Orissa High Court
Amiya Ketan Jena vs State Of Orissa on 28 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRA No.291 of 1996
(In the matter of an application under Section 454 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)
Amiya Ketan Jena ....... Appellants
-Versus-
State of Orissa ....... Respondent
For the Appellant : Ms. Ayushi Meheta, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 16.10.2025 : Date of Judgment: 28.10.2025
S.S. Mishra, J. In this appeal, the appellant-Amiya Ketan Jena has
assailed the judgment and order 12.09.1996 and 03.10.1996 passed by
the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur, Ganjam in
G.R. Case No.252 of 1995(N)/T.R. No.26/96 (T.R.45/96 G.D.C.),
whereby the learned trial Court while acquitting the sole accused-Iswar
Pradhan passed an order of confiscation of the ambassador car of the
appellant.
The operative part of the judgment by which the appellant is
aggrieved is reproduced for the convenience of ready reference:-
"8. In view of my findings in the foregoing
paragraphs I hold the accused not guilty U/S
20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act and accordingly
acquit him U/S 248(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bond
stands cancelled.
The seized car was engaged in illegal
transportation of ganja and as such is liable to
confiscated. Hence, the seized car be
confiscation to the state and the other seized
articles as be destroyed after the appeal period
is over or in case of appeal be disposed of as
per the direction of the appellate court. Since
the owner has taken the car on zima the police
be directed to recover the car from him and put
it to public auction and deposit the sale
proceeds in court."
2. Heard Ms. Ayushi Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, the learned Additional
Standing Counsel appearing for the State.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.12.1995, at 4.20 A.M.,
the Officer-in-Charge of Digapahandi Police Station (P.W.2) received
credible information from a reliable source that a white Ambassador car
had proceeded to village Khamarigan for the purpose of collecting ganja
and would be returning shortly. P.W.2 promptly reduced the information
to writing and set out for village Khamarigan on his motorcycle. He was
accompanied by the Assistant Sub-Inspector (P.W.3) and another police
constable, who followed on a separate motorcycle. On their way to
Khamarigan, the police team picked up two independent witnesses,
including P.W.1. Upon reaching Koithakhandi Chak, a blockade was
organised on the road in anticipation of intercepting the suspect vehicle.
At around 5:00 A.M., a white Ambassador car approached the blockade
from the direction of Ghodahada at high speed. Despite being signalled
by P.W.2 to stop, the driver of the vehicle failed to comply and
accelerated past the police. A pursuit ensued, with the police party and
the independent witnesses following the car on their motorcycles. During
the chase, near village Chaka Tentuli, one of the tyres of the car burst,
compelling the driver to halt the vehicle. By the time the police party
reached the spot, all occupants of the vehicle had absconded on foot. A
search of the car was conducted in the presence of the independent
witnesses, leading to the recovery and seizure of several cardboard
packets containing a total of 64.500 kilograms of ganja. P.W.2 collected
representative samples from each packet and sealed them in separate
polythene pouches at the spot using wax and his personal brass seal. The
process was carried out in the presence of the Circle Inspector of Police
and the independent witnesses. The brass seal was entrusted to P.W.1 for
safe custody. The sample packets were subsequently forwarded to the
Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (R.F.S.L.), Berhampur, through
the learned J.M.F.C., Digapahandi, for chemical analysis. The laboratory
report confirmed that the samples contained ganja. Further, during the
search of the car, documents pertaining to the ownership and a driving
licence were recovered. During investigation, it revealed that the driving
licence was issued in the name of the accused, and it was established that
the accused was driving the said vehicle at the time of the incident. After
primary investigation, one Iswar Pradhan was charge-sheeted and put to
trial.
4. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined three
witnesses. The sole accused-Iswar Pradhan was charged-sheeted and on
his stance of denial and claim of trial, he was put to trial.
5. It appears that after the impugned judgment dated 12.09.1996 was
passed, the appellant moved an application before the learned trial Court
on 23.09.1996, inter alia, praying for release of the vehicle which was
seized on the allegation that the vehicle was involved in the alleged
crime. The learned trial Court vide order dated 03.10.1996 rejected the
application on the ground that after the pronouncement of the judgment
dated 12.09.1996, the trial Court become functus officio and had no
jurisdiction to review its own order. Therefore, no application could be
maintained in a disposed of sessions case. The appellant is aggrieved by
the rejection of the said order. Therefore, approached this Court by filing
the present Criminal Appeal seeking setting aside the confiscation order
passed by the learned trial Court and also assailing the order dated
03.10.1996.
6. In the present case, it is evident from the record that the sole
accused, Iswar Pradhan, who was alleged to have been driving the
vehicle at the time of the incident, has been acquitted by the learned trial
Court on the ground of lack of evidence. Having acquitted the accused,
the learned trial Court, in the same breath, directed confiscation of the
Ambassador car belonging to the appellant. Such a course of action, in
the considered view of this Court, is wholly impermissible and contrary
to law.
Once the accused stood acquitted, there remained no basis for the
learned trial Court to hold that the vehicle was engaged in illegal
transportation of ganja and to direct its confiscation. The logical
consequence of the acquittal should have been the release of the vehicle
in favour of its registered owner. Furthermore, it is apparent that the
vehicle had already been released to the appellant on zimanama.
Therefore, there was no necessity to direct recovery of the same for
auction sale.
7. Accordingly, the operative portion of the judgment and order
dated 12.09.1996 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions
Judge, Berhampur, Ganjam in G.R. Case No.252 of 1995(N)/T.R.
No.26/96 (T.R.45/96 G.D.C.) and the subsequent order dated 03.10.1996
rejecting the appellant's petition for release of the vehicle are hereby set
aside.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Dated the 28th October, 2025 / Swarna
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
