STATE OF ORISSA versus KANDURI SAHOO

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 487 · Decided: 04-12-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU, ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

. , 
ST A TE OF ORISSA 
A 
v. 
KANDURI SAHOO 
.DECEMBER 4, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: 
S.20(b)(i)-Accused foun.d in possession of contraband articles-
Sample sent for chemical examination after four days of alleged recovery- C 
During this period articles alleged to be kept in Excise Malkhana-Report 
of chemical examiner being positive-Conviction by trial court-Acquittal 
by High Court on the ground that there was no explanation about custody 
of articles from the date of alleged recove1y to the date of sending the 
samples for chemical examination-Held, merely because the articles were 
kept in Excise Malkhana for four days that would not make the prosecution D 
versions suspect-Though there was no specific order ofSDJMfor custody 
of the articles when accused was produced in court, it was clearly stated 
in the forwarding report that the seized articles and the sample thereof 
wer~ produced in court along with the accused-The evidence of the 
witness was categorical to the effect that the articles were kept in excise E 
Malkhana from where they Were brought and sent for chemical examinoi-
tion-Judgment of High Court is set aside and that of trial court restored. 
Valasla v. State of Kera/a, AIR (1994) SC 117, distinguished. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. p 
804 of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.9.96 of the Orissa High Court 
in Crl. A. No. 11 of 1996 . 
Radha Shyam Jena for the Appellant. 
The Order of the Court was delivered: 
G 
The State of Orissa questions correctness of judgment of a. learned 
Single Judge o.f the Orissa High Court by which the respondent was 
acquitted of the charges under Section 20 (b) (i) of the Narcotic Drugs & H 
487 
488 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (for sho11 'the Act'). Though the trial 
court found the respondent-accused guilty ofoffences, the High Court held 
that the accusation was not established and, therefore, directed acquittal. 
The factual position is as under : 
B 
On 13.5.1994 at about 7.00 A.M. the Excise Sub-Inspector, Mobile 
Squad No. l, Cuttack (PW-I) while patrolling with his As$istant Sub-
Inspector and constables at Gandhi Palli in Cuttack. City noticed the 
accused with a full gunny bag. Being suspicious that the accused was 
carrying contraband articles, he searched the accused in presence of 
C witnesses. He found that the gunny bag contained cannabis (ganja) 
weighing about 12 kg. 50 grams were taken as sample and was sent for 
c~emical examination. The chemical examination report indicated that the· 
sample was cannabis (ganja). On completion of investigation, the accused 
was sent up for trial which ended in conviction and sentence of 5 years 
/ 
R.I. and fine of Rs. 5000 with default condition of further imprisonment 
D for six months. The accused denied the charges. In order to bring home 
the accusations, the prosecut_ion examined three witnesses; PW-I, the 
Excise Sub-Inspector, Mobile Squad No. l, Cuttack, P.W. 2 was a witness 
to the seizure and P.W.3 the ASI who accompanied PW-I on patrol_duty. 
PW-2 pleaded ignorance about the contents of the seizure memo 
E though he admitted his signature. Considering the evidence on record, the 
trial court held the accused guilty and sentence was imposed. 
In appeal the only question which was urged was that there was no 
explanation about the custody of the articles for a period of four days. With 
F reference to the period of delay, it was submitted that though the seizure 
was allegedly made on 13 .5 .l 994, the sample was sent to the State Drug 
Testing Research Laboratory, Bhubaneswar on 17 .5. l 994 which, accord-
ing to the accused, was sufficient to discard the accusation. Stand of the 
State before the High Court was that the articles were kept in the safe 
G custody and were deposited in the Excise Malkhana at Cuttack pursuant 
to an order of the S.D.J.M., Cuttack before whom the accused was 
produced at the first instance. 
The High Court found that there was no specific order of the S.D.J.M. 
Cuttack that the articles were to be kept in the Excise Malkhana. That being 
H so, the High Cou11 held that the prosecution versio~ was not acceptable. 
ST ATE OF ORISSA v. KAND URI SAHOO 
489 
Reliance was placed in Valasla v. State of Kera/a, AIR (1994) SC 117 to A 
support the conclusion. Accordingly the High Court directed acquittal of 
the accu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.