IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. 36 of 1999 Decided on: 23.9.2010 State of H.P. ..…Appellant Versus Bahadur Singh. ..…Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. For the respondent : Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate. Respondent produced in custody of ASI Kedar Nath and HHC Shamsher Singh, No. 568. R.B. Misra,J. (Oral) The present criminal appeal has come-up for consideration after leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted, in reference to the impugned judgment dated 16.10.1998, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 5-ST/7 of 1998, whereby respondent-accused has been acquitted for the offence, under Section 20 of the Narcotic 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘ND&PS Act’). 2. Prosecution case is that on 24th November, 1997, SHO, Police Station, Paonta Sahib, Inspector B.S. Thakur (PW-6) alongwith other police officials apprehended the respondent- accused and on search, contraband goods of 1 kg. 800 grams of charas were recovered and taking 50 grams of two samples from recovered charas, samples were put in two separate parcels and the same were sent to Chemical Examination. On investigation, respondent-accused was charged for the aforesaid offence and case was committed to the Sessions Court. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses, whereas the accused through his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. 4. In present case, the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and apparent contradictions have been noticed regarding the recovery, seizure and sending of samples for chemical examination. Official witnesses are not inspiring confidence and in the absence of non-supporting of independent witnesses, the entire prosecution story cannot be said to be reliable. 5. For the reasons and apparent contradictions and inconsistencies indicated in the impugned judgment, we can safely be said that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no scope of interference in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is, therefore, dismissed. 3 6. Bail bonds, furnished by the respondent-accused, are hereby discharged. Respondent-accused is set at liberty, forthwith, if not required in any other case. (R.B. Misra), Judge. September 23, 2010 (V.K. Sharma), Judge. (vs)