[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Mv Debi (Imo: 9616735) vs Union Of India on 31 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMP No. 229 of 2026
MV DEBI (IMO: 9616735), owned
by Asian Pacific Shipping Company ..... Petitioner
Mr. Soumya Jyoti Biswal, Advocate
-versus-
1. Union of India
2. State of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. J.N. Panda, CGC
Mr. S.J. Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
31.03.2026
Order No. (Through hybrid mode)
04.
1. Mr. J.N. Panda, learned Central Government Counsel submits
that an affidavit which was supposed to be filed on 25.03.2026 has
been e-filed today.
2. Perusal of the ordersheet reveals that on 17.03.2026 time had
been granted till 25.03.2026 for filing of affidavit and on 25.03.2026,
the matter had been adjourned to today directing that the affidavit, if
any, shall be filed by 26.03.2026. But it is apparent that the Opposite
Parties No.1 and 2 have utter disregard for the orders of this Court
for which they did not file the affidavit on 27.03.2026 but have filed
it today when the case is listed. Mr. J.N. Panda, learned Central
Government Counsel submits that he was unwell and the Officers are
not to blame for the delay.
3. Mr. J.N. Panda, learned Central Government Counsel on being
asked produces the affidavit which has been e-filed today where it
has been stated as follows:
"7. That in reply to the Para-5 and 6 of the CRLMP Petition
it is submitted that, the narcotics substances were recovered
and seized from onboard the Vessel MV DEBI and accordingly,
the Vessel MV DEBI was seized under provisions of NDPS Act,
1985. The Complaint/ Charge sheet in the case of SPLGR (N)
65/2023 was filed on 30.05.2024 against Unknown in the Court
of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kujang (on the
basis of investigation completed so-far at the time). Regarding
ongoing investigation, it is further submitted that, during the
course of investigation, neither any of the Crew members of the
Vessel MV DEBI (who were present onboard the Vessel during
seizure of the narcotics substances) nor the Director of M/s.
Asia Pacific Shipping Company Limited (i.e. Owner Company
of the Vessel MV DEBI, during recording of respective
statements, were able to answer regarding "how Cocaine in
such huge quantities came onboard the Vessel MV DEBI".
However, some of the crew members of the Vessel MV DEBI
had signed off at the Port of Jebel Ali during October 2023 and
the Director of M/s. Asia Pacific Shipping Company Limited
(i.e. Owner Company of the Vessel MV DEBI) in his statement
dated 08.04.2024, had assured for co-operation in the
investigation to bring the previous crew members of the Vessel
for investigation before Customs. As per the Order dated
17.03.2026 of this Hon'ble Court, the Petitioner submitted to
bring crew members who had signed off at the Port of Jebel Ali
on 18.03.2026. However, they appeared on 20.03.2026 and
23.03.2026 and their statements were recorded and the same is
under analysis.
8. That in reply to the Para-7 and 10 of the CRLMP Petition
the Opp. Party has nothing to say.
9. That in reply to the Para-11 of the CRLMP Petition it is
emphatically state that, the submission made by the Petitioner
is not correct as the Complaint/ Chargesheet in the case of
SPLGR (N) 65/2023 against Unknown in the Court of the
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kujang (on the basis of
investigation completed so-far at the time) has already been
filed on 30.05.2024.
10. That in reply to the Para-12 of the CRLMP Petition it is
it is submitted that, statements of crew members recorded on
20.03.2026 and 23.03.2026 are under analysis along with
investigation conducted so far.
11. That, the answering Opp. Parties crave leave of the
Hon'ble High Court to make further submissions and file
further Affidavits in support of the contentions, so far as
effective adjudication by the Hon'ble Court is concerned
12. That the averments which have not been specifically
denied are deemed to have been denied.
13. That the CRLMP Petition is completely misconceived
and is liable to be dismissed."
4. Nowhere has it been stated that chargesheet has been filed
keeping investigation open. Hence, the learned Central Government
Counsel is directed to produce the copy of the chargesheet for
perusal of the Court on the next date.
5. If the chargesheet is not produced in the Court on the next
date, either the Opposite Party No. 1 or Opposite Party No. 2 shall be
directed to appear personally before this Court.
6. Copy of the affidavit which is stated to have been e-filed in
Court today shall be incorporated in the digital record.
7. Mr. J.N. Panda, learned Central Government Counsel submits
that the affidavit could not be filed earlier as he had to undergo
medical checkup on 25.03.2026.
8. Mr. Soumya Jyoti Biswal, learned counsel for the Petitioner
submits that on 11.03.2026, learned Court below after receipt of the
order dated 05.03.2026 of this Court, had perused the record and
found that it had not been put up after 19.03.2024 and that the I.O.
had filed the petition on 30.05.2024 for taking cognizance of the
offences and to take the petition to file and it was found that the
investigation was in progress and the I.O. had not submitted the final
form.
9. The affidavit of the Assistant Commissioner reveals that the
chargesheet has already been filed but the chargesheet is not
available in the record which is before the learned ADJ-cum-Special
Judge, Kujang.
10. As the learned Court below has posted the case to 04.04.2026,
both counsel are directed to inform the Court as to the order passed
on 04.04.2026.
11. List this matter on 15.04.2026.
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
puspa
Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA
