9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith a full gunny-bag Being suspicious he retained the accused and searched. him in presence of panch witness (PW 2) He found that the gunny bag contained cannabis (Ganja) which weighed 12 Kgs. He took. sample of 50 grams which was sent for chemical examination. The chemical examination indicated that it was cannabis (Ganja}. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was sent for trial to face charges which was ended in conviction and sentence has been passed as mentioned above. 3. The appellant denied the charges in totality. 4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined three witnesses. PW 1 is the Excise Sub-Inspector, Mobile Squad No. 1, Cuttack. PW 2 is a witness to the seizure, PW 3 is the A. S. I. wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 55 of the Act in a case of the present nature. 8. Let me first deal with the contention whether the centra-band article which was seized form the appellant was the same which was sent for chemical examination. As per the forawarding report, the seized ganja and the sample thereof were produced i. the Court. PW 1 has stated that as it was delayed he took back the seized gunny bag and sample as per the direction of the Court and deposited in the official Excise Malkhana at Cuttack. He has further stated on 17-5-1934, he sent the sample to the State Drug Testing Research Laboratory, Bhubaneswar, for chemical examination. In cross-examination, he has indicated that he has entered in the case register that the seized article and sample ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay that the article seized appears to have been not kept in proper custody and proper form so that the Court can be sure that what was seized only was sent to the Chemical Examiner. There is a big gap and an important missing link. In view of the aforesaid lacunae of the prosecution, the apex Court set aside the order of conviction. This Court in the case of Laxmidhar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa : 1994 (I) OLR 80 :(1994)7 OCR 108, took note of the fact that there was no proper explanation in whose custody the seized articles ware kept during a gap of five days and observed as follows : ......It is for the prosecution to explain that the seized articles were in safe custody from 4-1-1990 till they were produced in Court on 9-1-1990. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
