IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.338 of 1998 Decided on : May 12, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Iltaf and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General, and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents: None. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) State has preferred this appeal against trial Court’s judgment dated 21st December, 1996, whereby respondents, numbering five, who were tried for an offence, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 15th November, 1993 around 8 a.m., ASI Rahul Sharma (PW-6), Incharge Police Post Rajgarh, received information that the respondents had engaged themselves in preparation of Charas and that they had been preparing Charas in a rented house in village Bohal. Said ASI prepared report Ex. PE and sent it to Police Station Paonta Sahib, where case was registered vide FIR Ex. PA. ASI then Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… formed a raiding party and proceeded to the spot. All the respondents were available on the spot. ASI told them that he had definite information that they were having Charas and so it was intended to search their persons, for which they were required to be produced before some Gazetted Officer, but the respondents requested for being searched on the spot. ASI then conducted the search and recovered 470 grams charas from the personal search of respondent Iltaf, 85 grams Charas from the personal search of respondent Jaan Mohammed, 140 grams Charas from the personal search of respondent Syed Mohammed, 285 grams Charas from the personal search of respondent Yakub and 80 grams Charas from the personal search of respondent Irshad. Samples were separated from the recovered stuff. Samples and the bulk Charas were made into separate parcels and sealed with a seal that produced the impression of English letter ‘G’. Case property and the samples were deposited with the Incharge of Malkhana, who sent the samples to the Chemical Examiner. Chemical Examiner gave the opinion that all the samples were of Charas. 3. Trial Court charged the respondents with offence, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and on their pleading not guilty, tried them for the said offence. At the end of the trial, respondents were acquitted, holding that provisions of …3… Sections 50 and 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and Section 100(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been complied with. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General and gone through the record. Nobody appears for the respondents. 5. From a perusal of the record, we are satisfied that mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act had not been complied with, in this case. Admittedly, recoveries were effected from the pockets of the clothes worn by the respondents or say from the search of their persons. PW-6 ASI Rahul Sharma did not inform the respondents that they had a right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. He simply told them that they were required to be taken to a Gazetted Officer, but then he himself searched their persons, on their allegedly saying that they wanted to be searched on the spot. Thus, this is a clear case of non-compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J May 12, 2010(sd) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J