Page 1 of 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No. 70 of 2017 Basanta Swain ..... Appellant Mr. A.K. Panda, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha ..... Respondent Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 13.01.2026 Order No.28 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. A.K. Panda, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that vide the impugned judgment dtd.23.12.2016 so passed by the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Berhampur, Ganjam in 2(a) CC Case No. 15 of 2015 (M/TR No. 15/2015), Appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default S.I. for 6 months for the offence under Sec. 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. 4. Placing reliance on the custody certificate so issued by the concerned Jail Superintendent Circle Jail, Berhampur available under Flag-R on 22.11.2025, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that Appellant in the meantime as per the Jail Manual and so indicated in the custody certificate as on 22.11.2025 had undergone sentence of 10 years 5 months 9 days. Page 2 of 2. 4.1. It is contended that since the Appellant is convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and in default S.I. for 6 months and taking into account the custody certificate produced on 22.11.2025, Appellant had already undergone 10 years 5 months 9 days of sentence and in the meantime, he has already undergone the required sentence so imposed on him, Appellant be released from custody. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate fairly contended that Appellant as on 22.11.2025 as per the Jail Manual had undergone sentence of 10 years 5 months 9 days and the further period calculated after 22.11.2025 to till date will be more than the sentence imposed on the Appellant. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submission made and the fact that Appellant had already undergone the sentence so imposed vide the impugned judgment, this Court directs for release of the Appellant from his custody, if his detention is not required in any other case forthwith. 7. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha