IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. : 467 of 2000. Reserved on 22.02.2011. Decided on: 26.04.2011. _________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. -Versus- Jarnail Singh. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the appellant : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Ajay Dhiman, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge: State has challenged the judgment dated 26.05.2000, passed by learned Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Trial No. 4-N/VII/1999, whereby respondent Jarnail Singh, who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, has been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nut-shell, is that on 15.04.1998, PW-8 J.N. Nirala, the then S.H.O., Police Station Nurpur was present at Village Tatoli alongwith PW-3 Sh. Roop Lal, ASI and other police officials. He received a secret information that the accused deals in charas in his shop at Gangath Chowk. He informed S.S.P. Kanrga through wireless and associated PW-1 Thuru Ram and PW-2 Yudhister and went 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - to the shop of accused. He informed the accused about the grounds of search and asked him whether he wanted to give his search before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate vide memo Ex.– PA. Accused gave consent in writing vide memo Ex. PB. On search of the shop of the accused, one Diba was found kept near his seat containing charas in the shape of ‘batties’. Out of which, two samples of 20 grams each, were taken and these were taken into possession vide memo Ex. –PD. These were sealed in two different parcels in the presence of witnesses. Thereafter, he sent the ruka Ex.–PK for the registration of the case. On the basis of ruka Ex.-PK, F.I.R. Ex.-PJ, was recorded by the then MHC Manmohan Singh. PW-8 J.N. Nirala informed the accused about the grounds of arrest vide memos Ex.–PE and Ex.-PN. He recorded the statements of witnesses and deposited the case property with PW-5 MHC Manmohan Singh. He sent the special report to S.S.P. Kangra on the same day vide Ex.-PH. The sample was sent to F.S.L. Kandaghat through LHC Parkash Chand (PW-6). He deposited the same and gave receipt on his return. The report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex.-PX was received with the opinion that the contents of the samples were that of charas. The matter was investigated and thereafter, a challan was put up by PW-7 Inspector Suresh Chand, SHO, Police Station Nurpur, after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution has examined eight witnesses. The accused was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has denied the allegations of prosecution. According to him, he was falsely implicated. - 3 - Learned Special Judge acquitted the respondent on 26.05.2000. Hence, this appeal by the State. 4. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondent. He then contended that the learned trial Court has mis-read the statements of prosecution witnesses. 5. Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment dated 26.05.2000. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 7. PW-1 Thuru Ram and PW-2 Yudhister were associated during the search operation. They were declared hostile. PW-3 ASI Roop Lal has denied his signatures on memos Ex.-PA to Ex.-PC. Thus, his presence on the spot or having witnessed the recovery of charas, becomes doubtful. 8. PW-4 HC Vinod Kumar, though has deposed that he has received the wireless report, however, he did not depose that this report was put up before the S.S.P. Kangra. PW-2 Yudhister is a resident of Kathal, which is at a distance of about three kilometers away from the place of recovery. Thuru Ram (PW-1) was running a shop of Carpenter. It is settled law that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out only on the ground that it has not been supported by independent witnesses. The conviction can be based on the basis of statements of official witnesses, however, in this case, both the independent witnesses have turned hostile and the statement of PW-3 ASI Roop Lal also does not inspire confidence. - 4 - 9. Consequently, we will not interfere in the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. (R.B. Misra), Judge (Rajiv Sharma) Judge April 26, 2011. (bhupender) - 5 -