Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 622 (ORI)

Srikanta Samal v. State of Odisha

2019-11-01

S.K.SAHOO

body2019
JUDGMENT : S.K. Sahoo, J. The appellant Srikanta Samal faced trial in the Court of learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack in G.R. Case No. 978 of 2010 (Tr. No.23 of 2010) for offence punishable under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereafter 'N.D.P.S. Act') on the accusation that on 19.08.2010 at about 5.30 p.m. at Mahanadi Vihar, Cuttack, he was found in illegal and unauthorized possession of two plastic bags containing in total 55 Kgs. of contraband ganja which was of commercial quantity. The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 11.04.2012 found the appellant guilty of the offence charged and sentenced him 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 rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. The prosecution case, as per the first information report lodged by Sri Rabinarayan Bhanja (P.W.11), S.I. of police, Mahanadi Vihar police outpost under Chauliaganj police station is that on 19.08.2010 at about 5.30 p.m. the informant received information from reliable sources that huge quantity of contraband ganja was kept inside a silver colour TATA SUMO vehicle which was parked by the side of the road in front of Plot No.1260, Shree Vihar, Mahanadi Vihar at a close distance to Reliance Fresh and that the appellant had brought the contraband ganja, kept the same in the TATA SUMO vehicle and intending to take it to Jagatsinghpur for sale and if immediate raid is not be conducted, the appellant would flee away. The informant had reason to believe that delay would facilitate the suspect to escape and so he decided to conduct raid and accordingly, he entered the fact in the outpost station diary vide Mahanadi Vihar O.P. S.D.E. no.352 dated 19.08.2010 and in the light of provision under section 42(2) of N.D.P.S. Act, he sent the letters along with the extract of the station diary entry to the IIC of Chauliaganj police station/A.C.P., Zone-I and D.C.P., Cuttack intimating them the grounds of belief through Havildar Sanantan Mallick vide Dispatch Register entry no.243. The informant along with other police staff proceeded to the spot to verify the authenticity of the information received and on the way, he picked up two independent witnesses explaining them the purpose of raid. The informant along with other police staff proceeded to the spot to verify the authenticity of the information received and on the way, he picked up two independent witnesses explaining them the purpose of raid. At about 6.00 p.m., the raiding team arrived at the spot and found the Tata Sumo Vehicle bearing Regd. No. CG04-1788 was parked by the side of the road in front of Plot No.1260 and the appellant was sitting in the driver's seat and trying to start the vehicle. The informant and his staff surrounded the vehicle and directed the appellant to come out of the vehicle. The informant gave his identity to the appellant and also asked the appellant about his identity who disclosed the same. When the informant told the appellant that he had information that contraband ganja had been kept inside the TATA SUMO vehicle and that the appellant was dealing with contraband ganja, the appellant became nervous. Seeing the gesture and posture of the appellant, the informant's suspiciousness got confirmed and he disclosed his intention before the appellant to take his personal search as well as the search of TATA SUMO. When the informant intimated the appellant verbally as well as in writing to exercise his option as to whether he wanted to be searched before an Executive Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, the appellant intimated the informant to be searched in the presence of any Gazetted Officer which was obtained in writing. The informant issued requisition to A.C.P., Zone-I, Cuttack with a request to remain present during search and accordingly, at about 7.00 p.m. Sri Nimai Charan Sethy (P.W.8), OPS, Asst. Commissioner of Police, Zone-I reached at the spot in his vehicle and the informant disclosed his information before the ACP and he was also introduced to the appellant. Before conducting the search, the informant, the ACP and other witnesses gave their personal search to the appellant but no incriminating articles were found from their possession. Then the personal search of the appellant was taken in the presence of the witnesses and nothing incriminating was found from his personal possession. However, during search of the vehicle, two plastic bags were found on the rear seat. The driving licence of the appellant was also recovered from the vehicle. The plastic bags were opened and it was found to be containing contraband ganja. However, during search of the vehicle, two plastic bags were found on the rear seat. The driving licence of the appellant was also recovered from the vehicle. The plastic bags were opened and it was found to be containing contraband ganja. The appellant failed to produce any authority in support of possessing the contraband ganja. A weighman namely Mahesh Sahu (P.W.1) was called to the spot who came with weighing machine and as per the instruction from the informant, the ganja was weighed by the weighman and in one bag, it was found to be 25 Kgs. and another bag was found to be containing 30 kgs. of ganja. The first bag having 25 Kgs. ganja was marked as Ext.A and the second bag having 30 Kgs. ganja was marked as Ext.B. Those two bags were sealed using the personal brass seal impression of the informant who also seized TATA SUMO vehicle and the driving licence of the appellant and prepared seizure list wherein he himself, ACP, Zone-I and the weighman signed on it. The informant put his personal brass seal impression on the seizure list putting wax. A copy of the seizure list was handed over to the appellant and his acknowledgement was obtained on the body of the seizure list. The weighing machine was seized and it was given in the zima of the weighman. A copy of the seizure list was handed over to the appellant and his acknowledgment was taken on it. The weighing instrument was given in the zima of P.W.1. The informant took his personal brass seal impression on a sheet of paper and the witnesses, weighman and ACP, Zone-I signed on it. The personal brass seal of the informant was handed over to Nihar Ranjan Das (P.W.3) by executing zimanama with a request to produce the same in the Court of law during trial and to keep it in safe custody till that date. The appellant was arrested after intimating him the grounds of arrest and arrest memo was prepared and the plain paper F.I.R. was drawn and the seized articles were produced before the IIC, Chauliaganj police station. 3. The appellant was arrested after intimating him the grounds of arrest and arrest memo was prepared and the plain paper F.I.R. was drawn and the seized articles were produced before the IIC, Chauliaganj police station. 3. On the basis of the written report of P.W.11, Chauliaganj P.S. Case No.110 dated 19.08.2010 was registered under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act against the appellant by the Inspector in charge who directed Debi Prasad Patra (P.W.13), S.I. of Police, Chauliaganj Police Station to take up investigation of the case. During course of investigation, P.W.13 verified the seizure list with seized articles which were handed to the Inspector in charge who resealed the same and kept in the P.S. Malkhana. The I.O. examined the witnesses, visited the spot with the informant and prepared the spot map (Ext.18). On 20.08.2010 the appellant was forwarded to Court. As per the direction of the IIC, P.W.13 received the seized ganja and produced the same in Court and made a prayer to the Court for drawal of sample and accordingly the learned S.D.J.M., Sadar, Cuttack drew up the sample and it was handed over to the I.O. to produce it before the S.F.S.L., Bhubaneswar for chemical analysis. A constable was deputed by the I.O. to produce the sample at S.F.S.L., Bhubaneswar and the rest bulk of ganja was produced in Sessions Malkhana. The Malkhana register and the station diary of Chauliaganj police station were seized and those were left in the zima of one police officer namely Mamatarani Panda. The station diary of Mahanadi Vihar police outpost dated 19.08.2010, the dispatch register of the said date of the outpost, command certificate issued to the Havildar and the office copy of the letter of the informant regarding compliance of section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act were seized and the station diary and the dispatch register were handed over to the informant under zimanama (Ext.15). The receipt register of DCRB/SR of Cuttack UPD showing the receipt of letter under section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act was seized and a seizure list was prepared. The chemical examination report was received which indicated that the exhibits marked as A1 and B1 found to contain fruiting and flowering tops of cannabis plant i.e. ganja. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 14.02.2011 against the appellant under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act. 4. The chemical examination report was received which indicated that the exhibits marked as A1 and B1 found to contain fruiting and flowering tops of cannabis plant i.e. ganja. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 14.02.2011 against the appellant under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act. 4. The learned trial Court framed charge under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act on 12.05.2011 and the appellant refuted the charge and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The defence plea of the appellant was that some other person was driving the offending TATA SUMO vehicle and he left the vehicle on being chased by police and fled away and that the appellant was a mere passer-by who had nothing to do with the offending vehicle and that the informant directed him to catch hold of the man fleeing away leaving the vehicle and since he failed to catch hold of that man, the police falsely implicated him in the case. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined thirteen witnesses. P.W.1 Mahesh Sahu did not support the prosecution case for which he was declared hostile. P.W.2 Laxmipriya Swain was the owner of the offending vehicle which she sold to one Subash Chandra Behera of Jobra, Cuttack but she had not handed over the documents of the vehicle to him. She stated about the seizure of the documents of the vehicle from her possession by the police on 14.12.2010 as per seizure list Ext.3. P.W.3 Nihar Ranjan Das did not support the prosecution case for which he was declared hostile. P.W.4 Kailash Chandra Mallik was the Head Constable who stated about the seizure of some documents from S.R. Section, UPD, Cuttack as per seizure list Ext.7. P.W.5 Sarat Chandra Das who was the police constable attached to Mahanadi Vihar outpost stated about the seizure of extract of Station Diary entry and one Dispatch Register of the outpost under seizure list Ext.8. P.W.6 Surendra Kumar Swain was the A.S.I. of police attached to Chauliaganj police station who stated about the seizure of ganja from the vehicle as per seizure list Ext.1/2. P.W.7 Dhruba Ch. Samantaray was the A.S.I. attached to Chauliaganj police station who also stated about the seizure of Ganja from the vehicle and preparation of seizure lists. P.W.6 Surendra Kumar Swain was the A.S.I. of police attached to Chauliaganj police station who stated about the seizure of ganja from the vehicle as per seizure list Ext.1/2. P.W.7 Dhruba Ch. Samantaray was the A.S.I. attached to Chauliaganj police station who also stated about the seizure of Ganja from the vehicle and preparation of seizure lists. P.W.8 Nimain Charan Sethy was the A.C.P., Zone-I, Cuttack who on receipt of telephonic information from the informant and also report under section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act proceeded to the spot and remained present at the time of search and seizure of ganja from the offending vehicle. P.W.9 Prasanta Kumar Parida was the A.S.I. of police attached to S.R. Section, UPD, Cuttack who stated about the seizure of reports under sections 42 and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act as per seizure list Ext.7. P.W.10 Subash Chandra Behera was the purchaser of the offending vehicle from P.W.2 as per agreement. He stated about his ignorance relating to the appellant for which he was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.11 Rabi Narayan Bhanja was the S.I. of police in-charge of Mahanadi Vihar outpost under Chauliaganj police station who is the informant in the case and stated about the receipt of reliable information relating to parking of the offending vehicle with contraband ganja, its detection, search of the vehicle and seizure of ganja from the possession of the appellant and preparation of seizure lists. P.W.12 Padmini Pani was the police constable attached to Chauliaganj police station who stated about the seizure of Malkhana register of Chauliaganj police station, station diary from S.I. of police Mamatarani Panda as per seizure list Ext.17. P.W.13 Debi Prasad Patra was the S.I. of police of Chauliaganj police station who is the Investigating Officer who on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet. The prosecution exhibited twenty six documents. P.W.13 Debi Prasad Patra was the S.I. of police of Chauliaganj police station who is the Investigating Officer who on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet. The prosecution exhibited twenty six documents. Exts.1/2, 2/2, 3, 7, 8 and 17 are the seizure lists, Ext.4/1 is the written option given to the appellant, Exts.5/3 is the impression of the brass seal on a paper, Ext.6/1 is the zimanama, Ext.9 is the command certificate, Ext.10 is the report submitted to D.C.P., Cuttack, Ext.11 is the report submitted to A.C.P. and I.I.C., Ext.12 is the extract of station diary entry no.352 dated 19.08.2010, Ext.13 is the first information report, Ext.14 is the office copy of the detailed report under section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act, Exts.15 and 21 are zimanama, Ext.16 is the smart card D.L. of the appellant, Ext.18 is the spot map, Ext.19 is the written prayer of I.O. to Court for drawal of sample, Ext.20 is the forwarding report for chemical examination, Exts.22 and 24 are the station diaries, Ext.23 is the Malkhana Register, Ext.25 is the dispatch register and Ext.26 is the chemical examination report. The prosecution also proved two material objects. M.O.I and M.O.II are the bags containing ganja. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence. 7. The learned trial Court after analysing the evidence on record came to hold that even though Ext.11 which is the report submitted to A.C.P. and I.I.C. by the informant (P.W.11) does not bear the seal and signature of the I.I.C. but the genuineness of this report cannot be doubted as the sending of such information to I.I.C. has been duly reflected in the dispatch register (Ext.25). It was further held that genuineness of the Malkhana register of Chauliaganj police station marked as Ext.23 cannot be doubted. It was further held that analysis of the evidence of P.W.8, 11 and 13 with regard to receipt of information and sending of the same in relation to the possession of contraband article by the appellant to the official superior would clearly show that the mandatory provisions under section 42 (1) and (2) have been fully complied with. It was further held that analysis of the evidence of P.W.8, 11 and 13 with regard to receipt of information and sending of the same in relation to the possession of contraband article by the appellant to the official superior would clearly show that the mandatory provisions under section 42 (1) and (2) have been fully complied with. It was further held that nothing substantial has been elicited from the cross examination of P.W.11 and P.W.13 to disbelieve their version with regard to seizure of contraband articles at the spot and with regard to the proper sealing so also safe custody of the articles in the P.S. Malkhana. It was further held that the prosecution has complied all mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act satisfactorily and it has been established that the appellant was transporting ganja in the offending vehicle and he was the occupant of the vehicle wherefrom contraband ganja was seized and accordingly, it was held that charge under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act has been well proved against the appellant. 8. Mr. Smruti Ranjan Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously argued that the independent witnesses like P.W.1 and P.W.3 have not supported the prosecution case. The defence plea taken by the appellant is a probable one and P.W.3 in the cross-examination has supported the defence plea taken by the appellant in the accused statement. Relying on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Muniappan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 47 OCR 489 (SC), he argued that the evidence of P.W.3 cannot be discarded as a whole and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law can be used by the prosecution or the defence. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that neither P.W.2, the owner of the offending vehicle nor P.W.10 who purchased the vehicle from P.W.2 has stated as to how the vehicle came into the possession of the appellant on the date of occurrence and therefore, adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Makhan Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 61 OCR 532 (SC). He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Makhan Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 61 OCR 532 (SC). It is argued that P.W.6 has not specifically stated that it was the appellant who was sitting inside the vehicle and P.W.7 has stated that the appellant was moving near the vehicle and tried to escape with the vehicle and P.W.11 has stated that the vehicle was about to start when they surrounded it and therefore, the evidence of the official witnesses are discrepant in nature. No key of the vehicle was seized or produced during trial which is a missing link in the chain of circumstances proved by the prosecution. The presence of the driving license of the appellant in the vehicle as was shown is a doubtful feature and the persons of the locality where the contraband articles were seized having not been examined in the case to substantiate the search and seizure, the appellant is entitled to get benefit of doubt. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Ghadua Muduli Vs. State of Orissa, (2018) 71 OCR 413. Placing reliance in the case of Basanta Kumar Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa, (2016) 63 OCR 889, it is argued that in view of the discrepancies in the evidence of the official witnesses like P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.11, the search and seizure of contraband ganja from the possession of the appellant becomes doubtful. Placing reliance in the case of Union of India Vs. Bal Mukund, (2009) 43 OCR 241 (SC), it is argued that since the mandatory provisions under section 42(1) and (2) of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with by the informant while effecting search and seizure, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is further argued that there is lack of clinching material to show that the seized contraband ganja was in safe custody free from tampering after its seizure till it was produced in Court. Reliance was placed in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sk. Faiyaz Vs. State of Orissa, (2010) 46 OCR 855. It is further argued that there is lack of clinching material to show that the seized contraband ganja was in safe custody free from tampering after its seizure till it was produced in Court. Reliance was placed in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sk. Faiyaz Vs. State of Orissa, (2010) 46 OCR 855. It is further argued that the original Malkhana register was not produced in Court even though it is stated to be available in D.C.R.B., Cuttack and therefore, the carbon copy of the Malkhana register (Ext.23) which was marked with objection is not admissible. The handing over of the personal brass seal of P.W.11 to the independent witness P.W.3 by executing zimanama is a doubtful feature and moreover the brass seal was not produced in Court either at the time of production of the seized articles or during trial of the case. While concluding his argument, Mr. Mohapatra contended that since the punishment prescribed for the offence is very stringent, in view of the lacunas in the prosecution case, benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the appellant. Mr. Priyabrata Tripathy, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand supported the impugned judgment and contended that even though the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case but the version of the official witnesses is clear and trustworthy and therefore, the learned trial Court rightly placed reliance on the same. It is further contended that the suspicious conduct of the appellant at the spot, the seizure of his driving license from the offending vehicle, the seizure of contraband ganja in two bags which were found in the vehicle, the sealing of the bags at the spot, keeping of the seized articles in the P.S. Malkhana after making necessary entry in the Malkhana register, the production of the seized articles on the very next day of the seizure, the collection of the sample of ganja from the seized bags before the Court and above all the findings of the chemical examination report clearly proves the prosecution case against the appellant and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. Independent witnesses not supporting the prosecution case: 9. Independent witnesses not supporting the prosecution case: 9. Adverting to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding independent witnesses like P.W.1 and P.W.3 not supporting the prosecution case, it is the settled principle of law that merely because the independent witnesses do not support the prosecution case, the evidence of the police witnesses cannot be disbelieved. If the evidence of the official witnesses is reliable, trustworthy and inspires confidence, conviction can be sustained basing on the testimony of such witnesses. The testimony of the police officials cannot be viewed with suspicion or with distrust. The quality of the evidence weighs over the quantity of evidence. Rule of prudence requires a careful scrutiny of the evidence of the police witnesses as they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Non-supporting of the prosecution case by independent witnesses in N.D.P.S. Act cases is a usual feature which is to be kept in mind by the Court and the same cannot be a ground to discard the entire prosecution case. The Court has got an onerous duty to appreciate the relevant evidence of the official witnesses and determine whether it is believable after taking due care and caution. Therefore, even though P.W.1 and P.W.3 have not supported the prosecution case, the evidence of the official witnesses requires to be assessed carefully to see whether it inspires confidence or not. Defence plea of the appellant: 10. The appellant has taken a specific plea that some other person was driving the offending TATA SUMO vehicle which he left on being chased by police and fled away and that the appellant was a mere passer-by who had nothing to do with the offending vehicle and the informant directed him to catch hold of that man fleeing away leaving the vehicle but since he failed to catch hold of that man, the police falsely implicated him in the case. Apart from taking such a specific stand in the accused statement, suggestion has been given by the defence counsel to the informant (P.W.11) in that respect who has denied it. No such suggestion has been given to any other official witnesses who accompanied P.W.11 to the spot. However, P.W.3 who has not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile by the Addl. No such suggestion has been given to any other official witnesses who accompanied P.W.11 to the spot. However, P.W.3 who has not supported the prosecution case and was declared hostile by the Addl. Public Prosecutor and was permitted by the learned trial Court to put leading questions under section 154 of the Evidence Act, supported such defence plea when he was cross examined by the defence. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that P.W.3 stated to have seen the appellant at Chauliaganj police station. If that be so, his evidence that he was present at the spot and saw the incident as per the defence plea cannot be accepted. It is not in dispute that the defence plea can be established by preponderance of probabilities. The prosecution cannot derive any advantage from the falsity or other infirmities of the defence version, so long as it does not discharge its initial burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt. If the defence version is incorrect, it does not mean that the prosecution version is necessarily correct. The prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. In the case of Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1981) AIR SC 765, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a false plea by the defence can at best be considered as an additional circumstance provided other evidence on record unfailingly point to the guilt of the accused. In the case of Tanviben Pankaj Kumar Divetia Vs. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 156 , it is held that the falsity of the defence cannot take the place of proof of facts which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed. In case of Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya Vs. In the case of Tanviben Pankaj Kumar Divetia Vs. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 156 , it is held that the falsity of the defence cannot take the place of proof of facts which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed. In case of Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 5 SCC 722 , it is held that the statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. cannot be made a basis for conviction of the accused and it is not a substantive piece of evidence and therefore, it can be used only for appreciating the evidence laid by the prosecution, though it cannot be a substitute for the evidence of the prosecution and adverse inference can be made against the accused only and only if the incriminating material stands fully established and the accused is not able to furnish any explanation for the same. The accused has a right to remain silent and he cannot be forced to become a witness against himself. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance in the case of C. Muniappan (supra) to accept the evidence of P.W.3 supporting the defence plea, wherein it was held that the evidence of the hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law can be used by the prosecution or the defence. After a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, I am not inclined to accept the defence plea which has been projected by the appellant as it is not only inconsistent but taken at a belated stage which on the face of it appears to be a concocted one. It is not understood as to why the police officials would ask the appellant to chase a person without themselves chasing to apprehend him when they were having motorcycles with them and why they would falsely entangle the appellant merely because he failed in his attempt to catch hold of that person. Therefore, the defence plea is discarded. Possession of the offending vehicle with the appellant: 11. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that it is doubtful as to how the offending vehicle came into the possession of the appellant on the date of occurrence. Therefore, the defence plea is discarded. Possession of the offending vehicle with the appellant: 11. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that it is doubtful as to how the offending vehicle came into the possession of the appellant on the date of occurrence. P.W.2, the owner of the offending vehicle has stated that he purchased the vehicle bearing registration no.CG-04-1788 about seven to eight years back which was sold to P.W.10 on 03.07.2010 but she had not handed over the documents of the vehicle to P.W.10. She produced the documents of the vehicle including the deed of agreement between her and P.W.10 before police which were seized under seizure list Ext.3. P.W.10 has also stated that he purchased the vehicle from P.W.2 on 03.07.2010 by making an advance payment and on execution of a deed of agreement vide Ext.9 and that one Amiya Ranjan Sahoo had taken that vehicle from him one day which was found involved subsequently in the N.D.P.S. Act case. In the cross-examination, P.W.10 has stated that he had been to the village of Amiya Ranjan Sahoo four to five times but could not meet him and that he visited his house last in March 2011 but learnt that he had died. Therefore, the prosecution though examined the owner of the vehicle as well as the person who purchased the vehicle paying advances but could not be able to examine Amiya Ranjan Sahoo on account of his death for which it could not be ascertained as to how the vehicle came into the possession of the appellant. In the case of Makhan Singh (supra) which was placed by the learned defence counsel, the Hon'ble Supreme Court analysing the facts came to hold that the Courts below erred in attributing to the appellants the onus to prove that wherefrom fitter-rehra (a vehicle) had come, especially when ownership/possession of fitter-rehra has not been proved by the prosecution. In the case in hand, since the best person who could have thrown light as to how the appellant came into possession of the offending vehicle died, the prosecution case cannot be discarded on that score. Position of the appellant at the spot with the offending vehicle: 12. The official witnesses who arrived at the spot simultaneously with the informant (P.W.11) are P.W.6 and P.W.7. Position of the appellant at the spot with the offending vehicle: 12. The official witnesses who arrived at the spot simultaneously with the informant (P.W.11) are P.W.6 and P.W.7. P.W.11 stated that when they reached at the spot, the TATA SUMO vehicle was about to start and they surrounded the vehicle and the appellant who was on the driver's seat disclosed his name and address and as per his direction, the appellant came out of the vehicle. P.W.6 stated that a person like the appellant was sitting inside the offending vehicle when they arrived at the spot. P.W.7 stated that the appellant was moving near the vehicle and seeing them he tried to escape with the vehicle and sat on the driver's seat but was detained. Therefore, there are no such material discrepancies in the evidence of the three official witnesses relating to the position of the appellant when they arrived at the spot, which would disbelieve their version. Minor discrepancies in the statements of witnesses cannot be the reason to discard the case of the prosecution nor will those weaken the prosecution case. Minor discrepancies between the narrations of witnesses do happen when they speak on details. Unless the contradictions are of material dimensions, the same should not be used to discard the evidence in its entirety. The trivial discrepancy ought not to obliterate the otherwise acceptable evidence. Key of the vehicle not seized: 13. Even though the key of the vehicle was not seized by the police or produced during trial, the same cannot be a factor to discard the prosecution case that the appellant was in the driver's seat of the offending vehicle when he was apprehended. It cannot also be said to be a missing link in the chain of circumstances proved by the prosecution. Had the appellant not been found in the driver's seat of the vehicle or inside the vehicle, non-seizure of the key of the vehicle from his possession might have been a relevant factor. Seizure of driving licence of the appellant: 14. The driving license of the appellant was recovered from inside the vehicle as stated by the informant (P.W.11) which was seized as per seizure list Ext.1/2. In the seizure list, P.W.11 has specifically mentioned that the driving licence was seized from TATA SUMO vehicle. P.W.7 also stated that the driving licence of the appellant was recovered from the vehicle. The driving license of the appellant was recovered from inside the vehicle as stated by the informant (P.W.11) which was seized as per seizure list Ext.1/2. In the seizure list, P.W.11 has specifically mentioned that the driving licence was seized from TATA SUMO vehicle. P.W.7 also stated that the driving licence of the appellant was recovered from the vehicle. P.W.8 has stated that the driving licence of the appellant was detected in the drawer of the vehicle. The smart card driving licence of the appellant has been marked as Ext.16. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve the seizure of the driver licence from the offending vehicle. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that ordinarily the driver use to keep the smart card driving licence in the money purse. Such an argument cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of seizure of the driving licence from inside the vehicle as it varies from person to person as to where they would feel safe in keeping the smart card driving licence. Therefore, the seizure of the driving licence of the appellant from the vehicle and that the appellant was found in the driver's seat of the vehicle are the clinching circumstances against him. Persons of the locality not examined: 15. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that persons of the locality where the contraband articles were seized having not been examined in the case to substantiate the search and seizure, it becomes a doubtful feature as to whether the search and seizure was made at the place in question. Reliance was placed in the case of Ghadua Muduli (supra) wherein it is held after considering the provisions under section 100 and 165 of Cr.P.C. that there is absolutely no evidence that at the time of search and seizure, there was non-availability of independent and respectable witnesses of the locality or non-inclination of such persons even though available to become witnesses to the search and seizure and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that there is violation of the provision under section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. in carrying a stock witness from his house during the night for the search and seizure, was accepted. In the case in hand, when P.W.11, the informant proceeded to the spot along with the two police officials like P.W.6 and P.W.7, he picked up two independent witnesses from Justice Chhak, Mahanadi Vihar namely Nihar Ranjan Das (P.W.3) and Sarat Barik. The said place was close to the spot. P.W.3 is a person from the locality where the search and seizure was made but he did not support the prosecution case. Sarat Barik who is also a man of the same locality was shown as a witness in the charge sheet but on 23.09.2011 the said witness appeared before the trial Court on being summoned and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor tested the witness and found him not supporting the prosecution case for which a memo was filed not to examine the said witness assigning the reason and accordingly the same was reflected in the order sheet dated 23.09.2011. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any violation of the provision under section 100(4) of Cr.P.C. while effecting search and seizure. Discrepancies in the evidence of official witnesses: 16. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the official witnesses P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.11 relating to the search and seizure of ganja from the possession of the appellant which makes the prosecution case doubtful. Reliance was placed in case of Basanta Kumar Pradhan (supra) wherein this Court taking into account, inter alia, the discrepancies in the evidence of the official witnesses and lacunas came to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish its case. Let me now analyse the evidence of the aforesaid four witnesses. P.W.6 has stated that a person like the appellant was sitting inside the vehicle which was parked near Reliance Fresh and when P.W.11 made a query to him regarding ganja, he did not give any reply. He further stated that when the gate of the vehicle was opened, he saw two bags of ganja were kept inside the vehicle which was weighed in the presence of ACP and one bag was found to be containing 25 kgs. of ganja whereas the other bag was containing 30 kgs. of ganja and accordingly, the seizure list was prepared at the spot. He further stated that the bags were sealed with the brass seal of the informant. of ganja whereas the other bag was containing 30 kgs. of ganja and accordingly, the seizure list was prepared at the spot. He further stated that the bags were sealed with the brass seal of the informant. In the cross-examination, P.W.6 stated that ACP arrived at the spot at 7.30 p.m. He further stated he had not seen the affixture of brass seal on the ganja bags. He is a witness to the seizure lists vide Exts.1 and 2. P.W.7 has stated that the appellant was moving near the vehicle and on seeing them, he tried to escape with the vehicle and sat on the driver's seat but he was detained. He further stated that the informant gave requisition to ACP who came in his vehicle to the spot and personal search of the informant and others were taken but nothing incriminating was found. However, in the back seat of the vehicle, two gunny bags along with driving licence of the appellant were recovered. He further stated that the ganja bags were brought out of the vehicle and weighed by the weighman and one gunny bag was found to be containing 25 kgs. of ganja and other gunny bag was found to be containing 30 kgs. of ganja. He further stated that seizure lists were prepared at the spot wherein the witnesses signed and seal was affixed on the seized ganja bags. On scanning of the evidence of the P.W.6 and P.W.7, it appears that though P.W.7 stated about the personal search of the informant and others including the appellant prior to the search of the vehicle but the evidence of P.W.6 is silent in that respect. Similarly, the recovery of driving licence as stated by P.W.7 has not been stated by P.W.6. However, I find that there are no discrepancies relating to the recovery of two packets containing ganja which were weighed at the spot and found to be 25 kgs. and 30 kgs. P.W.8, the ACP stated to have arrived at the spot at 7.00 p.m. on 19.08.2010 as per requisition submitted by P.W.11. He not only stated about the personal search of the appellant and the raiding team but also stated about the recovery of two packets of ganja from the rear seat of the TATA SUMO vehicle along with the driving licence of the appellant. He not only stated about the personal search of the appellant and the raiding team but also stated about the recovery of two packets of ganja from the rear seat of the TATA SUMO vehicle along with the driving licence of the appellant. He further stated that on weighment, one packet was found to be containing 25 kgs. of ganja and the other packet was found to be containing 30 kgs. of ganja. He further stated about the preparation of the seizure list by the informant wherein he has put his signature. Nothing substantial has been elicited in the cross-examination of this witness and the evidence of P.W.8 corroborates of the evidence of P.W.7. P.W.11, the informant has stated that when he arrived at the spot along with official witnesses P.Ws. 6 and 7 and other independent witnesses, the TATA SUMO vehicle was about to start which they detained and the appellant was found in the driver's seat and as per the option given by the appellant, P.W.8 arrived at the spot at 7.00 p.m. whereafter the personal search of the appellant as well as other team members were taken and two bags of ganja were found in the vehicle and it was recovered along with the driving licence of the appellant and on weighment, one bag was found to be containing 25 kgs. of ganja and the other bag was found to be containing 30 kgs. of ganja which were seized as per seizure list after sealing with his personal brass seal. He further stated to have handed over the brass seal in the zima of P.W.3 executing zimanama (Ext.6/1). Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of this witness to disbelieve his version. The evidence of P.W.11 gets sufficient corroboration from the evidence P.W.7 and P.W.8. Therefore, except some minor discrepancies here and there in the evidence of the official witnesses, it is the consistent case of the prosecution that the appellant was found in the driver's seat of the vehicle and his driving licence was also seized from the vehicle and two bags containing contraband ganja were found inside the vehicle which on weighment came to 25 kgs. and 30 kgs. Therefore, there is nothing in the evidence of the official witnesses to doubt the search of the vehicle and seizure of two ganja packets from it which were in the possession of the appellant. and 30 kgs. Therefore, there is nothing in the evidence of the official witnesses to doubt the search of the vehicle and seizure of two ganja packets from it which were in the possession of the appellant. Non-compliance of section 42(1) and (2) of N.D.P.S. Act: 17. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 42(1) and (2) of the N.D.P.S. Act while effecting search and seizure by P.W.11. Reliance was placed in the case of Bal Mukund (supra) wherein it is held that taking down in writing the information given by any person that any drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under the Act has been committed is very necessary to be complied with as per section 42(1) of the N.D.P.S. Act which is to be communicated to the immediate superior officer within seventy two hours as per sub-section (2) of section 42. P.W.11, the informant received the information regarding keeping of huge quantity of contraband ganja inside the TATA SUMO vehicle bearing registration no. CG-04-1788 which was parked near Reliance Fresh on 19.08.2010 at 5.30 p.m. which he entered in the Station Diary Entry No.352. According to him, the extract of the Station Diary entry with forwarding letters were sent to I.I.C., ACP Zone-I and DCP, Cuttack through Havildar Sanatan Mallick vide dispatch register entry no.243. He proved the command certificate as Ext.9, the report submitted to DCP as Ext.10 and the report submitted to I.I.C. and ACP as Ext.11. He proved the Station Diary entry no.352 dated 19.08.2010 as Ext.12. In the cross-examination, he stated that Mahanadi Vihar Police outpost comes under Chauliaganj police station and Inspector in charge of the said police station was his immediate superior authority. He further stated that the report under section 42(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act was submitted to DCP, Cuttack and copy was given to I.I.C., Chauliaganj police station as well as ACP, Zone-I. Even though the report was only required to be submitted by P.W.11 to I.I.C. of Chauliaganj police station as he was his immediate official superior but merely because the reports were also submitted to ACP, Zone-I and DCP, Cuttack, it cannot be said that there was any illegality or that the provision under section 42(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act has not be complied with. Of course, the Havildar Sanatan Mallick who carried the report has not been examined during trial but the investigating officer (P.W.13) seized the Station Diary Entry No.352 dated 19.08.2010, the dispatch register of Mahanadi Vihar outpost vide no.243 dated 19.08.2010, command certificate issued to Havildar Sanatan Mallick as per seizure list Ext.8. The Station Diary Entry book of Mahanadi Vihar outpost which was containing entry no.352 was marked as Ext.24 and the dispatch register of Mahanadi Vihar outpost was marked as Ext.25. P.W.5 who was a constable of Mahanadi Vihar outpost also stated about such seizure. P.W.9 who was the A.S.I. of police attached to S.R. Section of Urban police, Cuttack stated about the seizure of the report under section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act submitted by the informant. Therefore, on receiving the information of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) of section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act, P.W.11 has reduced it into writing in the concerned register and forthwith sent a copy not only to his immediate official superior but also to other superior officers before proceeding to take action in terms of clauses (a) to (d) of section 42(1). The oral evidence adduced by the official witnesses in that respect gets corroboration from the documentary evidence which were proved in accordance with law and therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly held that the mandatory provisions under section 42(1) and (2) have been fully complied with. Safe custody of seized ganja: 18. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is lack of clinching material to show that the seized contraband ganja was in safe custody free from tampering after its seizure till it was produced in Court. He placed reliance in the case of Sk. Faiyaz (supra) wherein it was held that it is for the prosecution to establish and cover the entire path by adducing cogent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence that the seized articles were properly sealed and there was no chance of tampering with the packets during the retention of those packets by the investigating agency and the same was the very articles produced before the Magistrate for sending those to the chemical examiner. It was also held that the prosecution has to establish proper sealing and safe custody of the seized articles so that articles examined in the laboratory shall be relatable to the article seized. It was also held that the prosecution has to establish proper sealing and safe custody of the seized articles so that articles examined in the laboratory shall be relatable to the article seized. Such observation was made after considering the ratio laid down in the decisions in Valsala Vs. State of Kerala, (1993) 6 OCR 457 (SC), Sinic Patricia Vs. State, (1994) 7 OCR 277, Bhimsen Sahoo Vs. State of Orissa, (1997) 12 OCR 443 and Rama Bahadur Pandey Vs. State of Orissa, (2009) 43 OCR 466 (SC). P.W.11, the informant stated that after the weighment of the ganja found in two bags, he obtained signatures of the witnesses, accused on two separate plain papers and affixed his personal brass seal on it and then kept one such paper inside each of the two bags marked as Ext.A and Ext.B and then stitched the mouth of the bags containing ganja and sealed the same with his brass seal. He prepared two seizure lists Ext.1/2 and Ext.2/2 at the spot. He further stated that he took the impression of his brass seal on a plain paper marked as Ext.5/3 and left the brass seal in the zima of P.W.3 after executing zimanama Ext.6/1. P.W.13, the investigating officer stated that the seized articles were handed over to the Inspector in charge of Chauliganj police station who resealed the same and kept it in the police station Malkhana and that he seized the Malkhana register of Chauliaganj police station vide volume No.XXXIV of 2010 and Station Diary of Chauliaganj police station vide S.D.E. Nos.654, 655 and 656, all dated 19.08.2010 and 675 and 685 dated 20.08.2010 and left the Malkhana register and Station Diary in the zima of Mamatarani Panda vide zimanama Ext.21. The evidence of P.W.11 gets corroboration from P.W.8, the ACP who stated that P.W.11 took impression of the specimen seal on the seizure list as well as on plain papers including the signatures of the witnesses and the appellant and kept each specimen seal sample in respective ganja packets, stitched those packets and sealed properly with his brass seal impression and handed over the brass seal to P.W.3. P.W.7 has also stated that seal was affixed on the seized ganja bags. P.W.7 has also stated that seal was affixed on the seized ganja bags. As per the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.13), the Inspector in charge of Chauliaganj police station took the seized articles, resealed the same and kept it in the police station malkhana. The original Malkhana register of Chauliaganj police station which was seized during investigation and left in the zima of Mamatarani Panda, according to P.W.13 was sent to DCRB, Cuttack vide dispatch no.3037 dated 04.09.2010. It was not been produced during trial but the carbon copy of the Malkhana register has been proved by P.W.13 and marked as Ext.23 with objection. P.W.13 stated that Ext.23 has been prepared in the same carbon process from the original record. A mere glance of Ext.23 which contains entries from April 2010 till December 2010 would show that those were made by one uniform process and it was maintained regularly and all the details of the articles kept in the Malkhana and taken out of it have been mentioned in detail with dates and serial numbers. In the case of Prithi Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1989) AIR SC 702, it was held that a carbon copy of the medical certificate which was made by one uniform process is a primary evidence within the meaning of Explanation 2 to section 62 of the Evidence Act and therefore, it is admissible in evidence. In the case of Mohinder Singh Vs. Jaswant Kaur in Civil Appeal No.6706 of 2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 11th September 2019, held as follows:- "This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.01.2009 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the appeal holding that there is no substantial question of law involved. The High Court held that a carbon copy of a document which carbon copy is signed by both the parties cannot be termed as an original document under Section 62 of the Evidence Act. This finding of the High Court is absolutely incorrect and against the provision of Section 62 of the Evidence Act. This carbon copy was prepared in the same process as the original document and once it is signed by both the parties, it assumes the character of the original document. This finding of the High Court is absolutely incorrect and against the provision of Section 62 of the Evidence Act. This carbon copy was prepared in the same process as the original document and once it is signed by both the parties, it assumes the character of the original document. On this short ground, we allow this appeal and remit the matter to the High Court." The learned defence counsel has given a bald suggestion to P.W.13 in the cross-examination that Ext.23 is a manufactured register and that the seized articles were not kept in P.S. malkhana. Nothing has been brought on record by the defence to show that the entries in the Malkhana register as well as Station Diary entries of Chauliaganj police station are not genuine. The relevant page of the Malkhana register (Ext.23) volume No.XXXIV at page no.64 clearly indicates that Mal no.34 of 2010 was the seized ganja bags in sealed condition which were kept in the Malkhana on 19.08.2010 and were taken out of the Malkhana on 20.08.2010. The original Station Diary Book of Chauliaganj police station was produced and marked as Ext.22. S.D. entry no.656 dated 19.08.2010 reveals that the seized contraband ganja bags which were marked as Exts. A & B were kept in the P.S. Malkhana after sealing and the same was also reflected in page no.64 of the Malkhana register and Mal no.34 of 2010 was mentioned in it. S.D. entry no.675 dated 20.08.2010 reveals that the sealed two plastic bags containing ganja which were marked as Exts. A & B were brought out from the Malkhana and those were handed over to P.W.13 for producing it before the Court and to send the sample to S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar and to deposit the rest quantity in the Sessions Court Malkhana. The contents of the documentary evidence as mentioned in the Station Diary Book tallies with the entries made in Ext.23, the Malkhana register. Rule 119 (a) of Orissa Police Rules states that all identifiable property stolen whether recovered or not and all articles of which the police take charge shall be entered in detail with a description of the identifying marks on each article, in a register to be kept in P.M. Form No.18 in duplicate. Rule 119 (a) of Orissa Police Rules states that all identifiable property stolen whether recovered or not and all articles of which the police take charge shall be entered in detail with a description of the identifying marks on each article, in a register to be kept in P.M. Form No.18 in duplicate. The original will serve as Malkhana Statement and be forwarded monthly by the officer in charge of the police station to S.D.J.M. concerned for security and order and after verification of the statements, it may be sent by the S.D.J.M. to the Superintendent of Police concerned who will check the same and file it after being satisfied that all actions for early disposal of the properties have been taken. The relevant Malkhana register entries of Chauliaganj police station in this case are dated 19.08.2010 and 20.08.2010 and the original Malkhana register of August 2010 was sent to DCRB, Cuttack vide dispatch no.3037 dated 04.09.2010 as per the evidence of P.W.13 which has not been challenged by the defence. Therefore, when the oral evidence adduced by the investigating officer relating to safe custody of the seized ganja packets in the sealed condition in Chauliaganj police station Malkhana gets corroboration from the documentary evidence like Malkhana register and Station Diary entries, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the safe custody of the contraband ganja during its retention in Chauliaganj police station is a doubtful feature cannot be accepted. Personal brass seal not produced: 19. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that handing over of the personal brass seal of P.W.11 to the independent witness P.W.3 by executing zimanama is a doubtful feature and moreover the brass seal was not produced in Court either at the time of production of the seized articles or during trial of the case and therefore, the prosecution case should be disbelieved. P.W.11 specifically stated that he left the brass seal in the zima of P.W.3 after executing zimanama Ext.6/1 and his signature has been marked as Ext.6/2. In the cross-examination, P.W.11 stated that the contents of Ext.6/1 were in his handwriting and there is no endorsement by P.W.3 except his signature in Ext.6/1. P.W.11 specifically stated that he left the brass seal in the zima of P.W.3 after executing zimanama Ext.6/1 and his signature has been marked as Ext.6/2. In the cross-examination, P.W.11 stated that the contents of Ext.6/1 were in his handwriting and there is no endorsement by P.W.3 except his signature in Ext.6/1. He further stated that the seal was handed over to P.W.3 on 19.08.2010 at 9.20 p.m. P.W.8 also stated that P.W.11 handed over the brass seal to P.W.3 with a direction to produce in the Court of law during trial. Of course P.W.3 has not supported the prosecution case for which he was declared hostile but the version of two official witnesses like P.W.11 and P.W.8 which are reliable and gets support from the documentary evidence like zimanama, cannot be discarded merely on the ground of non-supporting of the prosecution case by P.W.3. It is correct that the brass seal which was handed over to P.W.3 was not produced in Court either at the time of production of the seized articles or during trial of the case. There is no dispute that handing over the brass seal to an independent, reliable and respectable person and asking him to produce it before the Court at the time of production of the seized articles in Court for verification are not the empty formalities or rituals but is a necessity to eliminate the chance of tampering with the articles. To ensure safety, it is one of the requirements that the reliable person in whose favour the seal is given in zima should produce it before the concerned Court at the time of production of seized articles and the Court has to verify not only that the seal was intact but also the seal impression that was given in the seized articles matches with the seal which was produced by the reliable person in whose favour the brass seal was given. P.W.11 has specifically stated that he took the impression of his brass seal on a plain paper marked as Ext.5/3 wherein his signature is marked as Ext.5/4. P.W.6 has stated that Ext.5/1 is his signature on the paper where impression of brass seal was taken. P.W.7 has also stated that Ext.5/2 is his signature on the paper containing the seal of P.W.11. P.W.6 has stated that Ext.5/1 is his signature on the paper where impression of brass seal was taken. P.W.7 has also stated that Ext.5/2 is his signature on the paper containing the seal of P.W.11. P.W.8 also stated that impression of specimen seal of P.W.11 was taken on the seizure list as well as on plain papers including signatures of witnesses and the appellant. The signature of the appellant also finds place on Ext.5/3. The order sheet dated 20.08.2010 of the learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack indicates that the investigating officer being present in Court produced the seized exhibits in two sealed packets, one containing 25 Kgs. of ganja marked as Ext. A and the other containing 30 Kgs. of ganja marked as Ext. B. Specimen seal impression of the personal brass seal of P.W.11 which was taken on a plain paper and marked as Ext.5/3 and contained the signatures of P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.11 was also produced before the learned S.D.J.M. on 20.08.2010 and the Court perused the same and put its initial on it. The Court verified the sealed seized exhibits along with the seal impression given by the investigating officer and found it to be correct and tallying with each other and thereafter the Court broke the seals given in the two packets and kept it in two separate packets which were sealed under the seal of the Court and out of the seized packets, the Court collected samples in duplicate from each packet and marked it as Exts.A/1 and A/2 and B/1 and B/2 and the sample packets were sealed with the Court seal and the rest of the seized articles were also sealed with the seal of the Court and the investigating officer was directed to receive two sample packets and to send it to S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh. Therefore, even though the brass seal was not produced before the Court by P.W.3 at the time of production of the seized articles in sealed condition but since the brass seal impression taken on a plain paper containing the signatures of the official witnesses and others including the appellant was produced before the Court at that time and the seizure list containing brass seal impression was also produced and it was verified by the Court and in view of the observation made by the Court in the order sheet after verifying the seal impressions, it cannot be said that the prosecution case is to be disbelieved merely on account of non-production of the brass seal by P.W.3 in Court. Therefore, it can be said that the prosecution has successfully established that the seized articles were properly sealed at the spot and there was no chance of tampering with the seized ganja packets during its retention at Chauliaganj police station and the articles produced before the learned S.D.J.M., Sadar, Cuttack on 20.08.2010 were the very articles seized at the spot. Conclusion: 20. In view of the forgoing discussions, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and I am of the humble view that the prosecution has successfully established the charge under section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and the sentence passed thereunder by the learned trial Court calls for no interference. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. Lower Court records with a copy of this judgment be sent down to the learned trial Court forthwith for information.