IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.48 of 2009 Decided on : October 29, 2009 Raj Kumar …Appellant. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Appellant in this case was convicted of offence, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, alongwith four other persons, namely Raghubir Singh, Prakash Chand, Ajay Kumar and Som Dutt, vide judgment dated 23rd April, 2004, by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kangra at Dharamshala, and sentenced, vide order dated 17th May, 2004, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two years. 3. It appears that the appellant, who was on bail during trial, absconded after the pronouncement of Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… judgment of conviction. He being not present, when the matter was heard on the question of quantum of sentence, sentence was pronounced in his absence. He was declared proclaimed offender and much later he was arrested and sent to jail to serve out the sentence. He approached the Legal Services Authority, sometime in January or February this year, through Superintendent of Jail, Nahan. Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate, was appointed as legal aid counsel for him. He filed the present appeal alongwith an application for condonation of delay. Application was disposed of vide order dated 2nd September, 2009 and delay was condoned. 4. Today, when we were hearing the matter, we enquired whether the other co-convicts of the appellant also filed appeals. Learned Deputy Advocate General stated that it appeared from the record that some of the con-convicts of the appellant had filed appeals, but it was not known as to what happened to those appeals. We then made enquiries, through our Court Secretary, with the Judicial Branch of the Registry. Enquiries have revealed that two of the co-convicts of the appellant, namely Ajay Kumar and Som Dutt, who were present at the time of pronouncement of sentence (other three, including the appellant having absconded), filed appeal, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.254 of 2004. That appeal was accepted by this Court, vide judgment dated 6th July, 2007 and the judgment …3… of the trial Court was set aside. One of the reasons given for acceptance of that appeal is that out of the five persons present in the vehicle, from which Charas was recovered, four were mine labourers and the fifth one Raghubir Singh was the driver and since the Charas was recovered from near driver’s seat, it was quite likely that Charas belonged to Raghubir Singh, Driver, only and four others were not in its possession. In view of the abovestated position, this appeal is also accepted and the appellant is acquitted. He being in jail, serving out the sentence awarded by the trial Court, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, in case his detention is not required in any other case. ( Surjit Singh ), J October 29, 2009(sd) ( Surinder Singh ), J