CIVIL APPEAL 46 of 2005 on 21 December 2004

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the CRLLP application. CRLLP application.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner-State as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party. learned counsel for the Opposite Party.

4. Considering the fact that the delay is of 18 days, the same is hereby condoned. hereby condoned.

5. The I.A. is disposed of accordingly.

CRLLP No.61 of 2005

6. Heard the learned counsel for the State-Petitioner as well as

learned counsel for the Opposite Party. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein.

7. By filing the present application under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the State-Petitioner seeks leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 21.12.2004 passed by the learned 2[nd] Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Berhampur in G.R. Case No.3/2001(N) thereby acquitting the Opposite Party from the charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act.

8. On perusal of the record, it appears that the Opposite Party, as accused, faced trial on the allegation of possessing contraband Ganja weighing 10 Kgs.700 Grams, which was seized from a bus. The present leave application was presented before this Court on 08.04.2005 with a delay of 18 days along with an application forcondonation of delay.

9. So far as the merits of the matter is concerned, this Court examined the judgment dated 21.12.2004. On perusal of the said judgment, it appears that the trial court, on a detailed analysis of the evidence on record, has come to a definite conclusion that the contraband Ganja was seized beneath the seat of the bus and that the accused was sitting over the seat beneath which contraband ganja was kept. Therefore, he was implicated in this case. However, on the basis of the prosecution evidence, it was not established that such contraband was seized from the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused-Opposite Party. Since the

contraband was recovered from a public transport while transporting local public, the procedure that is required to be followed has not been followed. Eventually, the trial court in paragraph-7 of the judgment has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the contraband article was seized from inside the bus. Finally, in paragraph-8 of the judgment, the trial court after detailed analysis of the evidence has come to a conclusion that the seized contraband article was nothing but Ganja weighing 10 Kgs. 700 Grams which has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

10. With regard to the involvement of the Opposite Party in alleged crime, in paragraph-9 of the judgment, after a threadbare analysis of the evidence, the trial court has come to a conclusion that the ownership of the jerry bag in which the contraband article was packed, was not established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The link between such Opposite Party and the seized contraband article has not been established. Accordingly, he hasbeen given the benefit of doubt as he was travelling with other co-passengers and that it was not conclusively established that the seized contraband article belongs to the Opposite Party.Accordingly, the Opposite Party has been extended with the benefit of doubt. Resultantly, the Opposite Party has been acquitted from the charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act.

11. On a careful analysis of the impugned judgment, this Court

is of the view that the same does not call for any interference. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant leave to the State-Petitioner to prefer an appeal. Moreover, the CRLLP application, which is being taken after more than one and half decades, does not justify granting leave to the State-Petitioner to prefer an appeal.

12. Accordingly, the leave application stands dismissed.

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge

Debasis/Sisir

Signature Not Verified

Digitally SignedSigned by: DEBASIS AECHReason: AuthenticationLocation: ORISSA HIGH COURTDate: 16-Oct-2025 20:27:09