IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.A. No. 221 of 1998. Decided on: 28.4.2010. ___________________________________________________________ State of H.P. … Appellant. Versus Labh Chand … Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J. (Oral). State has appealed against the judgment, dated 31.1.1996 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, whereby respondent Labh Chand, who was brought for trial under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, has been acquitted. 2. Prosecution’s case is that on 3.4.1995 at 5.10 p.m., PW-15, HC Ramesh Chand received a secret message at Police Station, Manali that a person wearing blue coloured jeans pant and green coloured cap was travelling by bus No. HP 34-3825, which was coming towards Manali from Patlikuhal side and that the man had huge quantity of charas with him. Information was entered in the Roznamcha, vide entry copy Ext. PW-15/A and on the basis of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 that entry, case was formally registered. PW-15 HC Ramesh Chand then proceeded towards Patlikuhal. When he reached near Kangri Dhaba at Manali, he saw the bus bearing the aforesaid number coming from the opposite direction. He got the bus stopped. Respondent, who was wearing blue coloured jeans and green coloured cap, was present in the bus. He was required to alight from the bus. He was holding a plastic bag in his hand. He was informed that it was intended to search his person because information had been received that he was carrying charas and that in case he so desired, search of his person could be arranged in the presence of a Magistrate or a gazetted Officer of any of the notified departments. Respondent consented for the search on the spot. On search of the plastic bag, charas weighing 1.5 kilograms was recovered from a card board shoe’s box which was inside that plastic bag. One sample weighing 50 grams was separated. Sample and the bulk charas were made into two separate parcels, which were sealed with a seal that produced the impression of letter ‘K’ of English alphabet. Search and seizure memo was prepared. Two parcels containing sample and the bulk of charas were presented to PW-7, Shri S.R. Rana, who affixed his own seal, which produced the impression of letter ‘T’ of English alphabet. Sample parcel was sent to the Chemical Examiner, who vide report Ext. PW-7/B gave the opinion that the contents of sample were of charas. 3. Respondent, on being challaned, was charged with offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic 3 Substances Act, 1985. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and was, therefore, put on trial. 4. Prosecution examined PW-15, HC Ramesh Chand and three independent witnesses, who had allegedly been associated at the time of the search. One Constable, namely, Sher Singh, PW-14, was also examined. Three independent witnesses did not support the prosecution version. However, PW-15, HC Ramesh Chand, and PW-14, Constable Sher Singh testified that the respondent was brought out from the bus and at that time, he was carrying a polythene bag in which there was card board box of Lakhani Shoes and on search, charas weighing 1.5 kilograms was recovered from that box. 5. Trial Court held that the case of the prosecution did not stand established beyond reasonable doubt and consequently, acquitted the respondent. 6. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General and also the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the evidence. 7. Though, we do not find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the trial Court that the respondent is entitled to acquittal on account of independent witnesses having not supported the prosecution evidence or that there was non- compliance of the provisions of sub section (4) of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, yet we do not think this to be a fit case for interference with the judgment of acquittal. 8. According to the prosecution, sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner by PW-4, MHC Sunder Singh on 9.4.1995 4 through PW-3, Constable Mast Ram and the latter delivered the same in the laboratory of Chemical Examiner on 10.4.1995. Both, PW-4, Sunder Singh and PW-3, Constable Mast Ram have testified like that. However, the report Ext. PW-7/B shows that the sample was received by the Chemical Examiner on 17.4.1995. That means, the report does not stand linked with the sample that was separated from the stuff allegedly recovered from the respondent and which was sent to the laboratory and delivered to the concerned official of the laboratory on 10.4.1995 per testimony of PW-3, Constable Mast Ram and PW-4 MHC Sunder Singh. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh) Judge. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. April 28, 2010. (cr)