[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Satya Priya Panda vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 12 March, 2026
Author: V. Narasingh
Bench: V. Narasingh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.625 of 2025
Satya Priya Panda .... Petitioner
Mr. B.K. Ragada, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA
CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
ORDER
12.03.2026
Order No.
03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
2. Assailing the order dated 21.04.2025 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions-cum-Special
Judge, Boudh in Special Case No.21 of 2014 (NDPS)
rejecting his prayer for discharge under Section 227
of Cr.P.C. from charge under Section 25 of the NDPS
Act, the present Criminal Revision has been
preferred.
3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for
the Petitioner that even if the prosecution case is
accepted at its face value, keeping in view that the
Petitioner is admittedly the owner of the offending
vehicle and the driver, the sole accused having
passed away in the meanwhile, there is no material
on record to connect the Petitioner with the alleged
offence. Hence, directing him to through the travails
of the trial would only be a waste of precious time of
the Court and he also ought not to be driven to go
through such ignominy.
And, it is his further submission that the
prosecution has not been able to establish the nexus
of the Petitioner even remotely with the seizure.
4. Learned counsel for the State on the other
hand opposes such prayer and referring to the
contours of exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this
Court submits that the ground on which interference
is sought cannot be pressed into service at this stage.
5. So far as the approach of the Courts while
considering charge is no longer res integra having
been settled by the Apex Court in the Larger Bench
judgment of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath
Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, which has stood the test
of time.
6. Though the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the Petitioner in the first brush appeared
to be very attractive but, on a close scrutiny the
same would militate against the law laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of Debendra Nath Padhi
(supra), taking into account that the Petitioner is
admittedly the owner of the vehicle from which, the
contraband (ganja) which is more than commercial
quantity was recovered. And, the ground urged
seeking interference would amount to conducting a
'mini trial' which has to be shunned while considering
an application for discharge.
7. On considering the rival submission, this court
is not inclined to entertain this criminal revision.
8. The CRLREV accordingly stands disposed of.
9. The learned Trial court is requested to
expedite the trial and it is needless to state that it
shall be open for the Petitioner to raise all grounds
available in law to prove his innocence in the ongoing
trial.
(V. Narasingh)
Judge
Santoshi
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
