IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 491 of 1996 Decided on : 12th November, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Shuker Din …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. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 23.3.1996 of learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, whereby respondent Shuker Din, who was tried for offence, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, has been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, which led to the trial of the respondent, may be noticed. On 15th December, 1994, around 11.45 p.m., when PW-9 ASI Ramesh Chand accompanied by some police officials was patrolling the area known as Rathdhar near Gholti, he noticed one man coming from the opposite direction. He turned back and tried to flee. The man was thought to be a thief. He was overpowered. He was carrying a bag, which was searched, and on search a Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… small cloth bag, containing Charas, weighing 1.500 Kgs, was recovered. One sample, weighing 10 grams, was separated and sent to Chemical Examiner, who opined that the sample was of Charas. 3. Respondent was challaned. He was charged with offence, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. He pleaded not guilty and was, therefore, put on trial. 4. Prosecution examined PW-9 ASI Ramesh Chand, PW-1 HC Chain Singh and PW-2 ASI Jaram Singh, to prove the search of the bag of the respondent and the recovery of Charas therefrom. 5. Learned trial Court acquitted the respondent, holding that mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, had not been complied with and that the police did not conduct the investigation in a proper and lawful manner, inasmuch as the recovered stuff was not weighed, and though it was alleged to be 1.500 kgs, approximately, on the parcel cover, which had been produced in the Court, weight of the Charas was written 4.500 kgs. 6. We heard the parties on 13th October, 2009 and noticing the observation of the trial Court about the weight written on the parcel, containing bulk Charas, sent for the parcel. The same was produced before us on 6th November, 2009. We found that the weight of the recovered stuff, as …3… written on the cover of the parcel, was 1.490 kgs. and not 4.500 kgs. as observed by the trial Court. 7. Recovery of the Charas was effected from a bag, which the respondent was carrying, and, therefore, it was not a case of personal search and, hence, Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act was not applicable. If that is so, question of its non-compliance did not arise. The observation by the trial Court that the weight of the recovered Charas was written to be 4.500 Kgs. on the parcel cover is not correct. As noticed hereinabove, we sent for the parcel and noticed that the weight of the Charas was written as 1.490 kgs., on the parcel over. 8. Learned trial Court has not discussed the evidence of the witnesses of search and seizure, leave alone appreciating it. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge and remand the case with a direction to the Sessions Judge to decide the matter afresh, on the basis of evidence already adduced, after rehearing the counsel for the parties. Parties are directed to appear before learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, on 10th December, 2009. Appeal stands disposed of. (Surjit Singh), J 12th November, 2009(ss) (Surinder Singh), J.