IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. 71 of 1996 Decided on: 6.10.2009 State of H.P. ..…Appellant Versus Sharif Mohd. ..…Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant A.G. For the respondent : Ms. Vidhushi Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh,J. (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 26th November, 1994 of the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, whereby respondent Sharif Mohd., who was charged with and tried for offence, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, has been acquitted. 2. As per prosecution case, on 1.7.1993, when PW6 SI Ram Swroop, SHO, Police Station, Dalhousie was present at a place called Bathri, he received secret information that 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 respondent indulged in illicit trade of charas. He formed a raiding party in which Namberdar Mangat Ram and PW4 Naresh Gupta, District Employment Officer were associated. House of the respondent was searched and 2 kgs. charas was recovered from his kitchen. A sample weighing 10 grams was separated and sent to the Chemical examiner, who opined that the contents of the sample were of charas. 3. On completion of investigation, respondent was challaned. Trial Court charged the respondent with offence, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act and at the end of the trial, acquitted him. 4. We have gone through the record and heard the learned Assistant Advocate General. 5. Admittedly, PW6 Ram Swroop SHO had prior information that the respondent had charas in his house. This information was not reduced into writing, as per requirement of Section 42(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The provision is mandatory and its non compliance vitiates the trial as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of cases. Moreover, out of the two independent witnesses, only one namely Naresh Gupta PW4, was examined. This witness also did not support the prosecution version. 6. Testimony of Ram Swroop PW6 does not inspire confidence, because according to his statement in the court, the house which was searched is double storeyed, but the site plan shows that it is a single storeyed one room house. Naresh 3 Gupta PW4 also testified that the house is single storeyed and consists of only one room. 7. In view of the above stated position, we see no merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore dismissed. (Surjit Singh),Judge. (Surinder Singh), Judge. October 6, 2009 (vs)