The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA NO.650 of 2024 (An appeal U/S.374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment passed by Shri P.K. Sahoo, Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Spl. Judge, Athagarh in Special Case No.05 of 2022/C.I.S. No.05 of 2023 arising out of Excise Mobile-II, Cuttack PR No.78 of 2022-23). Dambarudhara Dash …. Appellant State of Odisha …. Respondent -versus- For Appellant : Mr. B.C. Ghadei, Advocate : Mr. S.K. Rout, Addl. PP For Respondent CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:18.03.2025 (ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. This criminal appeal by the convict is directed against the impugned judgment dated 17.06.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Athagarh in Special Case No.05 of CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 1 of 30 2022 arising out of Excise Mobile-II, Cuttack P.R. No.78 of 2022-23 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable U/S. 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, “the Act”) and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default whereof, to undergo RI for a further period of 1 year with benefit of set off of pre-trial detention against the substantive sentence. 2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that on 23.07.2022 at about 4.30 A.M., while PW.4-Sanjeet Barla, Inspector of Excise was performing patrolling duty at Kuspangi road along with staff, received reliable information that a Mahindra Bolero is coming from Khuntuni side carrying Contraband Ganja and accordingly, PW.4 reduced the said information into writing and immediately informed the Superintendent of Excise, Cuttack over phone. At about 5.15 AM, PW.4 and staff noticed one Bolero jeep coming from CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 2 of 30 Khuntuni side and they accordingly, stopped the vehicle near Banadurga Temple near Bali Chowk for verification and found the accused driver-cum-convict along with one packet on the seat of the driver and two other packets on the middle seat of the vehicle behind the driver seat. PW.4 then searched the bags and recovered 21Kgs of Contraband Ganja each from the three bags; all total 63Kgs of Contraband Ganja in presence of witnesses. PW.4 accordingly, procured one independent witness PW6-Satyajit Sahu and seized the Contraband articles and arrested the convict and produced him along with the seized Contraband article before the learned Special Judge, Athagarh. PW.4 also made prayer to the concerned Court for drawing of sample and accordingly, the samples were drawn and sent to the Excise Divisional Laboratory, Central Division, Cuttack through PW.1- Manmath Singh. Further, PW.4 also took up the investigation of the case which culminated in submission of Prosecution Report (PR) against the CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 3 of 30 convict for commission of offence punishable U/S.20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act. 2.1.
Legal Reasoning
Finding prima facie materials, the learned Special Judge, Athagarh took cognizance of the offence U/S.20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Act and proceeded further resulting in the trial in the present case, when the convict pleaded not guilty to the charge for commission of aforesaid offence. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether 06 witnesses, proved 21 documents under Exts.P-1 to 21 and identified Material Objects MO-I to MO-V including the samples as against the oral evidence of four witnesses DWs.1 to 5. In the course of trial, the plea of the convict was denial simplicitor and false implication. In addition, the convict also took a plea in his statement U/S.313 of CrPC that on the relevant day and time, while he was returning to Bhubaneswar from Naktideol after dropping the passenger, he was caught at Tangi Tollgate and the Excise staff demanded Rs.30,000/- from him, but when he denied CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 4 of 30 they took Rs.20,000/- from his money purse, but when he protested, they planted a false case against him. 2.2. On conclusion of trial, after analyzing the evidence on record upon hearing the parties, the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment convicting the appellant and sentenced him to the punishment indicated supra. Being dissatisfied with the conviction and sentence, the convict has preferred this appeal. 3. In the course of hearing, Mr. Bikram Chandra Ghadei, learned counsel for the appellant, however, strongly criticizes the impugned judgment by arguing that not only the impugned judgment is unsustainable in the eye of law, but also the same has been rendered without appreciating the evidence on record. It is further submitted by him that the mandatory procedure of Sections 42 & 52-A of the Act has not been complied with by the Excise Officials, but ignoring such non-compliance, the CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 5 of 30 learned trial Court has proceeded to convict the appellant. Mr. Ghadei also points out that the sample was sent to the chemical laboratory on 23.07.2022, but it was received by the Asst. Chemical Examiner- cum-PW.5 on 25.07.2022 and the safe custody of the sample was never established by the prosecution and therefore, the prosecution case being suspicious and tainted, the conviction together with sentence of the appellant is violative of his right to liberty. It is also argued by Mr. Ghadei that the brass seal which was used in sealing the Contraband articles has never been produced before the Court and there are material contradictions in the evidence of witnesses and therefore, the conviction of the appellant is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, Mr. Ghadei prays to allow the appeal by acquitting the convict of the charge. 3.1. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Rout, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, however, supporting the impugned judgment submits that the recovery of CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 6 of 30 Contraband Ganja from the exclusive and conscious possession of the appellant having been established by the prosecution, no fault can be attributed to the prosecution and the prosecution having duly complied with the mandatory provisions of the Act, the conviction of the appellant cannot be said to be unsustainable in the eye of law. He further submits that not only PW.4 has established the recovery of Contraband Ganja from the exclusive possession of the appellant, but also has established the compliance of Sections 42 as well as 52-A of the Act and, therefore, the appeal being unmerited is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, Mr. Rout prays to dismiss the appeal. 4. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, since the appellant challenges his conviction not only for erroneous appreciation of evidence, but also for non- compliance of the mandatory provisions of Act, this Court now embarks upon the oral testimony of the CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 7 of 30 witnesses to examine the legality of the conviction of the appellant. In sequence, coming to the testimony of witnesses, it is reminded that once again the independent witness to the search and seizure has become hostile to the prosecution case as it appears from the evidence of PW.6 that on 23.07.2022, while he was in his house, the staff of Excise Office, Cuttack came and called him without assigning any reason and he accompanied with him to the office of Excise Department near the Krushak Bazar, Cuttack and there the Excise staff gave him some forms and asked to sign thereon and accordingly, he put his signature on the papers as per their instruction. It is, however, his categoric evidence that he does not know anything more about the case. True it is that the independent witness has not supported the prosecution case and even his cross-examination by the prosecution after declaring him hostile has yield no result, but still then the prosecution can establish CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 8 of 30 its case against the accused through the evidence of other witnesses. 5. PWs.1 to 3 are the three Excise Constables, who had taken part in the raid along with PW.4 and PWs. 2 & 3 have testified more or less alike, but differently on materials point of recording information by PW4, in the Court, however, their evidence transpires that in the course of performing patrolling duty at Kuspangi road, at about 4.30 A.M PW.4 got information that a Bolero carrying Ganja is coming and PW.4 sent the information record receipt to the Superintendent of Excise through Constable Gajanan Behera(PW.3) and they, accordingly, detained the said vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-15- C-0900 and recovered the Contraband article, but PW.1 being another Constable, who had accompanied the patrolling party has testified in the Court that in the course of patrolling, the Inspector of Excise detected a case of Ganja and after compliance of recovery and other procedure, at CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 9 of 30 about 4.15 PM, the Inspector directed him to produce the collected sample before the Asst. Chemical Examiner, Excise Divisional Laboratory, Cuttack along with a command certificate. His evidence, however, does not reveal about PW4 recording any information and sending a copy thereof to immediate official superior, although he is a member of raiding party. Further, the evidence of PW2 does not transpire with regard to PW4 recording any information. On the other hand, PW3 who is also a member of raiding party deposed about PW4 recording the information into writing and submitting the same to Superintendent of Excise. It is, therefore, very confusing inasmuch as PWs. 1 to 3 has stated differently with regard to recording of information and sending a copy thereof to next higher official by PW4 and the evidence of none of the witnesses ever reveal about sending a copy of information to the official superior which is mandatory in nature U/S. 42(2) of the Act. CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 10 of 30 6. This being the evidence of the official witnesses accompanying PW.4, this Court now considers it imperative to see the evidence of PW.4, who has deposed before the Court that on the day (23.07.2022) at about 4.30 AM when he along with the staff were performing patrolling duty at Kuspangi road, received a reliable information about transportation of Ganja in a Mahendra Bolero which is coming from Khuntuni side and he reduced the information into writing at about 4.50 A.M. and immediately informed the Superintendent of Excise, Cuttack about the said information over phone and he commanded the Excise constable-PW3Gajanan Behera to produce the information record receipt before the Superintendent of Excise. Accordingly, PW.4 has exhibited the information so prepared by him under Ext.P-14, but fact remains that Section 42 of the Act prescribes the procedure for taking down the secret information received by the Excise official/ or officials referred to in that Section, however, such CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 11 of 30 information ordinarily be recorded in a book/diary prescribed for it, but no such information has been recorded by PW4 in any book/diary prescribed for it. On the other hand, perusal of Ext.P-14 reveals that information has been recorded on a printed form under the heading “Information Recorded Receipt” in which there are four sub-headings, such as; (i) date and time of information record, (ii) place of information recorded, (iii) name of the informer, and (iv) information recorded by whom along with another sub-heading without any number as “recorded information”. The evidence of none of the witnesses has made it very clear about the recording of information in a book, much less the evidence of PW1 transpires nothing about receipt of information by PW4 and reducing such information by him into writing, whereas the evidence of PW2 does not transpire about PW4 reducing the secret information into writing, however, PW3 has testified that PW4 had received information of NDPS case and reduce CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 12 of 30 the same into writing. It is not to be forgotten that PWs. 1 to 3 had accompanied PW4 at the time of detection of the case, but all these witnesses had spoken differently with regard to receipt of information and reducing such information into writing to prove compliance of Sec. 42 of the Act. 7. Be it noted, compliance of Section 42 of the Act is not an empty formality and it is a mandatory procedure prescribed for detection, search and seizure of Contraband Articles on a particular contingency and it lays down the procedure when any officer referred to in Section 42 of the Act has reason to believe either from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 13 of 30 document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter V-A of this Act is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and sunset enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place, seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reasoned to believe to be liable to be confiscation under this Act xx xxx xx and detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this Act, provided further that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorization cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 14 of 30 place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief. In this case, the admitted evidence discloses that the vehicle was detected after 5 AM, but it was not clarified by the prosecution by leading clear and cogent evidence that the detection and search of the vehicle was done after sunrise and, therefore, taking into the fact of detection of contraband in this case at 5.15 AM, it can be said that the detection was before sunrise and thus, PW.4 can search and detain such persons without any warrant, after recording his grounds of belief in terms of 2nd proviso to Sec. 42 of the Act, but in that event, he has to mandatorily send the copy of the recording of grounds for his belief to his immediate official superior within 72 hours. True it is that PW4 has exhibited one printed form filled up in handwriting under Ext.P-11 towards proof of recording of grounds for his belief to search the vehicle without warrant, but the prosecution evidence never reveals CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 15 of 30 about sending a copy thereof to immediate official superior with regard to searching the vehicle without any warrant before sunrise as mandatorily required U/S. 42(2) of the Act. In this case, the evidence of PW.4 never reveals about the compliance of Section 42(2) of the Act because the copy of the information which was taken down in writing should have been sent to the higher authority, but the evidence of PW.4 only reveals about sending of information to the Superintendent Excise through PW.3. 8. Apropos the subject, compliance of Sec. 42 is mandatory and the legislature has incorporated the provision of Sec. 42 of the Act to check the interested and overzealous prosecution of innocent person accused of offence under the Act and the requirement of compliance of aforesaid provision is in essence intended to prevent false accusation against innocent person. However, there is no straight jacket formula to prove the compliance of Sections 42(1) and (2) of the Act, but looking at CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 16 of 30 the standard of proof in criminal prosecution and the provision of Sec. 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as to how a fact is considered to be proved, the prosecution in this case is obliged to establish that the empowered Officer on receipt of secret information had reduced it into writing in the concerned register or diary and prove such writings through the concerned Officer either by producing such original register or diary, but in case such register/diary is not available or could not be produced due to some valid reason(s), then by producing a certified copy or an authenticated extract copy of such entry, which is of course to be established that such extract copy is duly authenticated by the Officer making such entry. Similarly, for compliance of Sec. 42(2) of the Act, it is to be established that the copy of such entry was in fact sent to the immediate Official superior of the empowered Officer, but mere saying/deposing in evidence about sending a copy CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 17 of 30 thereof is not sufficient to demonstrate compliance of Sec. 42(2) of the Act and it must be more than that. No inflexible guidelines can be prescribed for prove of compliance of Sec. 42(2) of the Act, but the mode of sending copy of secret information; such as dispatch register, postal receipts, e-mail copy would be considered a few for sending the copy of it and additionally, prove of receipt/ delivery of it by or to official superior would lend assurance for prove of sending of the copy since sending a copy thereof as referred to in Sec.42(2) of the Act is obviously meant for the knowledge of superior Officers and the legislature has never intended for mere sending copy of such information without the same being received by the superior Officer or delivery of it to him. The aforesaid provision is enacted to prevent misuse of the Act and thereby, sending a copy thereof to immediate Official superior is obviously meant to check the arbitrary use of power under the Act by CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 18 of 30 the empowered Officer. In this case, the testimony of witnesses never discloses about sending of a copy of the recording of grounds for his belief by PW4 with regard for searching the vehicle and the convict before sunrise without any warrant. In a case of this nature, where the personal liberty of a person is at a stake, which can be curtailed on successful compliance of Sec. 42(2) of the Act, the prosecution is required to bring all documents on record and examine all the witness to prove the compliance of Sec. 42/42(2) of the Act, however, the prosecution cannot afford to leave any document or witness, which would create a genuine suspicion in proving the compliance of Sec. 42 of the Act. In order to prove compliance of Sec. 42(2) of the Act, the prosecution has proved Ext. P-14, which of course only contains the signature of Superintendent of Excise, but nothing has been endorsed to show that the Superintendent of Excise had in fact received the CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 19 of 30 same. Further, no one is examined from the Office of Superintendent of Excise about receipt of Ext. P- 14 nor has any document or Receipt Register been proved to establish the compliance of Sec. 42(2) of the Act and in absence of such proof, a genuine suspicion arises in the mind of the Court. 9. In regard to compliance of Sec. 42 of the Act, this Court considers it to be useful to refer to the decision in Karnail Singh Vrs. State of Haryana; (2009) 8 SCC 539, wherein a constitutional Bench of five Judges of Apex Court in paragraph-35(a) to (d), which are very much relevant for this case, has held as under:- “35. In conclusion, what is to be noticed is that Abdul Rashid did not require literal compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) nor did Sajan Abraham hold that the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) need not be fulfilled at all. The effect of the two decisions was as follows: (a) The officer on receiving the information of the nature referred to in sub-section(1) of Section 42 from any person had to record it in CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 20 of 30 writing in the register concerned and forthwith send a copy to his immediate official superior, before proceeding to take action in terms of clauses (a) to (d) of Section 42(1). if the (b) But information was received when the officer was not in the police station, but while he was on the move either on patrol duty or otherwise, either by mobile phone, or other means, and the information calls for immediate action and any delay would have resulted in the goods or evidence being removed or destroyed, it would not be feasible or practical to take down in writing the information given to him, in such a situation, he could take action as per clauses (a) to (d) Section 42(1) and thereafter, as soon as it the is and information forthwith inform the same to the official superior. record in writing practical, (c) In other words, the compliance with the requirements of Sections 41 (1) and 42(2) in regard to writing down the information received and sending a copy thereof to the should normally superior officer precede the entry, search and seizure in special by involving circumstances emergent the recording of the information in writing and sending a copy thereof to the official superior may a reasonable period that is after the officer. But situations, postponed get by CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 21 of 30 the search, entry and seizure. The question is one of urgency and expediency. (d) While total non-compliance with requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 42 is impermissible, but delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance with section 42.xx xx xx” 10. Further, the evidence never discloses the time when the information was received nor such information has been stated in any diary, so also names of the persons who refused to be a witness to the search and seizure has not been recorded and nothing brought on record to show that the provision of Sec. 42 of the Act was substantially complied with. Further, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the copy of the grounds of belief to search without warrant before sunrise which was stated to be taken down in writing by PW4 has been sent to official superior. Thus, the prosecution has not been able to prove compliance of mandatory provision of Sec. 42 of the Act which by itself renders prosecution of the CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 22 of 30 appellant vulnerable. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and on a conspectus of evidence on record, this Court neither found any information recorded by PW.4 in any prescribed book nor was a copy thereof sent to the higher authority within 72 hours which is mandate of Section 42(2) of the Act. Accepting for a moment but not admitting the information taken down in writing under Ext.P-14 as the compliance of Section 42 of the Act, it appears that a copy thereof has never been sent to the immediate higher authority. Except Ext.P-14, there is no other proof regarding compliance of Section 42 of the Act and this Court, therefore, considers it not proper to accept Ext.P-14 towards compliance of Section 42 & 42(2) of the Act. 11. Adverting to the sampling, it appears that PW.4 has testified that he sealed those packets by putting his personal brass seal marks and handed over the brass seal to the independent witness- Satyajit Sahoo by executing zimanama, but PW.6- CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 23 of 30 Satyajit Sahoo has disowned the same about receiving any brass seal. The testimony of PW.4 further transpires that he prayed the Court for drawing of sample and by order of the learned Special Judge, Athagarh, he produced the seized articles before the learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh for collection of sample and the learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh collected the sample in two packets containing 50Grams each from the 3 packets and marked the sample packets with letter A-1, A-2; B- 1, B-2 and C-1, C-2 respectively and thereafter, the learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh, handed over the sample packets along with the forwarding report for production of the same before the Excise Divisional Laboratory, Cuttack and he(PW4) sent the sample through constable Manmath Singh(PW.1) to the Central Divisional Laboratory, Cuttack on the very same day i.e. 23.07.2022. Section 52-A of the Act provides the procedure for disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 24 of 30 Section 52-A(2) of the Act provides that in case the officers referred to in Section 53 of the Act makes an application to any Magistrate for the purpose of certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or taking, in the presence of such Magistrate, photographs of such drugs or substances and certifying such photographs as true; or allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of such Magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn, the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application. In this case, there is hardly any evidence with regard to certification of the correctness of any list of samples so drawn. Further, the evidence of PW1 discloses that PW.4 detected a case of Ganja and after compliance of recovery and other procedure at about 4.15 PM, PW.4 directed him to produce the collected samples before the Asst. Chemical Examiner, Excise Divisional Laboratory, Cuttack along with a command CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 25 of 30 certificate. The evidence of PW.1 never discloses that the samples were drawn in the presence of learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh or the learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh has drawn any sample. The only evidence forthcoming from PW.1 is that he collected the sample from Inspector of Excise from the place of detection which is contrary to the evidence of PW.4 that the samples were handed over to PW.1 after it was drawn by the learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh. Additionally, PW.5-Asst. Chemical Examiner has stated in his evidence that on 25.07.2022, he received the sample, but the sample was admittedly collected and sent on 23.07.2022. What cannot be lost sight of is that PW.5 has admitted in his cross- examination that he received the sample packets from PW.4 instead of PW.1. Besides, the evidence of PW.1 transpires that on his arrival on 23.07.2022, the Excise Divisional Laboratory was closed and he informed PW.4 about the fact and PW.4 accordingly communicated to PW.5 over phone and as per his CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 26 of 30 instruction, he returned back with the sample to the office and kept it in the Excise Malkhana and as the next day was Sunday, on Monday i.e. on 25.07.2022 at 10.30 A.M., PW.1 produced the sample before PW.5. Had it been a fact, what prevented PW.4 not to disclose the same in his evidence nor had any evidence been led by the prosecution to prove that the sample so collected by the learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh on 23.07.2022 was in safe custody till it was produced before PW.5 on 25.07.2022 eliminating tampering or suspicion. The aforesaid evidence gives a glue picture of the prosecution about not being able to establish the safe custody of the sample nor was it established that the samples were not tampered which assumes significance in view of the fact that the brass seal used in sealing sample at the spot was not produced in the Court. Accordingly, the safe custody of the sample is found to have not been established by the prosecution. It is also admitted by PW5 that he received the CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 27 of 30 samples from PW4 on 25.07.2022, but the consistent case of the prosecution is that samples were sent to PW5 through PW1 who admitted that the samples were kept in Excise Malkhana, however, no document was produced by the prosecution to show that the samples were kept in Malkhana from 23.07.2022 to 25.07.2022. The evidence of PW4, however, transpires that the samples were collected by the learned SDJM and handed over to PW4 on 23.07.2022, but there is no evidence to show that the samples were handed over in sealed condition to PW4. Further, the chemical examination report does not reveal with whose seal the samples were sealed, although it has been stated therein that the seals are intact and identical with the specimen seal given on the forwarding memo of the Court. It is, therefore, very clear that the prosecution has not been able to establish the safe custody of the sample packets during its transit from the Court on CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 28 of 30 23.07.2022 to 25.07.2022 when it were produced before PW5. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance and taking into account the admitted evidence on record, this Court hardly find the prosecution to have led clear, cogent and reliable evidence to prove the safe custody of the samples so also compliance of Section 42 of the Act beyond all reasonable doubt and thereby, the only consequence emerges is that the prosecution is not successful in establishing its case against the appellant-convict beyond all reasonable doubt. 13.
Decision
In the result, the appeal stands allowed on contest, but in the circumstance there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.06.2024 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum- Special Judge, Athagarh are, hereby, set aside. CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 29 of 30 14. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in custody and he, thereby, be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not otherwise required in any other case. 15. Since the appellant is in jail custody, warrant of release on appeal in Form No.(M)78 of GR & CO, (Criminal) Vol-II be immediately sent to the Officer-in-charge of the concerned jail through e-mail or any other faster communication mode in view of the Rule 155 of the GR & CO,(Criminal) Vol-I. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 18th day of March, 2025/S.Sasmal Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 21-Mar-2025 15:57:50 CRLA No.650 of 2024 Page 30 of 30