The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 03. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLLP No.126 of 2008 State of Orissa ..... Dambarudhar Sahu -versus- ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. U.C. Jena,ASC Opposite Party Represented By Adv. - M/s. S.Das P.R.Singh N.K.Sahoo
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 22.10.2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. No one appears on behalf of the Opposite Party. Heard the learned counsel for the State-Petitioner. Perused the application as well as the prayer made therein. 3. By filing the present application under Section 378(1) & (3) of the Cr.P.C., the State-Petitioner seeks leave from this Court to prefer an appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 18.06.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge (N.D.P.S.), Dhenkanal in C.T./Special (N.D.P.S.) Case No.01 of 2004, arising out of Dhenkanal Sadar P.S. Case No.249 dated 06.08.2004. 4. The above noted case was registered for commission of Page 1 of 5. offences punishable under Sections 15/20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. On the basis of the prosecution allegation, the Petitioner faced the trial in C.T./Special (N.D.P.S.) Case 01 of 2004. The trial court, vide judgment dated 18.06.2008, acquitted the Opposite Party by disbelieving the seizure which is against the judgment of acquittal dated 18.06.2008. The State-Petitioner has filed this leave petition with a prayer for grant permission to prefer an appeal. 5. On perusal of the leave petition, it is found that the same has been filed with delay of 57 days. Although an application has been filed bearing Misc. Case 87 of 2008 for condonation of delay. The present leave application was filed on 12.11.2008. Thereafter notice was issued on the limitation matter on 21.04.2014 to the Opposite Party by registered post. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice, Mr. S.Das and his associates entered their appearance for the sole Opposite Party. However, when the matter was called, none of the counsel for sole Opposite Party is present in court. 6. Perused the Misc. Case No.87 of 2008. The State-Petitioner has made a prayer for condonation of delay of 57 days in presentation of the leave application. 7. On a careful consideration of the grounds taken, this Court is inclined to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 57 days in filing the leave petition is hereby condoned. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the State-Petitioner on the Page 2 of 5. leave application filed under Section 378(1) & (3) of the Cr.P.C. 9. Perused the impugned judgment dated 18.06.2008. Upon going through the entire judgment of the trial court, this Court found that the Opposite Party faced trial on the allegation that a total quantity of 21 Kgs. of poppy straw and 260 Grams of contraband Ganja were recovered from his residential house. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined several witnesses as well as filed documents before the trial court including the chemical examination report. On perusal of the chemical examination report, it appears that upon such examination, it was found that the articles seized were poppy straw and Ganja respectively. 10. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses to establish the charges against the present Opposite Party. The trial court, while examining the oral evidence led from the prosecution side, found that the seizure of the contraband articles have not been properly established/proved by the prosecution. The trial court in its judgment has categorically stated that none of the independent witnesses have been examined to establish the fact of seizure of contraband articles was made from the residential house of the Opposite Party. It was also observed that the Gramarakhi, who was present at the time of seizure, has not been examined as a witness from the side of the prosecution. Therefore, the entire seizure has been disbelieved in the present case. 11. On a close scrutiny of the impugned judgment, this Court also found that the trial court has discussed evidence in detail Page 3 of 5. including the legal issues involved in the present case. Upon careful appraisal of the evidence of the prosecution, the trial court has specifically observed that although the bags were recovered from the house of the accused, more specifically from the bedroom, however none of the prosecution witnesses have come forward to depose as to how the bags were lying on their exact position and none of the neighbouring house owners of the accused have been examined to strengthen the prosecution case. It has also not been established that the house in question was under the exclusive possession of the Accused-Opposite Party. The Amin of the locality, who was examined as P.W.3, has stated that the house in question stands on Plot No.409 of Mouza- Baladiaabandha stands recorded in the name of one Prahallad Sahu, Padmanav Sahu, both are sons of Chema Sahu, whereas, the present Opposite Party is one Dambarudhar Sahu and he is the son of the recorded tenant of Padmanav Sahu. The trial court has entertained doubt with regard to the occupation of the particular room by the Opposite Party from where the contraband articles were recovered. The prosecution has failed to prove conclusively that the room from which the contraband articles were recovered was in the occupation of the present Opposite Party. 12. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ismile Khan Ayub Khan Pathan -Vrs.- State of Gujurat, (2000) SCC (Crl.) 1241, to the effect that there is no statuary provision for drawing any presumption that a person, who was present at any particular Page 4 of 5. place, shall be deemed to be in possession of the contraband article and that no presumption under the law can be drawn even under Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 merely on the basis of the presence of the person at the spot. 13. On a careful analysis of the impugned judgment and the finding arrived at by the trial court on the basis of evidence on record, this Court found that the trial court has not committed any illegality in arriving at the conclusion indicated in the impugned judgment. Moreover, this Court found that there exists no scope for preferring further appeal and such appeal, if permitted to be filed, would be a wastage of valuable judicial time. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant leave to prefer appeal against the impugned judgment. 14. Hence, the CRLLP stands dismissed. However, in the aforesaid facts and circumstance, there shall be no order as to costs. Debasis ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 27-Oct-2025 15:01:01 Page 5 of 5.