Pradip Mohanty, J.
1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.12.1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kalahandi-Nuapada at Bhawanipatna acquitting the respondent of the charge under Section 20(b)(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act in G.R. Case No. 315 of 1996.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 30.8.1996 Kumar Harizan and some other villagers had been to the Forest, locally known as Dabrighati, to collect firewood. After collecting fire wood, when they were returning home, at about 4.00 P.M. they found the accused-respondent and another man, who were passing through the said forest by holding a bag each. On being asked as to what articles they were carrying, the present respondent and the other man tried to flee away, but on being called, they came near. On interrogation of villagers, the present respondent admitted that he was carrying Ganja. The villagers recovered the ganja and took him and the other man along with the bags containing ganja to village Kukudi where a Panchayati was held, to which the Gramarakhi was called, and the above persons handed over the present respondent and the other man along with the bags containing ganja in the zima of the Gramarakhi. Thereafter, written report (Ext.2) was lodged at Jaipatna Police Station by P.W. 2.
After receiving the report, the police, requisitioned the services of the Executive Magistrate-cum-Tahasildar, went to the spot, seized the bags containing ganja from the Gramarakhi in presence of P.W. 2, drew sample of 25 grams each in two packets, sealed the packets and sent the sample ganja for chemical analysis. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused.
3. The defence plea is of complete denial of the allegation.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and proved 4 exhibits. Defence examined none.
5. The learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi-Nuapara at Bhawanipatna, who tried the case, by his judgment dated 19.12.1997 acquitted the respondent of the above charge with the finding that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against him. Against that judgment, the State has preferred this GCRLA.
6. Mr. Behera, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that it is in the evidence of P.W. 2 that while he along with P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 was returning from the forest, they (sic) the accused with another man carrying a bag each and on being asked, they started running. P.W.2 lodged Information as directed by the Panchayat. Thereafter, police seized the articles in presence of the Executive Magistrate and sent the samples for chemical examination. But the learned Sessions Judge has without any rhyme or reason disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 2.
7. Mr. Pani, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that there is no material on record that Ganja was seized from the possession of the accused-respondent. P.W. 1, the Tahasildar-cum- Executive Magistrate has stated that in his presence ganja was seized by the police. But he has categorically denied his knowledge as to where from the ganja was brought. P.Ws. 6, 7, 8 and 10 have not stated anything against the accused-respondent. Even P.W. 6 has been declared hostile to the prosecution.
8. Perused the LCR, more particularly the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 P.W. 2 in his evidence stated that while returning from the forest he found the accused with another man carrying a bag each and asked them as to what they were taking in those bags. On being asked the accused left the bags and started running. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 2 that they took the bag along with the accused to the Police Station. But P.W. 11, has not supported that part of the evidence of P.W. 2.
9. In the instant case, from the evidence of P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 it is crystal clear that they went to the village with the respondent and the bags containing ganja. A panch was held and they handed over the accused-respondent to the Gramarakhi and came to Jaipatna Police Station to report the matter. P.W. 11, the I.O., has specifically stated that he proceeded to the spot for seizure and seized the ganja already recovered by the witnesses from the accusea-respondent prior to the requisition to the Tahasildar, Jaipatna. After the Executive Magistrate came, personal search of the accused was made and thereafter Gramarakhi produced the M.O.-I containing ganja.
10. From a bare reading of the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, it is clear that there is no specific material that ganja was seized from the possession of the accused-respondent by the I.O. The evidence of P.W. 1 goes to show that on the police requisition in writing to witness the seized ganja in village Kukudi, he went there. He has also categorically stated that he cannot say from where the said ganja was brought and seized. P.Ws. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 have not supported the prosecution case. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove that the seizure of ganja was from the possession of the respondent. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The GRCLA is dismissed accordingly.
11. Since the respondent was unable to furnish bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-, as intimated by the District and Sessions Judge, Kalahandi-Nuapada at Bhawanipatna, now he is languishing in jaii custody. Therefore, this Court directs the jail authorities to release the respondent forthwith.