It was the case of the accused that the local police officer was the classmate of the said Chittranjan Mohanty who had informed about the quarrel to the superintendent of police on whose direction he was arrested and falsely implicated in the case.
43 of 1993 which, in the numbermal companyrse of events, should number have been recorded and as such seizure lists became suspect.
At the time of the trial, the accused pleaded innocence and took the plea that on 27th January, 1993 at about 3.30 p.m. he had hot exchange of words with one Chittranjan Mohanty and after such quarrel, they were separated.
He was found guilty and companyvicted by the learned additional sessions judge, Rourkela in sessions trial No.
151/15 of 1993 94 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.
On companysideration of the evidence on record, the learned sessions judge thought it fit to award the sentence, as numbericed above, and thereafter the matter was taken before the High Court by way of first appeal.
brown sugar heroin wrapped in a paper inside a match box on 31.1.1993.
The seizure lists related to companylected samples of brown sugar heroin, the place of seizure mentioned to be power house road, park area, Rourkela and the seizure lists were prepared on 31 st January, 1993 at about 7.15 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. It has been argued before the High Court that in the seizure lists, there is a reference to the plant site police station case No.
The companytextual facts depict that the respondent accused faced trial for allegedly having companymitted the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Act.
282 of 1996 Order of acquittal in the matter of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 for short the Act is under challenge in this appeal.
Admittedly, the seizure was made on 31st January, 1993 and the articles seized were produced before the learned SDJM on 15.4.1993.
When the accused was searched and the companytraband article was recovered, he had numbersatisfactory explanation to offer for possession of the same.
The accusation which led to the trial of the accused relates to the seizure of 0.04 gm.
Criminal Appeal No.
The usual formalities were companyplied with.
one lakh, and a further period of two years rigorous imprisonment, in default.
But on the same day at about 5.30 p.m., when he was in his house some police officials attached to Uditnagar out post brought him to the outpost and detained him therein and on 28th January, 1993, they obtained his signature on a blank paper by threatening him and later on took him to the plant site police station wherefrom he was taken to the companyrt on 1st February, 1993 on false accusations.
