Amiya Ketan Jena vs State Of Orissa
2025 Latest Caselaw 9474 Ori

Orissa High Court

Amiya Ketan Jena vs State Of Orissa on 28 October, 2025

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                         CRA No.269 of 1996

(In the matter of an application under Section 454 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)

Amiya Ketan Jena                       .......             Appellant
                                   -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. The appellant has assailed the judgment and order

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.), 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.

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. The learned trial Court after analyzing the evidence brought on

record arrived at the following findings:-

"6. There is absolutely no material on record to show that the accused was driving the car at the time of detection. None of the witnesses claimed to have seen the accused driving the car while fleeing away. It is true that a driving licence standing in the name of the accused was round inside the car and this is a circumstance which creates strong suspicion against the accused. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. The accused has explained that four months prior to the occurrence he had given up his job as the driver. He has also explained that he had failed out with the owner of the car and the latter had refused to return him his driving licence. The owner of the car has not been examined in this case to say that it was the accused who was the driver of the car on the date of occurrence. On the other hand, three days after the occurrence a case had been registered in Old Town P.S. Bhubaneswar that the car had been misappropriated. Therefore there is absolutely no material on record to show that the accused was driving the car at the time of detection. The seizure of the driving licence falls for short of the requirement to prove that the accused was the driver of the car.

7. The car was detected and seized on 21.11.95. On 24.11.95 a case was registered in Old Town P.S. Bhubaneswar that the car had been misappropriated. An Ambassadar Car is a valuable property worth lakhs of rupees. There is no reason for the owner to wait for four days to intimate the matter to police. There is, therefore, every reason to believe that this F.I.R. was lodged on Old Town P.S., Bhubaneswar

after the owner had come to know that his car had been seized in connection with a case under N.D.P.S. Act. The F.I.R. appears to a stage managed document created for the purpose of staking claim to the car and avoiding criminal liability or the owner."

6. On the basis of the aforementioned findings, although the sole

accused was acquitted but the car involved in the alleged commission of

crime was confiscated as per the direction of the learned trial Court.

Admittedly, the appellant is the owner of the car. Hence, he is aggrieved

and moved this appeal challenging the operative part of the judgment.

7. Earlier, this Court directed the learned counsel for the State to

obtain instruction regarding the status of the car, however, the learned

counsel for the State could not obtain appropriate instruction.

8. Be that as it may, the fact germinate on record is that the sole

accused-Iswar Pradhan, who was put to trial for the alleged commission

of offence under Section 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act has been acquitted

for want of evidence. After having acquitted the accused, the learned

trial Court ought to have released the vehicle. Instead of that, the learned

trial Court recorded a finding that the car is engaged in illegal

transportation of ganja and accordingly went on to confiscate the car.

This part of the impugned judgment in my considered view is completely

illegal and not sustainable under law.

9. After having acquitted the sole accused, the vehicle involved in

the alleged crime ought to have been released to the registered owner of

the vehicle. It is also apparent on record that the vehicle has already been

given in a zima to the registered owner. Therefore, there was no need to

recover the vehicle from the owner of the vehicle to put the vehicle to

auction sale. In that view of the matter, I set aside the operative part of

judgment and order 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.) thereby quashing the order

of confiscation of the vehicle in subject.

10. Accordingly, the CRA is allowed and disposed of.

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.

Dated the 28th October, 2025/ Swarna Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa