SENTENCE MODIFIED TO PERIOD UNDERGONE DUE TO LONG PENDENCY AND ACCUSED’S STATUS AS FIRST OFFENDER.

On January 9, 2009, excise officials (P.W.3) received information regarding illegal possession of contraband at the appellant's house in Nimapara

Upon searching the premises, 3.5 kilograms of ganja were recovered from a cement bag hidden under a cot

The trial court (1st Addl. Special Judge-cum-1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri) convicted the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, sentencing him to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000

The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the house was a joint family residence, thereby negating "exclusive conscious possession," and alleging non-compliance with mandatory search and seizure procedures

1. Whether the prosecution proved "conscious possession" of the contraband given the joint occupation of the premises

2. Whether the mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, 52A, and 55 of the NDPS Act were complied with, particularly regarding the safe custody of samples

3. Whether the sentence should be reduced considering the lapse of time and the appellant’s age

Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985, which penalizes possession of a "less than commercial but greater than small" quantity of cannabis

The principle from State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh regarding the mandatory nature of Section 42 (prior information and search)

The precedents of State of Rajasthan v. Gurmail Singh and Bishnu Raula v. State of Orissa concerning the necessity of proving the safe custody of seized samples to prevent tampering

The Court observed that while there were procedural irregularities—specifically the sample remaining in an office almirah for three days without a malkhana entry—these "tenebrous" lapses were not grave enough to vitiate the entire prosecution case

The Court upheld the trial court's finding that recovered contraband from under a cot in the appellant's house constituted sufficient evidence of possession, noting that official testimony cannot be discarded solely because independent witnesses turned hostile

The Court acknowledged the mitigating factors: the incident occurred 16 years prior, the appellant is now 62 years old, he has no criminal antecedents, and he has already served over three months (more than half) of the substantive sentence

The substantive sentence was reduced to the period already undergone (approx. 3 months and 13 days). The fine of Rs. 20,000 was maintained, with the default sentence reduced to one month of simple imprisonment. The appeal was partly allowed