NARENDRA SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this appeal calls in question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bolangir in Sessions Case No. 20 of 1992. Learned Sessions Judge, Bolangir vide the impugned judgment held the appellant guilty of charges under Section 20(a)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as N.D.P.S. Act) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand) in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year more for that count. Case of the prosecution is that on 28.01.1992 Sivanarayan Panda (P.W.3), the Sub-Inspector of Excise, Bolangir while conducting patrol duty in village Kuturapali noticed the appellant was watering green 'hemp plants inside a fenced field known as 'Bel Atta' locally. He as such proceeded to the spot along with his staff Lalit Mohan Mishra (P.W.1) and demanded the appellant to show authority for cultivation of the same, but the appellant could not show any authority or license for such cultivation. He uprooted and counted the plants which comes to 277 and seized the same through seizure list (Ext. 1) and forwarded the appellant to the court. So also conducted further enquiry and on completion of the same, he placed the prosecution report against the appellant for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 20(a)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The appellant being charged of the aforesaid offence and having pleaded not guilty, faced the trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Bolangir.

(2.) On conclusion of the trial, basically relying on the evidence of official witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 3, the trial court returned the judgment of Conviction and order of sentence repelling the defence plea of denial and false implication.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in this case since the version of the prosecution witnesses against the appellant was not corroborated by the independent witness to seizure who said to have witnessed the seizure, the trial court ought not have returned the judgment of conviction and order of sentence solely relying on the version of official witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 3 more particularly when their evidence is unworthy of credence, in the facts and circumstances of the case.