Criminal Misc. No. A-39-MA of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. A-39-MA of 2009 Date of Decision: 24.2.2009 State of Haryana …Petitioner Versus Sahab Singh …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) In the present case, at the outset counsel for the State has drawn attention of this Court to the fact that the respondent who has been acquitted by the trial Court was in possession of 1 Kg. 700 grams of poppy husk, which is a non-commercial quantity. Trial Court has acquitted the respondent on the ground that Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as `the Act') being a mandatory provision has not been complied with. Prosecution version is that the respondent/accused was coming from village with a plastic bag in his hand and on seeing the police party, he turned back and on suspicion he was apprehended and recovery was effected. The trial Court has rightly held that Investigating Officer failed Criminal Misc. No. A-39-MA of 2009 2 to convey to the accused that he has a right to be searched from a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. It has been held by Hon'ble the Apex Court that non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act is fatal to the prosecution. The Court, in view of the meager recovery took into consideration the fact that no independent witness was joined by the police party even though the recovery was effected from a place which is a busy thoroughfare and frequented by hundreds and thousands of people. The trial Court further held that no independent corroboration is coming forward to the testimony of official witness. The Court also relied upon various discrepancies which surfaced in the evidence of PW.2 Rajbir Singh, Constable. The Court further held that PW.2 Rajbir Singh, Constable, who carried the special report was telling a lie regarding all material facts of the case. The Court further held that various discrepancies noticed cannot be termed as trivial and therefore on appreciation of evidence, accused/respondent was given benefit of doubt. The judgment of acquittal cannot be said to be perverse. The trial Court has formulated one opinion which is possible on the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, no interference is warranted. Criminal Misc. No. A-39-MA of 2009, whereby leave to appeal is sought, is dismissed as being devoid of any merit. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 24, 2009 “DK”