AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ
The challenge in the present petition is to an order dated 6th December, 2021 passed by the District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Nuapada in S.A. Case No.8 of 2019 rejecting the petition filed by the present Petitioner under Section 227 Cr PC seeking discharge in the aforementioned case in which he is now facing trial under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act read with Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940.
The case of the prosecution is that 160 ESKUF cough syrup bottles packed in two cartons were recovered and seized from the possession of the present Petitioner and on being asked, he could not produce any document justifying his possession. The trial Court come to the conclusion that there is a strong prima facie case against the Petitioner and the materials recovered by the prosecution are sufficient to put him on trial.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the case of the Petitioner was that he was sleeping in his house and was not even present when the alleged seizure took place. Although it was put to the learned counsel for the Petitioner that he is in effect pleading ‘alibi’, learned counsel for the Petitioner pleaded ignorance of that expression and stated that he had never heard of it before.
Be that as it may, in a criminal trial if the accused is pleading ‘alibi’, the burden of proof would be on the Petitioner to discharge and that obviously will be tested at the stage of trial. The Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the trial Court in framing charge against the Petitioner and declining to discharge him at that stage.
There is no merit in the present petition and it is dismissed as such. A copy of this order be communicated to the concerned trial court forthwith.
…………………………