Orissa High Court
Criminal Procedure Code vs State Of Odisha on 31 March, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 31-Mar-2026 19:11:18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLA No.553 of 2023
Along with
CRLA No. 573 of 2023
(In the matter of an application under Section 415(2) of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 374(2) of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973).
Chhotu @ Sk. Jamir .... Appellant (s)
For CRLA No. 553 of 2023
Prabhat @ Pravat Kumar Sethi
For CRLA No. 573 of 2023
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Respondent (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Amulya Ratna Panda, Adv.
Mr. Chandan Samantaray, Adv.
For Respondent (s) : Ms. Sarita Moharana, ASC.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-09.03.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-13.03.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Appellants have filed the instant Criminal Appeals under Section
374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 415(2) of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking the appellate
jurisdiction of this Court. The appeals are preferred against the Judgment
dated 19.04.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-
Presiding Officer, Designated Court under OPID, Balasore, in Special
Page 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 31-Mar-2026 19:11:18
Case No.18/299 of 2022/2020, whereby the appellants were convicted for
the offences under Section 21(C) of N.D.P.S Act and was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of
Rs.1,00,000/- each and in default of payment of fine undergo simple
imprisonment for one year each.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) On 05.11.2020, while the informant, accompanied by other police
personnel, was diligently discharging patrolling duties, they
received reliable and actionable intelligence of a grave nature that
three persons were lurking in the vicinity of Jyoti Sagar and were
actively hatching a nefarious design to traffic contraband substance,
i.e., brown sugar, to a dealer. Upon receiving the information, the
informant recorded the same in the Station Diary. Thereafter, along
with other staff members, he proceeded to the spot and observed
three persons standing on near the side of the hotel, one of them
was carrying one polythene bag containing some suspected
contraband materials.
(ii) On noticing the raiding party, the accused persons attempted to flee
from the spot; however, the informant along with his staff promptly
apprehended them. Upon interrogation, the accused disclosed their
names and identities, but failed to produce any valid or lawful
document justifying their possession of the contraband substance.
Thereafter, in the presence of the independent witnesses as well as
Page 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 31-Mar-2026 19:11:18
the Executive Magistrate, the contraband substance, namely brown
sugar, was recovered from the possession of the accused persons.
Subsequently, the contraband articles were seized, and the accused
persons were forwarded to the Court having jurisdiction.
(iii) On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the local police registered
an F.I.R., being Bhubaneswar STF P.S. Case No. 28 of 2020, for
alleged offences punishable under Section 21(c) and Section 29 of
the N.D.P.S. Act against the present Appellants.
(iv) Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted charge-sheet against the Appellants. Thereafter, on
19.04.2023, the learned Trial Court, upon examining 16 witnesses
and considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on
record, convicted the Appellants under Section 21(c) of the N.D.P.S.
Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, and in
default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a
further period of one year each
(v) Aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Appellants
have preferred the present criminal appeal before this Hon’ble
Court.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:
3. The learned counsel for the Appellants respectfully and earnestly made
the following submissions in support of his contentions:
Page 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 31-Mar-2026 19:11:18
(i) The Appellants submit that the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Designated Court, Balasore in Special Case No. 18 of 2022 whereby
the Appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment along with imposition of fine, are wholly
erroneous, perverse and unsustainable in the eye of law as well as
on facts.
(ii) It is contended that the learned Trial Court has failed to properly
appreciate the evidence on record and has arrived at findings
contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. The
Appellants further submit that the learned Trial Court has failed to
appreciate the materials and evidence available on record and has
thereby erroneously returned the findings of conviction. It is further
contended that the learned Court below has overlooked material
discrepancies and inconsistencies which were quite apparent in the
prosecution case and has failed to adhere to the settled principles
governing appreciation of evidence in criminal trials. Consequently,
the impugned judgment suffers from serious legal infirmities and is
wholly unsustainable in the eye of law.
(iii) The Appellants further contend that the learned Trial Court has
failed to appreciate the glaring non-compliance with the mandatory
provisions enshrined under Section 42, 42(1), 42(2) & 50 of the
N.D.P.S. Act. It is submitted that adherence to these provisions is
not merely procedural but goes to the root of the prosecution case,
Page 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 31-Mar-2026 19:11:18and any infraction thereof vitiates the entire trial. The Appellants
further assert that the prosecution has failed to establish the
essential ingredients of the alleged offence in accordance with law,
and the conviction, rests on an unsustainable and legally weak
foundation.
(iv) The Appellants further contend that the evidence of P.W.1 and
P.W.2 does not support the prosecution case. It is submitted that
both the said witnesses have categorically deposed that the alleged
contraband articles were not seized in their presence. Such
testimony goes to the root of the prosecution case and renders the
alleged seizure doubtful, thereby adversely affecting the credibility
of the prosecution case.
(v) The Appellants submit that P.W.2 who is an official witness, has
deposed that at about 9:30 P.M., upon being directed by the I.I.C.,
he accompanied a Sub-Inspector and other staff to verify certain
alleged credible information. However, it is contended that in his
deposition, the said witness has neither disclosed the source of such
information nor the basis on which it was treated as reliable with
regard to the alleged possession of contraband articles by the
present Appellants. This omission gives rise to serious doubt
regarding the authenticity and legality of the initial information and
casts a shadow over the prosecution case.
(vi) The Appellants further contend that P.W.3 and P.W.4 have
categorically deposed that on the relevant day at about 8:00 P.M.,
Page 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 31-Mar-2026 19:11:18the Sub-Inspector received reliable information to the effect that the
accused persons were to sell contraband articles near Hotel Jyoti
Sagar. It is submitted that from the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4, it
is apparent that there has been clear non-compliance with the
mandatory provisions of Section 42(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act, inasmuch
as the alleged information was neither reduced into writing nor
communicated to the superior officer as required under law. Such
non-compliance vitiates the search and seizure process and renders
the prosecution case legally unsustainable.
(vii) The Appellants further submit that a bare perusal of the evidence of
P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8 indicates non-compliance with the
mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is further
contended that such non-adherence to the statutory mandate
vitiates the very foundation of the prosecution case and renders it
legally unsustainable. The Appellants further submit that such
procedural lapses have caused prejudice to the accused persons,
thereby entitling them to the benefit of doubt.
(viii) The Appellants further contend that the prosecution has failed to
comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 42(2) of the
N.D.P.S. Act within the prescribed period of 72 hours. On the
contrary, the prosecution claims to have affected such compliance
only after 144 hours, without offering any plausible explanation for
the delay caused. It is submitted that such belated compliance
Page 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 31-Mar-2026 19:11:18amounts to a violation of the statutory mandate, thereby vitiating
the prosecution case and rendering the proceeding unsustainable.
(ix) The Appellants further contend that the prosecution has failed to
comply with the mandatory provision under Section 55 & 57 of the
N.D.P.S Act. It is submitted that P.W.16, who happens to be the I.O.
of the case, has categorically deposed; however, he has not stated
that he had seized or properly accounted for the essential
documents, namely the Section 50 notice, seizure list, zimananma,
and the drugs memo. Such material omissions on the part of the
Investigating Officer clearly indicate non-compliance with the
statutory safeguards, thereby creating serious doubt regarding the
fairness and legality of the investigation and rendering the
prosecution case is unsustainable.
(x) The Appellants further contend that there are numerous material
discrepancies and inconsistencies with regard to the alleged search
and seizure of the contraband articles. It is submitted that a bare
perusal of the entire body of evidence relied upon by the N.D.P.S
Act. Such lapses strike at the root of the prosecution case and render
the same doubtful, thereby entitling the Appellants to the benefit of
doubt.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent earnestly made the
submission that the present CRLAs deserve to be rejected in limine.
Page 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 31-Mar-2026 19:11:18
(i) The Respondent most respectfully submits that the learned Trial
Court, upon a proper and meticulous appreciation of the oral as
well as documentary evidence available on record, has rightly
passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
against the Appellants. It is further contended that the findings
recorded by the learned Trial Court are well-reasoned, based on
cogent, credible and trustworthy evidence, and do not suffer from
any perversity or legal infirmity. Hence, it is prayed that the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence be upheld, and the
appeal preferred by the Appellants, being devoid of merit, be
dismissed.
(ii) It is contended on behalf of the Respondent that the prosecution, by
adducing cogent and credible evidence, has clearly established the
commission of the offence punishable under Section 21(c) of the
N.D.P.S. Act. It is submitted that the prosecution has been able to
prove a complete and consistent chain of circumstances, supported
by reliable oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses as well as
duly proved documentary evidence on record, which unerringly
points towards the guilt of the accused. It is further contended that
there are no material contradictions or discrepancies which go to
the root of the prosecution case so as to discredit the same. In such
circumstances, the guilt of the accused stands proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
Page 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 31-Mar-2026 19:11:18
(iii) Accordingly, it is submitted that the learned Trial Court has
properly appreciated the evidence in its correct perspective and has
arrived at well-reasoned findings, warranting no interference by
this Hon’ble Court. It is further submitted that the testimony of the
victim, being natural, cogent and trustworthy, is sufficient to
sustain the conviction. It is contended that the same stands duly
corroborated by the consistent evidence of other prosecution
witnesses as well as the attendant facts and circumstances on
record. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned Trial Court has
properly appreciated the evidence and has rightly arrived at the
conclusion that the Appellant has committed the offence as alleged,
warranting no interference by this Hon’ble Court.
(iv) The Respondent further submits that PW 5 had scrupulously
complied with all the mandatory procedural safeguards as
envisaged under Chapter V of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985. PW-5 personally conducted the search of the
Appellant No.1 and recovered the contraband brown sugar from his
possession, along with one Samsung mobile phone and cash of Rs.
85, 680/. (Eighty-five thousand six hundred eighty)
(v) It is further submitted that no incriminating material was recovered
from the possession of the other co-accused persons. It is stated
that, on the instruction of P.W.5, P.W.4 weighed the seized
contraband using a weighing machine, which was found to be 1 kg
130 grams (gross weight), including the jerry bag. Thereafter, the
Page 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 31-Mar-2026 19:11:18
jerry bag was weighed separately and was found to weigh 25
grams, thereby determining the net quantity of the contraband. The
Respondent further contended that, as would be evident from
Ext.P-22 (spot map), the place of occurrence is a “public place”
within the meaning of Section 43 of the NDPS Act, and therefore,
strict compliance of requirements under Section 42 of the Act is not
mandatory in facts and circumstances of the present case. He
further submits that in Karnail Singh v. State Of Haryana1, it is
held that complete non-compliance with Section 42(2) invalidates
the conviction but in the present case, the place being a public place
the compliance of this section is not mandatory.
(vi) It is further submitted that, by way of abundant caution, P.W.5 had
intimated the S.P., STF, Bhubaneswar through a telephonic
message, as he was present at Balasore during the raid. It is further
submitted that Station Diary Entry No. 10 was duly recorded in
respect of the seizure effected by the Sub-Inspector (P.W.5). In view
of the above, since the seizure was affected in a public place and the
superior authority was duly informed, the alleged non-production
of the Station Diary or non-examination of the S.P., STF,
Bhubaneswar does not vitiate the prosecution case on the ground of
non-compliance with Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
(vii) The Respondent further submits that the mandatory requirement
under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act has been duly complied with. It
1
(2009) 8 SCC 539Page 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 31-Mar-2026 19:11:18is also contended that the right of the accused persons to be
informed of their option to be searched in the presence of an
Executive Magistrate or any Gazetted Officer is clearly reflected
from Exts. 5, 6 and 7 series, which bear the endorsements and
signatures of the accused persons, evidencing their due awareness
and exercise of such right. It is further contended that, in
consonance with the procedure prescribed under law, a Gazetted
Officer/Executive Magistrate was duly requisitioned and remained
present at the time of personal search, thereby ensuring strict
adherence to the safeguards contemplated Section 50 of the NDPS
Act. Hence, no illegality or procedural lapse can be attributed to the
prosecution on this score.
(viii) The Respondent further submits that the provisions under Sections
55 and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act have been duly and substantially
complied with. It is argued that the seized articles, including the
contraband brown sugar, were properly sealed, labeled and marked
as Material Objects (M.Os.) in accordance with the prescribed
procedure and without any objection from the defence at the
relevant stage.
(ix) It is further submitted that the prosecution has established an
unbroken chain of custody of the seized articles from the time of
seizure till their production before the learned Trial Court. In such
circumstances, the integrity and sanctity of the seized contraband
stand duly preserved, and no prejudice has been caused to the
Page 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 31-Mar-2026 19:11:18accused on account of any alleged procedural lapse. It is also
contended that the STF Police, having jurisdiction over the entire
State, is legally competent to retain custody of the seized articles in
connection with the present case. It is further submitted that P.W.5
had duly produced the seized contraband and other articles before
the S.P., STF, Bhubaneswar, in accordance with the statutorily
mandated procedure. It is contended that such production was
carried out in the presence of the Appellants, thereby ensuring
transparency and eliminating any possibility of tampering. In view
of the above, the custody and handling of the seized articles cannot
be said to suffer from any illegality or procedural irregularity so as
to vitiate the prosecution case. It is further submitted that merely
because the seized articles were not deposited in a local police
station or nearby police station en route dopes not, in any manner,
create any doubt or infirmity in the prosecution case. The procedure
adopted does not give rise to any misleading interference nor does
it affect the sanctity or safe custody of the seized contraband.
Hence, no prejudice has been caused to the Appellants on this score,
and the investigation remains untainted.
IV. FINDINGS OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM PRESIDING OFFICER,
BALASORE:
5. The learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 21(C) of the
N.D.P.S Act. Upon conclusion of the trial and appreciation of the
evidence adduced by the prosecution, it was found that the accused
guilty and accordingly convicted them.
Page 12
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 31-Mar-2026 19:11:18
6. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on
record, the learned Trial Court held that sufficient materials were
available to substantiate the charges framed against the accused. On a
careful evaluation of the testimonies of the victim and the Investigating
Officers, the learned Trial Court arrived at the conclusions that the
offence has been committed by the accused persons. Accordingly, the
Trial Court held that the charges under Section 21 (c) of N.D.P.S Act stood
proved.
7. In order to bring home the charges and the requirement of the proviso to
Section 42 was also not required to be complied with the since the
recovery was made at a public place and was therefore, governed by
Section 43 of the Act, which didi not lay down any such requirement.
Thus, the foundational ingredient of the offence, namely the commission
of suicide by the deceased, stands dully established.
8. In the instant matter the accused persons have duly exercised their
option, the claim of the accused persons for non-compliance of Section 50
of N.D.P.S. Act which is untenable in the eye of law. Furthermore, no
prejudice is caused to the accused persons in the procedure followed only
because it was served on the printed formant.
9. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the learned Trial Court concluded
that the prosecution had successfully established the offence under
Section21(C) of N.D.P.S. Act. Consequently, the accused was convicted
and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years
Page 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 31-Mar-2026 19:11:18
and pay fine of Rs 1,00,000/- in default whereof he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year .
V. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and upon careful
perusal of the materials available on record, this Court proceeds to
examine the applicability and scope of Section 42(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act in
the light of the facts of the present case. The said provision, being
mandatory in nature, is attracted only upon the existence of certain
foundational requirements. It contemplates two distinct sources of
information, namely: (i) personal knowledge of the empowered officer,
and (ii) information received from any person, which is required to be
reduced into writing and forthwith communicated to the immediate
superior officer. Further, such information must relate to the commission
of an offence punishable under Chapter IV of the Act, or to the
concealment or storage of any narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, or
any incriminating article in any building, conveyance or enclosed place
capable of furnishing evidence of such offence. It is only upon the
satisfaction of these conditions that the rigour of Section 42(2) is attracted,
and any deviation therefrom may have a bearing on the legality of the
search and seizure. It is a settled position of law that unless both the
essential components are satisfied in their entirety, the rigours of Section
42 cannot be invoked. In the absence of compliance with either of these
conditions, the proviso would have no application to the facts of the case.
Page 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 31-Mar-2026 19:11:18
11. At the outset, this Court considers it apposite to reiterate the well-settled
principle that a conviction can, in appropriate cases, be based solely on
the testimony of official witnesses, provided such evidence is found to be
reliable and trustworthy. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
embodies the principle that it is the quality and not the quantity of
evidence which is of paramount importance. Thus, the mere absence of
independent witnesses or the fact that the prosecution case rests on
official witnesses alone cannot, by itself, be a ground to discard the
prosecution case, if the evidence on record inspires confidence and stands
the test of careful scrutiny. However, it is equally incumbent upon the
Courts, particularly in prosecutions under the N.D.P.S. Act, to subject
such evidence to a more rigorous and cautious scrutiny. This heightened
standard assumes greater significance in situations where independent
witnesses fail to support the prosecution case, thereby necessitating
careful evaluation of the evidence to ensure that the evidence of official
witnesses inspires confidence and is free from any doubt.
12. In the present case, it is an undisputed position that the place of
occurrence was a “public place”. In such circumstances, the rigour of
Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act stricto senso will not be attracted, as the
said provision primarily governs search and seizure in buildings,
conveyances or enclosed places. Where the recovery is effected from a
public place, the matter would fall within the ambit of Section 43 of the
Act, and consequently, the requirements stipulated under Section 42
stand diluted in their application.
Page 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 31-Mar-2026 19:11:18
13. Be that as it may, even assuming for the sake of argument that the
telephonic information was not reduced into writing and communicated
to the immediate superior officer, thereby resulting in non-compliance
with Section 42(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act, but such omission, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, cannot be construed as ipso facto fatal
to the prosecution case. It is well settled that unless such non-compliance
is shown to have caused prejudice to the accused or has resulted in a
miscarriage of justice, the same would not vitiate the entire prosecution.
The Appellants have, with considerable vehemence, assailed the
prosecution case on the ground of alleged non-compliance of Section 50
of the N.D.P.S. Act. The legal position on this issue is no longer res
integra and stands authoritatively settled by the Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh2, 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 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 search2
(1999) 6 SCC 172Page 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 31-Mar-2026 19:11:18of 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……”
14. In the present case, the right of the accused persons to be duly apprised of
their entitlement to be searched in accordance with law is clearly borne
out from Exts. 5, 6 and 7 series, which contain endorsements made by the
accused persons under their respective signatures. The said documents
unmistakably demonstrate that the accused were informed of their
valuable right to exercise an option to be searched in the presence of
either an Executive Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Pursuant thereto,
and in strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under Section 50 of
the NDPS Act, the concerned authority ensured the presence of such an
officer, thereby lending due sanctity and procedural compliance to the
personal search conducted.
15. This Court is of the considered view that the requirement under Section
57 of the N.D.P.S. Act, compliance of which has been brought on record
and marked as Ext. P-14 through the testimony of P.W.5 without any
objection from the defence, is directory in nature. Non-compliance, or any
alleged irregularity therein, would not, by itself, inure to the benefit of the
Page 17
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 31-Mar-2026 19:11:18
accused so as to vitiate the prosecution case. In view of the foregoing
discussions, particularly with regard to the circumstance of seizure, the
place of occurrence, and the safe custody of the seized contraband
articles, this Court finds that the prosecution has been able to establish its
case with cogency and consistency, the culpability of the accused persons
under Section 21 (c) of the N.D.P.S. Act, therefore, remains intact ad
unrebutted, especially in light of the statutory presumption operating
under Section 54 of Act.
16. In view of the comprehensive reappraisal of the evidence on record, this
Court finds no infirmity or perversity in the findings retained by the
learned Trial Court. The conclusions arrived at are well-founded, based
on proper appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, and do
not call for any interference.
17. The learned Trial Court has rightly held that the Appellants guilty of the
offence punishable under Section 21(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act and has
justifiably sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of ten years, along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, with a default
stipulation of simple imprisonment for a further period of one year.
Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence so passed
by the learned Trial Court are hereby affirmed.
VI. CONCLUSION:
18. In view of the foregoing analysis upon perusal of the material produced
on record and meticulous consideration of the material facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered and firm opinion
Page 18
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 31-Mar-2026 19:11:18
that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Designated
Court under OPID, Balasore, in Special Case No.18/299 of 2022/2020,
arising out of STF Case No.28 of 2020, do not suffer from any illegality,
infirmity or perversity so as to warrant interference by this Court.
19. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are based on proper
appreciation of the evidence on record and are supported by cogent and
convincing reasons. Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeals, being
devoid of merit, stand dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court are hereby affirmed.
Consequently, this Court is not inclined to grant the reliefs prayed for by
the Appellants.
20. Accordingly, both the CRLAs stand dismissed.
21. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 13th March, 2026/
Page 19