The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRA No.291 of 1996 (In the matter of an application under Section 454 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Amiya Ketan Jena ……. Appellants -Versus- State of Orissa ……. Respondent For the Appellant : Ms. Ayushi Meheta, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
For the Respondent : Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, ASC CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 16.10.2025 : Date of Judgment: 28.10.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. In this appeal, the appellant-Amiya Ketan Jena has assailed the judgment and order 12.09.1996 and 03.10.1996 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur, Ganjam in G.R. Case No.252 of 1995(N)/T.R. No.26/96 (T.R.45/96 G.D.C.), whereby the learned trial Court while acquitting the sole accused-Iswar Pradhan passed an order of confiscation of the ambassador car of the appellant. The operative part of the judgment by which the appellant is aggrieved is reproduced for the convenience of ready reference:- “8. In view of my findings in the foregoing paragraphs I hold the accused not guilty U/S 20(b)(i) of the N.D.P.S. Act and accordingly acquit him U/S 248(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bond stands cancelled. the The seized car was engaged in illegal transportation of ganja and as such is liable to confiscated. Hence, seized car be confiscation to the state and the other seized articles as be destroyed after the appeal period is over or in case of appeal be disposed of as per the direction of the appellate court. Since the owner has taken the car on zima the police be directed to recover the car from him and put it to public auction and deposit the sale proceeds in court.” 2. Heard Ms. Ayushi Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Sarathi Jyoti Mohanty, the learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 21.12.1995, at 4.20 A.M., the Officer-in-Charge of Digapahandi Police Station (P.W.2) received Page 2 of 7 credible information from a reliable source that a white Ambassador car had proceeded to village Khamarigan for the purpose of collecting ganja and would be returning shortly. P.W.2 promptly reduced the information to writing and set out for village Khamarigan on his motorcycle. He was accompanied by the Assistant Sub-Inspector (P.W.3) and another police constable, who followed on a separate motorcycle. On their way to Khamarigan, the police team picked up two independent witnesses, including P.W.1. Upon reaching Koithakhandi Chak, a blockade was organised on the road in anticipation of intercepting the suspect vehicle. At around 5:00 A.M., a white Ambassador car approached the blockade from the direction of Ghodahada at high speed. Despite being signalled by P.W.2 to stop, the driver of the vehicle failed to comply and accelerated past the police. A pursuit ensued, with the police party and the independent witnesses following the car on their motorcycles. During the chase, near village Chaka Tentuli, one of the tyres of the car burst, compelling the driver to halt the vehicle. By the time the police party reached the spot, all occupants of the vehicle had absconded on foot. A search of the car was conducted in the presence of the independent Page 3 of 7 witnesses, leading to the recovery and seizure of several cardboard packets containing a total of 64.500 kilograms of ganja. P.W.2 collected representative samples from each packet and sealed them in separate polythene pouches at the spot using wax and his personal brass seal. The process was carried out in the presence of the Circle Inspector of Police and the independent witnesses. The brass seal was entrusted to P.W.1 for safe custody. The sample packets were subsequently forwarded to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (R.F.S.L.), Berhampur, through the learned J.M.F.C., Digapahandi, for chemical analysis. The laboratory report confirmed that the samples contained ganja. Further, during the search of the car, documents pertaining to the ownership and a driving licence were recovered. During investigation, it revealed that the driving licence was issued in the name of the accused, and it was established that the accused was driving the said vehicle at the time of the incident. After primary investigation, one Iswar Pradhan was charge-sheeted and put to trial. Page 4 of 7 4. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined three witnesses. The sole accused-Iswar Pradhan was charged-sheeted and on his stance of denial and claim of trial, he was put to trial. 5. It appears that after the impugned judgment dated 12.09.1996 was passed, the appellant moved an application before the learned trial Court on 23.09.1996, inter alia, praying for release of the vehicle which was seized on the allegation that the vehicle was involved in the alleged crime. The learned trial Court vide order dated 03.10.1996 rejected the application on the ground that after the pronouncement of the judgment dated 12.09.1996, the trial Court become functus officio and had no jurisdiction to review its own order. Therefore, no application could be maintained in a disposed of sessions case. The appellant is aggrieved by the rejection of the said order. Therefore, approached this Court by filing the present Criminal Appeal seeking setting aside the confiscation order passed by the learned trial Court and also assailing the order dated 03.10.1996. 6. In the present case, it is evident from the record that the sole accused, Iswar Pradhan, who was alleged to have been driving the Page 5 of 7 vehicle at the time of the incident, has been acquitted by the learned trial Court on the ground of lack of evidence. Having acquitted the accused, the learned trial Court, in the same breath, directed confiscation of the Ambassador car belonging to the appellant. Such a course of action, in the considered view of this Court, is wholly impermissible and contrary to law. Once the accused stood acquitted, there remained no basis for the learned trial Court to hold that the vehicle was engaged in illegal transportation of ganja and to direct its confiscation. The logical consequence of the acquittal should have been the release of the vehicle in favour of its registered owner. Furthermore, it is apparent that the vehicle had already been released to the appellant on zimanama. Therefore, there was no necessity to direct recovery of the same for auction sale. 7. Accordingly, the operative portion of the judgment and order dated 12.09.1996 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur, Ganjam in G.R. Case No.252 of 1995(N)/T.R. Page 6 of 7 No.26/96 (T.R.45/96 G.D.C.) and the subsequent order dated 03.10.1996 rejecting the appellant’s petition for release of the vehicle are hereby set aside. 8.
Decision
Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Dated the 28th October, 2025 / Swarna Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 31-Oct-2025 10:41:26 Page 7 of 7