Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.709 of 2023 and CRLA No.700 of 2023 (In the matter of appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). Chandan Kumar (in CRLA No.709 of 2023) Rajkumar Pandit (in CRLA No.700 of 2023) …. Appellant (s) -versus- State of Odisha …. Respondent (s) Advocates appeared in this case throughHybrid Arrangement Mode: For Appellant (s) : Mr. Jugala Kishore Panda, Adv. Mr. Sudhansu Sekhar Dash, Adv. Mr. Biswabhusan Das, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING: -19.01.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -13.02.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. Since both the above appeals arise out of the judgment dated 09.05.2023 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in 2(a) C.C. Case No.23 of 2021, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellants in the present appeals have assailed the order of conviction and sentence dated 09.05.2023 passed by the learned 1st Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Mar-2026 16:21:48 Signature Not Verified Page 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in 2(a) C.C. Case No.23 of 2021, whereby they were convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh), in default, to undergo further imprisonment for six months. I. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 06.04.2021 at about 4.50 A.M., while Umakanta Swain, Inspector of Excise, E.I. & E.B., Unit-I, Cuttack, along with other excise staff, was performing patrolling duty under the supervision of the then I.I.C., Excise, E.I. & E.B., Unit-I, Cuttack, near Judicial Academy Chowk, Cuttack, he received reliable information regarding illegal transportation of ganja in a Tata Sumo vehicle via Trisulia Chowk. The said information was reduced into writing and duly intimated to the superior officer. Thereafter, the excise officials proceeded towards Trisulia Chowk. 4. At about 5.30 A.M., a Tata Sumo Gold vehicle bearing Registration No. AP-03-AX-9414 was seen coming from the side of Barang towards Trisulia. The vehicle was intercepted near the Indian Oil Petrol Pump at TrisuliaChhak. Two persons were found inside the vehicle along with five jari bags. 5. Upon opening the vehicle, the Inspector detected a smell suspected to be that of ganja. On being questioned, the person seated in the driver’s seat stated that the jari bags contained ganja. Thereafter, a nearby Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Mar-2026 16:21:48 Signature Not Verified Page 3 person was called to witness the search and seizure proceedings after the Inspector disclosed his identity. 6. Notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served upon the occupants informing them of their right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Executive Magistrate. Both persons are stated to have given written consent to be searched by the Inspector. 7. During search, five jari bags were recovered from the vehicle. Each bag was found to contain a green-coloured substance. The Inspector conducted a rub test and burn test on samples drawn from each bag and, based on the result of the test and his experience, opined that the substance was ganja. On weighment, each bag was found to contain 25 kilograms, totalling 125 kilograms. The weight of each empty bag was recorded as approximately 200 grams. 8. The bags containing the substance were seized and a seizure list was prepared in presence of the accused persons and witnesses. Copies of the seizure list were supplied to the accused persons. The accused persons were arrested and grounds of arrest were prepared separately. A spot map was also prepared and the superior officer was informed regarding the search, seizure and arrest. 9. The accused persons and seized articles were produced before the learned J.M.F.C. (Rural), Cuttack. As per court order, samples of 50 grams each in two packets from each bag were drawn, sealed and one sample packet from each bag was sent for chemical examination under forwarding report of the learned Magistrate. The bulk quantity was Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Mar-2026 16:21:48 Signature Not Verified Page 4 sealed and kept in the respective gunny bags as per court order. On 07.04.2021, a preliminary report was submitted. 10. By order dated 07.12.2021, charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act was framed against the appellants and co-accused in 2(a) CC Case No. 23 of 2021 before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack. 11. By judgment dated 09.05.2023, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack held that the prosecution proved recovery of 125 kilograms of ganja from the possession of the accused persons and convicted the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act. The appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 12. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of sentence, the present appeals have been preferred. II. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANTS: 13. Learned counsel for the appellants earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. It was contended that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in 2(a) C.C. Case No. 23 of 2021 is contrary to law and the evidence available on record, and the same is therefore liable to be set aside. ii. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence on Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Mar-2026 16:21:48 Signature Not Verified Page 5 record while arriving at the finding of guilt under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985. It was submitted that the conclusion recorded by the trial court is not the result of a proper judicial evaluation of the evidence and circumstances of the case. iii. It was further submitted that the learned trial court has erred in accepting the prosecution version regarding the quantity of contraband allegedly seized. It was contended that though the prosecution case states that the ganja was weighed at the spot by means of a weighing machine, there is no clear evidence as to who brought the weighing machine, who operated it, and in whose presence the weighing was conducted. It was further submitted that in the absence of satisfactory evidence regarding the weighing process, the alleged recovery of commercial quantity becomes doubtful. According to learned counsel, non-production of cogent evidence with regard to the determination of quantity creates a serious lacuna in the prosecution case. iv. The appellants submitted that the evidence available on record has not been properly evaluated by the learned trial court and that the portion of the evidence standing in favour of the accused has been ignored. It was further contended that the learned trial court adopted a selective approach in appreciating the evidence which ultimately resulted in conviction of the appellants. According to learned counsel, the findings recorded in the impugned judgment are therefore unsustainable. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Mar-2026 16:21:48 Signature Not Verified Page 6 v. The appellants further submitted that the learned trial Judge did not properly apply judicial mind while evaluating the evidence on record in the light of the relevant legal provisions. It was contended that the findings recorded in the impugned judgment are therefore unsustainable and liable to be interfered with by this Court. vi. The appellants further submitted that the learned trial court erred in placing reliance solely on the evidence of official witnesses in absence of independent corroboration. It was contended that the sole independent witness, namely P.W.1, in his cross-examination admitted that he had not seen the weighing of the seized contraband and had not produced the brass seal which was allegedly handed over to him by the Investigating Officer during trial. According to learned counsel, in view of such admissions, the prosecution case becomes doubtful and the findings recorded by the learned trial court are not sustainable. vii. The appellants further submitted that the learned trial court erred in convicting the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act inasmuch as the mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) and 42(2) of the Act were not complied with. It was contended that as per the prosecution case, the alleged seizure was effected at about 5.30 A.M., i.e., before sunrise. The information regarding transportation of ganja in a Tata Sumo vehicle was stated to have been reduced into writing and sent to the superior officer, namely the I.I.C. of Excise. However, according to the evidence on record, Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Mar-2026 16:21:48 Signature Not Verified Page 7 the said superior officer was himself present on patrolling duty along with the Investigating Officer (P.W.3). On the above premises, learned counsel contended that there was no proper compliance of the mandatory requirements of Section 42 of the NDPS Act and therefore the conviction recorded by the learned trial court is unsustainable. viii. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the learned trial court ought to have scrutinized the entire evidence on record before arriving at the conclusion that the appellants had committed the offence. It was contended that instead of evaluating the evidence in its totality, the learned trial court adopted a selective approach in appreciating the depositions of the witnesses and relied only on those portions which supported the prosecution case. It was further submitted that a cumulative reading of the evidence of all the witnesses does not unerringly lead to the conclusion that the appellants committed the offence. On such grounds, learned counsel prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment. ix. It was further submitted that no other evidence has been proved by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the appellants in respect of the alleged offence. It was contended that the presumption of innocence in favour of the appellants has not been displaced by cogent and reliable evidence and that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. On such grounds, Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Mar-2026 16:21:48 Signature Not Verified Page 8 learned counsel submitted that the order of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside. x. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the impugned judgment dated 09.05.2023 is unsustainable in law and facts and is liable to be set aside. It was contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt and that the appellants are entitled to acquittal. III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT/STATE: 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. The respondent/State supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the prosecution has duly proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt through consistent and cogent evidence of the official witnesses, which is corroborated by documentary evidence and chemical examination report. ii. It was submitted that the prosecution has proved the seizure of 125 kilograms of ganja from the conscious possession of the appellants through reliable and cogent evidence. It was contended that the information was duly recorded in writing and forwarded to the superior officer in compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The accused persons were informed of their right under Section 50 of the Act and gave written consent to be searched by the detecting officer. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Mar-2026 16:21:48 Signature Not Verified Page 9 iii. It was further submitted that the seized contraband was properly sealed, samples were drawn before the learned Magistrate, and the Chemical Examination Report conclusively establishes that the seized substance was ganja within the meaning of Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act. According to learned counsel for the State, minor discrepancies elicited in cross-examination do not affect the core prosecution case and the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants. IV. FINDINGS OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CUTTACK 15. The learned 1stAdditional Sessions Judge, Cuttack, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, held that on 06.04.2021 at about 5.30 A.M. the accused persons were intercepted at Trisulia Chhak while travelling in a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Registration No. AP-03-AX-9414 and were found in possession of five plastic gunny bags containing ganja. Each bag was found to contain 25 kilograms, totaling 125 kilograms, which was held to be commercial quantity. 16. The trial court found that the information received by the detecting officer was reduced into writing and communicated to the I.I.C., and that there was due compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. It further held that the accused persons were duly served with option letters under Section 50 of the Act and had given written consent to be searched by the detecting officer. 17. The trial court accepted the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 regarding search, seizure, weighment, sealing and preparation of seizure list, and found Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Mar-2026 16:21:48 Signature Not Verified Page 10 that such evidence was corroborated by the independent witness, P.W.1. Though the brass seal was not produced during trial and certain discrepancies were pointed out by the defence regarding timing and measurement, the trial court held that such lapses were not fatal in the absence of any material to show tampering. 18. Relying upon the Chemical Examination Reports, which confirmed that the seized samples were ganja, the trial court concluded that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons were in conscious possession of 125 kilograms of ganja. Accordingly, both were convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, with default stipulation. V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 19. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material placed on record. 20. The principal contention urged on behalf of the appellants relates to alleged non-compliance of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act and improper appreciation of evidence by the learned trial court. In view of such contention, the findings recorded by the trial court require re- appreciation. 21. On careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.3, the detecting officer, it appears that the information received regarding transportation of ganja was reduced into writing and the same was placed before the I.I.C., Excise, who was supervising the patrol duty. The said document bears Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Mar-2026 16:21:48 Signature Not Verified Page 11 signatures and has been duly proved. Nothing substantial has emerged in cross-examination to discredit its authenticity. The learned trial court has examined this aspect in detail and has rightly held that the requirement of Section 42(1) and (2) of the Act stood complied with. The mere fact that the I.I.C. was present at the spot does not, by itself, vitiate compliance, particularly when he was the officer in charge of the Unit. 22. With regard to the contention that the search was conducted before sunrise, the record indicates that the vehicle was intercepted at about 5.30 A.M. and the search was completed during early morning hours. The information had already been reduced into writing prior to interception. In the absence of material to show deliberate violation of statutory safeguards, the proviso to Section 42 cannot be said to have been infringed. 23. So far as Section 50 is concerned, the option letters and written consents have been proved through P.Ws.2 and 3 and corroborated by the independent witness P.W.1. The signatures of the accused persons on the said documents have not been disputed. Therefore, due compliance of Section 50 stands established. 24. The recovery of five gunny bags containing ganja from the vehicle occupied by the appellants has been consistently deposed to by P.Ws.2 and 3 and finds support from the testimony of P.W.1. The seizure list and weighment chart have been duly proved on record. The contention regarding non-production of the brass seal or certain discrepancies relating to timing does not, in the facts and circumstances of the case, create any reasonable doubt, particularly when the seized articles were Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Mar-2026 16:21:48 Signature Not Verified Page 12 produced before the learned Magistrate and samples were drawn pursuant to court orders. 25. The Chemical Examination Reports confirm that the seized substance was ganja. There is no material on record to suggest any break in the chain of custody. The defence has not been able to establish any circumstance indicating false implication or tampering with the seized articles. 26. Upon re-appreciation of material on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were in conscious possession of 125 kilograms of ganja, which constitutes commercial quantity under the Act. 27. The sentence imposed is the statutory minimum prescribed under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. No ground has been made out warranting interference either with the conviction or the sentence. VI. CONCLUSION: 28. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Cuttack in 2(a) C.C. Case No. 23 of 2021. The findings recorded by the learned trial court are based on cogent evidence and correct application of the provisions of the NDPS Act. 29. The prosecution has successfully established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were in conscious possession of 125 kilograms of ganja, which constitutes commercial quantity. The statutory safeguards under Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act have been duly complied Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 05-Mar-2026 16:21:48 Signature Not Verified Page 13 with, and the objections raised on behalf of the appellants do not merit acceptance. 30. Accordingly, both the Criminal Appeals, i.e., CRLA No.709 of 2023 and CRLA No.700 of 2023, stand dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.05.2023 are hereby affirmed. 31. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 13th February, 2026/-