pg. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No.1174 of 2024 along with CRLA No.416 of 2025 (From the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.05.2024, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge- cum- Special Judge, Berhampur in Case No.2(a)C.C. 106/2023 (N) arising out of P.R.No.178 dated 30.06.2023 of Inspector of Excise, E.I. & E.B., Unit-II (S.D.), Berhampur) Ved Ram Giri (In CRLA No.1174 of 2024) Sanjeev Kumar (in CRLA No.416 of 2025) …. Appellant(s) -versus- State of Odisha …. Respondent (s) Advocates appeared in the case: For Appellant(s) : Mr. A.P. Bose, Adv. along with Mr. P.K. Paik, Adv. Mr. D. Sahu, Adv. Mr. R.K. Das, Adv. -versus- For Respondent(s) : Mr. U.R. Jena, AGA CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-02.02.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-13.02.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. Since the issues raised in both the Appeals referred to above involve common questions of fact and law, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Apr-2026 17:54:49 Signature Not Verified pg. 2 2. Both the Appellants, in both the CRLAs, assail the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.05.2024, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Berhampur in Case No.2(a)C.C. 106/2023 (N) arising out of P.R.No.178 dated 30.06.2023 of Inspector of Excise, E.I. & E.B., Unit-II (S.D.), Berhampur, whereby the Appellants were convicted under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced each of them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. However, for the sake of convenience and effective adjudication, CRLA No.1174 of 2024 is treated as the lead case. I. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION: 3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the prosecution story is that on 30.6.2023 at about 8 A.M based on an information, the Inspector of Excise, Hrudaya Chandra Samanta of El & EB, Unit-II (SD), Berhampur along with his staff while conducting patrolling duty at Lanjipalli bye-pass Berhampur near N.H.16 found one Truck was coming from Berhampur Town side towards N.H.16 in high speed. On suspicion, they detained the Truck bearing Regd. No.HR-67-9200 and found two persons were sitting. Being asked, they gave their identity. Since smell of Ganja was coming out of the vehicle, he asked them about the contents of the vehicle, to which they remained silent. When the Inspector of Excise gave them option to be searched in presence of Executive Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Apr-2026 17:54:49 Signature Not Verified pg. 3 they consented to be examined before him. The Inspector of Excise called one passerby named B. Kameya Reddy, who agreed to be a witness and, in his presence, the vehicle was searched and recovered 11 nos. of jari bastas containing Ganja. He poured the contents of the jari bags in a tarpaulin, mixed homogeneously, took a small amount, rubbed it in his palm, burnt the same, from its colour, odour, texture, his departmental experience and NDPS training, he ascertained the contents of those bags were Cannabis Ganja. Hence, he repacked the Ganja in those jari bastas as before and on weighing each jari basta came to 40 Kgs total 440 Kgs excluding jari basta and each empty jari basta came to 200 grams. Hence, he sealed the jari basta containing Ganja, affixed paper slip having signature of the accused and witnesses, sealed it through brass seal by means of lac impression. After seizer of those bags, prepared the seizure list, marked the jari bastas as A to L, gave the used brass seal in zima of the ASI Braja Bihari Nayak, prepared spot map and other documents at the spot. Thereafter, took the signature of accused persons and witnesses, gave a copy of seizure list to each of the accused persons. They gave their signature on the back side of the seizure list. The accused persons were examined at City Hospital, Berhampur and produced along with the seized articles and the seized vehicle before the learned Special Court, Berhampur. As per the direction of the learned Special Judge, the accused persons were remanded to Circle Jail, Berhampur, produced the seized property before the learned SDJM, Berhampur, who saw the seals were intact, broke the seal and Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Apr-2026 17:54:49 Signature Not Verified pg. 4 drew two of samples each of 50 grams from each of the jari bags. The samples were collected by the office of learned SDJM, Berhampur marked as A-1, A-2 to L-1 & L-2. The learned SDJM, Berhampur issued authorization in favour of ASI Antarjyami Sahu to submit the sample A-1 to L-1 before the Asst. Chemical Examiner, DECTL, Berhampur and the sample A-2 to L-2 were deposited before the Court malkhana along with the broken seal. As per the direction of the Court the seized bulk Ganja were kept in his custody at Malkhana and was subsequently disposed of as per the order of the court. On 1.7.2023 after depositing of the sample by ASI Antaryami Sahu at DECTL, Berhampur, gave him the acknowledgment receipt, on 5.7.2023 he received the chemical examination report, on 30.8.2023 he wrote a letter to RTO, Haryana regarding the ownership of the alleged offending TATA Truck vehicle, on 30.8.2023 received the original report from the Deputy Superintendent of Excise Berhampur regarding search, seizure and arrest compliance under Section 57 NDPS Act and since prima-facie evidence was well made out against both the Appellants, he submitted final P.R.(C-5) against them under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of N.D.P.S. Act to face the trial. 4. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the trial court vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence held the prosecution to have proved the aforesaid charges and convicted the present Appellants thereunder as stated supra. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Apr-2026 17:54:49 Signature Not Verified pg. 5 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the Appellants have preferred the afore-mentioned appeals. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT IN CRLA NO.1174 OF 2024: 6. In assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement of the witnesses. There is no iota of evidence against the appellants to have committed the crime. 7. He further contended that the Appellant (Ved Ram Giri) was agreed to search before any Gazetted Officer, but the Prosecution had started to search itself without any Independent Witness. while served the Notice to the Appellant under Section 50 of NDPS Act, 1985 there is s no option to show that the Appellant wanted the presence of Gazetted Officer. P.W.2 is an independent witness and he was not present at an alleged crime scene and he was compelled to put his signatures on the blank pages at Ankuli. He had no direct knowledge about an alleged crime scene. 8. The Prosecution was failed to seize the Driving License or any other documents from the alleged Vehicle of the Appellant. The Statement was recorded in the absence of an independent witness by the Inspector of Excise, El & EB Unit - II (SD) at Berhampur Under Section 67 of NDPS Act, 1985, which has been written in Odia Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Apr-2026 17:54:49 Signature Not Verified pg. 6 language that the Appellant (Ved Ram Giri) is an illiterate and the Inspector of Excise had not explained in vernacular language. 9. In such view of the matter, it was contended that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence should be set aside. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT IN CRLA NO.416 OF 2024: 10. In assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the trial court has erred in law in convicting the Appellant (Sanjeev Kumar) under section 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act in absence of any direct evidence for which the order of conviction is illegal and bad in law. 11. Admittedly, no evidence was adduced to prove the exclusive and conscious possession of contraband Ganja by the Appellant. The prosecution has failed to prove the connection between the alleged vehicle and the appellant, as well as, the only Independent witnesses P.W.2 is not supporting the prosecution case. The entire case against the Appellant rests upon the circumstantial evidence only. 12. The trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that the statement made by P.W.2 who is named as an independent witness has not supported the prosecution case categorically deposing that he does not know the informant and the accused persons and that, the excise officials had told him to put signatures on some blank documents. 13. There is biased investigation actions from the excise officials starting from the detention of the accused persons up to submission of final Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Apr-2026 17:54:49 Signature Not Verified pg. 7 report, without complying the proper procedure stated in the provisions of NDPS Act as well as of Cr.P.C. for search and seizure. Moreover, the I.O. P.W.3 has not listed other witnesses who are accompanied him during the Raid. 14. The trial court has failed to appreciate the facts that (i) the prosecution has not complied the Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act which provides for sending copy to immediate superior (ii) The prosecution has not conducted search of the accused persons in presence of an Executive Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer violating Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 15. The trial court has over-looked the fact that the vehicle in which the alleged contraband “Ganja” was recovered by the police does not belong to the Appellant who was not even driving the said vehicle. Further, the police officials did not take any afford to contact or find out the actual owner of the truck and the belongings therein. From the side of the I.O. valuation of contraband article was not provided even the owner of the vehicle's name is not implicated as accused in this case. The I.O. (PW 3) intentionally omitted the name in order to protect him. This clearly shows the negligence on the part of the police and failure on the part of the prosecution to proceed in a fair trial. 16. As per Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the I.O. had not informed the Executive Magistrate for the procedure of search and seizure and in order to establish the case against the Appellant, he just manufactured the blank signed plain paper and obtained signature Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Apr-2026 17:54:49 Signature Not Verified pg. 8 from the Appellant. Further, no such photographs or video of the seized contraband articles were cited as evidence before the trial court. 17. The trial court ignoring the vital point in this case that, the sample extracted for testing prior to weighting of the contraband article and after mixing of 11 nos. of Jari basta, the I.O. drawn the sample without extracting the samples from each jari basta and after collecting the sample, the I.O. repacked the jari basta which is crystal clear of the violating the mandatory provision under Section 52(A) of the NDPS Act as well as violating of Standing Order No.1 of 1989 dated 13.06.1989 issued by Government of India. 18. The trial court failed to appreciate the fact that, the seized contraband deposited before the court malkhana on 13.07.2023 that is after 14 days of the seizure, but, the I.O. has not mentioned the cause of delay in his report. The prosecution has also not justified the delay of depositing the contranband before the court malkhana after 14 days of the seizure which is clear indication of tampering of evidence from the side of prosecution. The trial court ignoring such vital point passed the conviction order against the present appellant which is completely bad in law. 19. The Appellant had never confessed his guilt of alleged transportation of Ganja and in any case such statement, if any, made to police officer is to be hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (read with Section 23 of BSA) read with Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Apr-2026 17:54:49 Signature Not Verified pg. 9 20. In such view of the matter, it was contended that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence should be set aside IV. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/ STATE: 21. In reply, learned counsel for the State submits that on 30th June, 2023, at about 8:00 A.M., at Lanjipalli Bypass, Berhampur, P.W. 3 (Hrudaya Chandra Samanta, Inspector of Excise, EI & EB, Berhampur) seized eleven jari bastas from a truck bearing Registration No.HR-67-9200, which were found to contain a total quantity of 440 kilograms of contraband Cannabis (Ganja). The said commercial quantity was recovered from the conscious and unauthorized possession of the accused persons, named Ved Ram Giri and Sanjeev Kumar, who were found transporting the said contraband without any valid license or legal authority 22. The law is well settled that if the statement of the official witnesses relating to search and seizure are found to be cogent, the court will have to appreciate the relevant evidence as per the versions of official witnesses. In lieu of the above, the A.S.I of Excise (Braja Bihari Nayak) who is an empowered officer under Section 53 of NDPS Act, 1985 as well as an official witness (i.e. P.W.1) deposed the same facts pertaining to the search and seizure of contraband Ganja. Furthermore, as per Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, numbers of witnesses is immaterial in establishing the case. Thus, the two official witnesses (P.W.1 and P.W.3) fully supported the prosecution case and adduced cogent and clinching evidence that Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Apr-2026 17:54:49 Signature Not Verified pg. 10 proves the fact that the accused persons were found in exclusive and conscious possession and transportation of contraband Ganja weighing 440 kgs packed in 11 number of jari basta in one Truck bearing Regd.No. HR-67-9200. Hence, non-examination of any other witness is not fatal to the prosecution case and will not amount to suppression of material facts. 23. The impugned judgement of the lower court does not suffer from any illegality as the search and seizure of contraband Gania being possessed and transported by the Accused persons is well established and compliance of personal search under Section 50 of NDPS Act is not applicable in the present case. 24. The Chemical Examination Report (C.E Report vide Ext. P-19) disclosed the seized article to be nothing else than Contraband Narcotic Substance (Ganja). In the present case, the possession of Ganja itself is established beyond all reasonable doubt, the burden is on the accused persons to rebut the same with evidence. But, the accused persons did not lead evidence on their behalf nor did adduce any such rebuttal evidence by the accused persons to discard the allegation. Although the Appellants have asserted that the Ganja sample was examined from mixed sample, but, the accused did not rebut anything pertaining to the same during the accused statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, the adverse presumption cast on the two accused persons and it is presumed that they were in exclusive and conscious possession of Ganja bags weighing 440 kgs. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Apr-2026 17:54:49 Signature Not Verified pg. 11 25. So far as non-compliance of section 50 of NDPS Act, 1985 is concerned, the same does not vitiate the trial as search under Section 50 of NDPS Act itself is not at all significant as personal search is of no use as it relates to recovery of huge amount of 440 kgs of contraband Ganja from the vehicle rather than anything recovered from the personal search of the accused persons. Further, the Excise Inspector prepared a report under Section 50(6) of NDPS Act since there was a chance of absconding of the accused persons from the spot. 26. Learned counsel for the State also placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Kallu Khan –vrs.- State of Rajasthan1, Surinder Kumar –vrs.- State of Punjab2 and Baldev Singh –vrs.- State of Haryana3 27. Based on the aforementioned submissions, it is submitted that there is no merit in the present Appeals filed by the Appellants, and the same are liable to be dismissed in limine. V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 28. This Court has heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Parties and also carefully perused the evidence on record. i. The appeals call in question a conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act involving recovery of 440 kilograms of Ganja which is a commercial quantity attracting 1 (2021) 19 SCC 197 2 (2020) 2 SCC 563 3 (2015) 17 SCC 554 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Apr-2026 17:54:49 Signature Not Verified pg. 12 rigorous punishment. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more stringent the punishment, the stricter must be the scrutiny of procedural safeguards. The N.D.P.S. Act, though a special statute with reverse burden clauses, is equally a code of safeguards, compliance with its mandatory provisions is not a ritualistic formality but a constitutional imperative flowing from Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. ii. At the outset, this Court reiterates that conviction can rest on the testimony of official witnesses alone. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act embodies the principle that it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which matters. However, in prosecutions under the N.D.P.S. Act, courts are enjoined to subject such evidence to heightened scrutiny, particularly where independent witnesses do not support the prosecution case. iii. The Appellants have strenuously submitted on the fact of non- compliance of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The jurisprudence on the point stands crystallized by the Constitution Bench in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh4, which authoritatively held that Section 50 is mandatory insofar as it relates to personal search of an accused. “32….. However, the question whether the provision of Section 50 are mandatory or directory and, if mandatory, to 4 (1999) 6 SCC 172 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Apr-2026 17:54:49 Signature Not Verified pg. 13 what extend and the consequences of non-compliance with it does not strictly speaking arise in the context in which the protection has been incorporated in Section 50 for the benefit of the person intended to be searched. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to whether the provision of Section 50 are mandatory or not, but bearing in mind the purpose for which the safeguard has been made, we hold that the provision of Section 50 of the Act implicitly make it imperative and obligatory and cast a duty pf the investigating officer (empowered officer) to ensure the search of the person (suspect). Concerned is conducted in the manner prescribed by Section 50, by intimating to the person concerned about the existence of his right, that if he so requires, he shall be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate and in case he so opts, failure to conduct his search before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate would cause prejudice to the accused and render the recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction and sentenced of the accused, where the conviction has been recorded only on the basis of the possession of the illicit article, recovered during a search conducted in violation of the provision of Section 50 of the Act…...” iv. In the present case, the recovery was effected from a vehicle and not from the personal search of the accused. The distinction between “personal search” and “search of vehicle or container” has been consistently reaffirmed in Kallu Khan v. State of Rajasthan5 and Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab6, where the Supreme Court clarified that Section 50 has no application to search of vehicles or bags not inextricably connected with the person of the accused. Therefore, the 5 (2021) 19 SCC 197 6 (2020) 2 SCC 563 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Apr-2026 17:54:49 Signature Not Verified pg. 14 contention regarding violation of Section 50, in the factual matrix of the present case, does not vitiate the search and seizure. v. The Appellants have next assailed the prosecution on alleged non-compliance of Section 42(2) of the Act, contending that prior information was not reduced to writing and communicated to superior officers. The evidence indicates that the interception occurred during patrolling at Lanjipalli Bypass near N.H.-16 which is a public place. The distinction between Sections 42 and 43 has been judicially delineated in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana7, wherein it was held that while Section 42 mandates prior written information in cases of search in buildings, conveyances or enclosed places, Section 43 governs seizures made in public places, where strict prior compliance is not insisted upon. vi. In the present case, the recovery having been effected at a public thoroughfare, the rigour of Section 42 stands considerably diluted. Moreover, the prosecution has placed on record compliance under Section 57, which, though directory, lends assurance to procedural regularity. vii. The gravamen of the prosecution case rests upon the doctrine of “conscious possession.” Both accused persons were found seated inside the truck from which commercial quantity of Ganja was recovered. Once possession is established, Sections 7 (2019) SCC Online P & H 704 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Apr-2026 17:54:49 Signature Not Verified pg. 15 35 and 54 of the N.D.P.S. Act engraft a statutory presumption as to culpable mental state and conscious possession. The Supreme Court in Madan Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh8 expounded that possession in the context of the N.D.P.S. Act implies dominion and control coupled with knowledge. The burden thereafter shifts on the accused to satisfactorily explain such possession. In the present case, no defence evidence was adduced. The statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. are mere denials devoid of plausible explanation as to how such an enormous quantity of contraband came to be transported in the vehicle in which they were present. In absence of rebuttal, the statutory presumption remains unrebutted. viii. The Appellants have further submitted that the sampling procedure is vitiated as the contents of eleven jari bastas were mixed prior to drawing samples, allegedly contravening Section 52A and Standing Order No.1 of 1989. The record reveals that after seizure, the bulk contraband was produced before the learned S.D.J.M., who verified the seals and thereafter supervised the drawing of samples. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that irregularity in sampling, unless shown to cause prejudice or create reasonable doubt about identity of the substance, does not ipso facto vitiate conviction when chemical examination confirms the seized substance to be contraband. 8 CWP(T) No.16230 of 2008 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Apr-2026 17:54:49 Signature Not Verified pg. 16 ix. The Chemical Examination Report unequivocally opines that the samples tested positive for Ganja. There is no material suggesting tampering of seals. Mere delay in depositing the bulk in malkhana, absent evidence of manipulation, cannot by itself demolish the prosecution case. x. The Appellants have contended that statements recorded under Section 67 are inadmissible in view of the law declared in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu9, wherein it was held that officers under the N.D.P.S. Act are “police officers” and confessional statements to them are hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. “158. We answer the reference by stating: (i) That the officer who are invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are “police officers” within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be bared under the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act. (ii) That a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trail of an offence under the NDPS Act” 9 (2021) 4 SCC 1 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Apr-2026 17:54:49 Signature Not Verified pg. 17 This Court is conscious of the said ratio. However, even if the statements under Section 67 are excluded from consideration, the prosecution case does not collapse, as the conviction rests primarily on recovery, seizure evidence, and chemical analysis report, independent of any confessional statement. xi. The non-support of P.W.2, the independent witness, most strenuously highlighted by the defence. It is well settled that hostile testimony does not efface the prosecution case in its entirety. The consistent and cogent testimony of official witnesses, if found trustworthy, can sustain conviction. There is no material contradiction of such magnitude as to corrode the substratum of the prosecution case. 29. Upon overall evaluation of the evidence, this Court finds that the recovery of commercial quantity of Ganja from the truck stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. The statutory presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 remain unrebutted and the alleged procedural lapses do not amount to fatal non-compliance of mandatory safeguards. Hence, the impugned judgment does not suffer from perversity, illegality, or misappreciation of evidence warranting appellate interference. The trial court has appreciated the evidence in its correct legal perspective. The conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act and the sentence imposed are commensurate with the gravity of the offence and call for no interference. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 09-Apr-2026 17:54:49 Signature Not Verified pg. 18 30. Accordingly, both the Criminal Appeals stand dismissed. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi ) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 13th February, 2026/ CUTTACK