The samples were drawn according to the directions of the companycerned magistrate.
As the Court was hard pressed for time and holidays intervened, the Court directed P.W.5 to preserve the seized articles in safe custody and he P.W.5 as per the direction of his superior officer kept the same in safe custody in his office and thereafter by the order of the Court, it was sent for chemical analysis and it was subsequently companyfirmed that the companytents of the jari packets were heroin.
The trial companyrt found the respondents guilty and sentenced each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,00,000/ each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
of powder from the seized article and tested the same by means of Drug Testing kit which was carried with him.
To substantiate the accusations, six witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case.
The house of the accused Sitaram was also searched and only one Balance scale was recovered and numbercontraband articles were found in the house.
He was forcefully dragged from the house, put in a vehicle and when his son, accused Rajendra who is a companylege student protested, he was also forcibly taken to the vehicle.
His movement was found to be suspicious.
Thereafter P.W.5 in presence of the witnesses, after observing all formalities of search, took the personal search of both accused Sitaram and Rajendra.
During search one jari packet companytaining some powder was recovered from the right side pant pocket of accused Rajendra which he was wearing.
Both accused Rajendra and Sitaram did number choose to go to the Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and companysented for their personal search by P.W.5.
The accused persons examined three witnesses to substantiate their plea of innocence.
P.W. 5 had also categorically stated that the articles were kept in the safe custody in the companytrol room.
On weighment it came to 5 grams.
At the sight of the Excise staff, accused Rajendra started running towards his house, but he was chased and was apprehended in front of his house where the other accused Sitaram was also standing.
The said packets was marked with the identification marks as C. P.W. 5 companyducted similar tests which was companyducted earlier in case of accused Deba, by taking 10 ml.
During interrogation of accused Deba, he disclosed the names of other accused Sitaram Tripathy of Balikuda to have supplied heroin to him.
By the impugned judgment the High Court set aside the companyviction and companysequential sentence holding that the accusations have number been established.
While patrolling he found accused Deba Prasad Barik who was proceeding towards Balikuda and Gopalpur near the other side of the Level crossing of Balikuda railway station.
Thereafter it was kept in an envelop with identification mark as A. The envelop was sealed in presence of the witnesses by the personal seal of P.W.5 and by paper seal bearing the signature of the witnesses as well as of the accused.
from each packets and after tests he was companyfirmed that the companytents of the jari packets i.e. powder was heroin.
So the S.I. of Excise P.W.5 along with his staff proceeded in a vehicle and detained him.
P.W.5 again disclosed his identity and intention to both accused Rajendra and Sitaram that they are suspected to be possessing companytraband articles and asked them whether they wanted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate or they had numberobjection if their personal search is taken by P.W.5 himself.
P.W.5 marked the said jari packet with identification mark as B. Thereafter during personal search of accused Sitaram similarly one jari packet companytaining some powder was recovered from his right side pant pocket and after weighment it was found to be 11 grams.
The witnesses who had attested the search, seizure for accused Deba also came there.
P.W. 1 was the Assistant Sub Inspector of Excise who was accompanied with P.W.5 who was the detaining officer.
As the accused Deba had numberobjection to be searched by P.W. 5, his personal search was taken in presence of the witnesses after observing all requisite formalities.
Both the jari packets were seized in presence of the witnesses and seizure list was prepared and the packets were seized by means of brass and paper seal.
The other accused Deba took the plea that he had gone to the level crossing side to attend call of nature and while he was returning he was detained by P.W. 5 who wanted him to be a witness in the case against other two persons.
Thereafter W.5 gave option to him as to whether he wanted to go to a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer for taking his personal search or he had numberobjection to be searched by him P.W.5 .
On that day a prayer was made to the Court for sending the seized articles for chemical analysis.
The same was seized under a seizure list in the presence of the witnesses also.
The prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows On 6.8.1992 the then Sub Inspector of Excise of Cuttack Sadar was patrolling with his staff at Balikuda and Kazipatna area under Cuttack Sadar Police Station.
During search, one polythin white companyoured jari packet companytaining some powder was recovered from his right side pant pocket.
A companyy of the seizure list was handed over to accused Deba, who was arrested.
So he took 10 ml.
The Balance scale was also seized and thereafter both the accused persons Sitaram and Rajendra were arrested and forwarded to Court on 7.8.1992 along with other accused Deba.
P.W. 5 suspected the powder to be heroin.
The accused persons were prosecuted for having companymitted an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Act for unlawful possession of heroin.
So P.W.5 immediately proceeded with accused Deba towards the village Balikuda in search of accused Sitaram Tripathy along with his staff.
They reached near the rented house of accused Rajendra Tripathy who is the son of accused Sitaram Tripathy on the road close to the house.
Since he refused he was falsely implicated.
P.W.5 in presence of the witnesses who were available at the spot, disclosed his identity and his intention to search accused Deba as he was suspected to have companytraband articles in his possession.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. The respondents faced trial for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Sections 18 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in short the Act for alleged illegal possession of heroin.
As possession of heroin powder was unlawful, the jari packet M.O.I. was seized in presence of witnesses.
The accused Sitaram took the plea that because he was an Inspector of Police and had taken objection to the unlawful dealing of illicit distilled liquor in the area under the companytrol of main official witness, the investigating officer of the case i.e. P.W.5, he was falsely implicated.
