed
place at any time between sunset and sunrise
after recording the grounds of his belief. In this
case, the admitted evidence discloses that the
vehicle was detected after 5 AM, but it was not
clarified by the prosecution by leading clear and
cogent evidence that the detection and search of the
vehicle was done after sunrise and, therefore, taking
into the fact of detection of contraband in this case
at 5.15 AM, it can be said that the detection was
before sunrise and thus, PW.4 can search and detain
such persons without any warrant, after recording
his grounds of belief in terms of 2nd proviso to Sec.
42 of the Act, but in that event, he has to
mandatorily send the copy of the recording of
grounds for his belief to his immediate official
superior within 72 hours. True it is that PW4 has
exhibited one printed form filled up in handwriting
under Ext.P-11 towards proof of recording of
grounds for his belief to search the vehicle without
warrant, but the prosecution evidence never reveals
about sending a copy thereof to immediate official
superior with regard to searching the vehicle without
any warrant before sunrise as mandatorily required
U/S. 42(2) of the Act. In this case, the evidence of
PW.4 never reveals about the compliance of Section
42(2) of the Act because the copy of the information
which was taken down in writing should have been
sent to the higher authority, but the evidence of
PW.4 only reveals about sending of information to
the Superintendent Excise through PW.3.
8. Apropos the subject, compliance of Sec. 42
is mandatory and the legislature has incorporated
the provision of Sec. 42 of the Act to check the
interested and overzealous prosecution of innocent
person accused of offence under the Act and the
requirement of compliance of aforesaid provision is
in essence intended to prevent false accusation
against innocent person. However, there is no
straight jacket formula to prove the compliance of
Sections 42(1) and (2) of the Act, but looking at
the standard of proof in criminal prosecution and
the provision of Sec. 3 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 as to how a fact is considered to be proved,
the prosecution in this case is obliged to establish
that the empowered Officer on receipt of secret
information had reduced it into writing in the
concerned register or diary and prove such
writings through the concerned Officer either by
producing such original register or diary, but in
case such register/diary is not available or could
not be produced due to some valid reason(s), then
by producing a certified copy or an authenticated
extract copy of such entry, which is of course to be
established that such extract copy is duly
authenticated by the Officer making such entry.
Similarly, for compliance of Sec. 42(2) of the Act,
it is to be established that the copy of such entry
was in fact sent to the immediate Official superior
of the empowered Officer, but mere
saying/deposing in evidence about sending a copy
thereof is not sufficient to demonstrate compliance
of Sec. 42(2) of the Act and it must be more than
that. No inflexible guidelines can be prescribed for
prove of compliance of Sec. 42(2) of the Act, but
the mode of sending copy of secret information;
such as dispatch register, postal receipts, e-mail
copy would be considered a few for sending the
copy of it and additionally, prove of receipt/
delivery of it by or to official superior would lend
assurance for prove of sending of the copy since
sending a copy thereof as referred to in Sec.42(2)
of the Act is obviously meant for the knowledge of
superior Officers and the legislature has never
intended for mere sending copy of such
information without the same being received by
the superior Officer or delivery of it to him. The
aforesaid provision is enacted to prevent misuse of
the Act and thereby, sending a copy thereof to
immediate Official superior is obviously meant to
check the arbitrary use of power under the Act by
the empowered Officer. In this case, the testimony
of witnesses never discloses about sending of a
copy of the recording of grounds for his belief by
PW4 with regard for searching the vehicle and the
convict before sunrise without any warrant. In a
case of this nature, where the personal liberty of a
person is at a stake, which can be curtailed on
successful compliance of Sec. 42(2) of the Act, the
prosecution is required to bring all documents on
record and examine all the witness to prove the
compliance of Sec. 42/42(2) of the Act, however,
the prosecution cannot afford to leave any
document or witness, which would create a
genuine suspicion in proving the compliance of
Sec. 42 of the Act. In order to prove compliance of
Sec. 42(2) of the Act, the prosecution has proved
Ext. P-14, which of course only contains the
signature of Superintendent of Excise, but nothing
has been endorsed to show that the
Superintendent of Excise had in fact received the
same. Further, no one is examined from the Office
of Superintendent of Excise about receipt of Ext. P-
14 nor has any document or Receipt Register been
proved to establish the compliance of Sec. 42(2) of
the Act and in absence of such proof, a genuine
suspicion arises in the mind of the Court.
9. In regard to compliance of Sec. 42 of the Act,
this Court considers it to be useful to refer to the
decision in Karnail Singh Vrs. State of Haryana;
(2009) 8 SCC 539, wherein a constitutional Bench
of five Judges of Apex Court in paragraph-35(a) to
(d), which are very much relevant for this case, has
held as under:-
"35. In conclusion, what is to be noticed is
that Abdul Rashid did not require literal
compliance with the requirements of
Sections 42(1) and 42(2) nor did Sajan
Abraham hold that the requirements of
Sections 42(1) and 42(2) need not be
fulfilled at all. The effect of the two
decisions was as follows:
(a) The officer on receiving the
information of the nature referred to
in sub-section(1) of Section 42 from
any person had to record it in
writing in the register concerned
and forthwith send a copy to his
immediate official superior, before
proceeding to take action in terms of
clauses (a) to (d) of Section 42(1).
(b) But if the information was
received when the officer was not in
the police station, but while he was
on the move either on patrol duty or
otherwise, either by mobile phone, or
other means, and the information
calls for immediate action and any
delay would have resulted in the
goods or evidence being removed or
destroyed, it would not be feasible or
practical to take down in writing the
information given to him, in such a
situation, he could take action as
per clauses (a) to (d) Section
42(1) and thereafter, as soon as it
is practical, record the
information in writing and
forthwith inform the same to the
official superior.
(c) In other words, the compliance
with the requirements of Sections
41 (1) and 42(2) in regard to writing
down the information received and
sending a copy thereof to the
superior officer should normally
precede the entry, search and seizure
by the officer. But in special
circumstances involving
emergent situations, the
recording of the information in
writing and sending a copy
thereof to the official superior
may get postponed by a
reasonable period that is after
the search, entry and seizure. The
question is one of urgency and
expediency.
(d) While total non-compliance with
requirements of sub-sections (1) and
(2) of section 42 is impermissible, but
delayed compliance with satisfactory
explanation about the delay will be
acceptable compliance with section
42.xx xx xx"
10. Further, the evidence never discloses
the time when the information was received nor
such information has been stated in any diary, so
also names of the persons who refused to be a
witness to the search and seizure has not been
recorded and nothing brought on record to show
that the provision of Sec. 42 of the Act was
substantially complied with. Further, there is
absolutely no evidence to suggest that the copy of
the grounds of belief to search without warrant
before sunrise which was stated to be taken down in
writing by PW4 has been sent to official superior.
Thus, the prosecution has not been able to prove
compliance of mandatory provision of Sec. 42 of the
Act which by itself renders prosecution of the
appellant vulnerable. In the aforesaid facts and
circumstance and on a conspectus of evidence on
record, this Court neither found any information
recorded by PW.4 in any prescribed book nor was a
copy thereof sent to the higher authority within 72
hours which is mandate of Section 42(2) of the Act.
Accepting for a moment but not admitting the
information taken down in writing under Ext.P-14 as
the compliance of Section 42 of the Act, it appears
that a copy thereof has never been sent to the
immediate higher authority. Except Ext.P-14, there
is no other proof regarding compliance of Section 42
of the Act and this Court, therefore, considers it not
proper to accept Ext.P-14 towards compliance of
Section 42 & 42(2) of the Act.
11. Adverting to the sampling, it appears that
PW.4 has testified that he sealed those packets by
putting his personal brass seal marks and handed
over the brass seal to the independent witness-
Satyajit Sahoo by executing zimanama, but PW.6-
Satyajit Sahoo has disowned the same about
receiving any brass seal. The testimony of PW.4
further transpires that he prayed the Court for
drawing of sample and by order of the learned
Special Judge, Athagarh, he produced the seized
articles before the learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh for
collection of sample and the learned S.D.J.M.,
Athagarh collected the sample in two packets
containing 50Grams each from the 3 packets and
marked the sample packets with letter A-1, A-2; B-
1, B-2 and C-1, C-2 respectively and thereafter, the
learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh, handed over the sample
packets along with the forwarding report for
production of the same before the Excise Divisional
Laboratory, Cuttack and he(PW4) sent the sample
through constable Manmath Singh(PW.1) to the
Central Divisional Laboratory, Cuttack on the very
same day i.e. 23.07.2022. Section 52-A of the Act
provides the procedure for disposal of seized
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and
Section 52-A(2) of the Act provides that in case the
officers referred to in Section 53 of the Act makes an
application to any Magistrate for the purpose of
certifying the correctness of the inventory so
prepared; or taking, in the presence of such
Magistrate, photographs of such drugs or substances
and certifying such photographs as true; or allowing
to draw representative samples of such drugs or
substances, in the presence of such Magistrate and
certifying the correctness of any list of samples so
drawn, the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be,
allow the application. In this case, there is hardly
any evidence with regard to certification of the
correctness of any list of samples so drawn. Further,
the evidence of PW1 discloses that PW.4 detected a
case of Ganja and after compliance of recovery and
other procedure at about 4.15 PM, PW.4 directed
him to produce the collected samples before the
Asst. Chemical Examiner, Excise Divisional
Laboratory, Cuttack along with a command
certificate. The evidence of PW.1 never discloses
that the samples were drawn in the presence of
learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh or the learned S.D.J.M.,
Athagarh has drawn any sample. The only evidence
forthcoming from PW.1 is that he collected the
sample from Inspector of Excise from the place of
detection which is contrary to the evidence of PW.4
that the samples were handed over to PW.1 after it
was drawn by the learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh.
Additionally, PW.5-Asst. Chemical Examiner has
stated in his evidence that on 25.07.2022, he
received the sample, but the sample was admittedly
collected and sent on 23.07.2022. What cannot be
lost sight of is that PW.5 has admitted in his cross-
examination that he received the sample packets
from PW.4 instead of PW.1. Besides, the evidence of
PW.1 transpires that on his arrival on 23.07.2022,
the Excise Divisional Laboratory was closed and he
informed PW.4 about the fact and PW.4 accordingly
communicated to PW.5 over phone and as per his
instruction, he returned back with the sample to the
office and kept it in the Excise Malkhana and as the
next day was Sunday, on Monday i.e. on 25.07.2022
at 10.30 A.M., PW.1 produced the sample before
PW.5. Had it been a fact, what prevented PW.4 not
to disclose the same in his evidence nor had any
evidence been led by the prosecution to prove that
the sample so collected by the learned S.D.J.M.,
Athagarh on 23.07.2022 was in safe custody till it
was produced before PW.5 on 25.07.2022
eliminating tampering or suspicion. The aforesaid
evidence gives a glue picture of the prosecution
about not being able to establish the safe custody of
the sample nor was it established that the samples
were not tampered which assumes significance in
view of the fact that the brass seal used in sealing
sample at the spot was not produced in the Court.
Accordingly, the safe custody of the sample is found
to have not been established by the prosecution. It
is also admitted by PW5 that he received the
samples from PW4 on 25.07.2022, but the
consistent case of the prosecution is that samples
were sent to PW5 through PW1 who admitted that
the samples were kept in Excise Malkhana, however,
no document was produced by the prosecution to
show that the samples were kept in Malkhana from
23.07.2022 to 25.07.2022. The evidence of PW4,
however, transpires that the samples were collected
by the learned SDJM and handed over to PW4 on
23.07.2022, but there is no evidence to show that
the samples were handed over in sealed condition to
PW4. Further, the chemical examination report does
not reveal with whose seal the samples were sealed,
although it has been stated therein that the seals
are intact and identical with the specimen seal given
on the forwarding memo of the Court. It is,
therefore, very clear that the prosecution has not
been able to establish the safe custody of the
sample packets during its transit from the Court on
23.07.2022 to 25.07.2022 when it were produced
before PW5.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstance and taking into account the admitted
evidence on record, this Court hardly find the
prosecution to have led clear, cogent and reliable
evidence to prove the safe custody of the samples
so also compliance of Section 42 of the Act beyond
all reasonable doubt and thereby, the only
consequence emerges is that the prosecution is not
successful in establishing its case against the
appellant-convict beyond all reasonable doubt.
13. In the result, the appeal stands allowed on
contest, but in the circumstance there is no order as
to costs. Consequently, the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 17.06.2024
passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Judge, Athagarh are, hereby, set aside.
14. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant
is in custody and he, thereby, be set at liberty
forthwith, if his detention is not otherwise required
in any other case.
15. Since the appellant is in jail custody,
warrant of release on appeal in Form No.(M)78 of
GR & CO, (Criminal) Vol-II be immediately sent to
the Officer-in-charge of the concerned jail through
e-mail or any other faster communication mode in
view of the Rule 155 of the GR & CO,(Criminal)
Vol-I.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 18th day of March, 2025/S.Sasmal
Location: High Court of Orissa
