IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 11 of 1998 Decided on : March 25, 2010 State of H.P …Appellant Versus Shiam Singh …Respondent 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. Ramesh Thakur, Assitant Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 5.10.1990, of learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, whereby respondent Shiam Singh, who was charged with and tried for offence, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances, Act, for allegedly possessing 1.850 Kgs. Charas, has been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, as per evidence on record, is that on 22.4.1989, PW-2 A.C. Sadhyal, the then Additional Superintendent of Police, Shimla, received telephonic information, in his office, that a person with specific description was coming to Shimla with Charas. He instructed SHO, Police Station, Chhota Shimla, namely PW-5 Kahan Singh to arrange search party and himself also Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… proceeded to the Police Station. From Police Station he went towards Ram Chandra Chowk, accompanied by PW-5 SHO Kahan Singh and waited for the person, who was stated to be coming with Charas on motorcycle. After sometime, respondent appeared on a motorcycle. On search of the dickey of his motorcycle, Charas weighing 1.850 Kgs. was recovered, out of which 50 grams Charas was separated, by way of sample. The sample and the bulk Charas were sealed, separately. Sample was sent to Chemical Examiner, who opined that it contained 11.5% resin of Cannabis plant. 3. Trial Court has not believed the testimony of prosecution witnesses, holding that there are material contradictions. Also, it has been held that mandatory provisions of Sections 52 and 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act had not been complied with. 4. We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 5. The sole independent witness examined by the prosecution, namely PW-1 Roshan Lal did not support its case. PW-2 A.C. Sadhyal and PW-5 Kahan Singh, SHO, made contradictory statements as to the place and the time, where the information was received. According to PW-2 A.C. Sadhyal, he received the information in his office, which he passed on to PW-5 Kahan Singh, SHO. This …3… information, according to him, was received at 3.00 p.m. PW-5 Kahan Singh, SHO, however, stated that on the relevant date PW-2 A.C. Sadhyal had been in the Police Station throughout the day from 10 a.m. till he accompanied him to the place, where the respondent was intercepted. He stated that the information was received by him not from PW-2 A.C. Sadhyal, but from some informer, who came to the Police Station to give that information. According to him, the informer came to Police Station at 4.45 p.m. and that prior to that around 1.30 p.m. also, someone had informed telephonically about the respondent coming to Shimla with Charas. 6. Aforesaid contradictions apart, we find the link evidence missing. Neither PW-1 A.C. Sadhyal, who claimed to have supervised the investigation and to have headed the search party nor PW-5 Kahan Singh, SHO, who conducted the investigation, stated that the case property and the sample parcel were deposited in the Malkhana. Also, they did not say as to what was the impression of the seal, which they had used to seal the case property and the sample. 7. Furthermore, we find that while the weight of the sample was supposed to be 50 grams, as both the above named witnesses testified that they separated 50 grams stuff by way of sample, the Chemical Examiner, who analyzed the sample on 20.6.1989, reported that the weight …4… of the sample received by him was 24.5 grams or say less than half the weight of the sample. Therefore, it cannot be said that the sample, which was analyzed was the same, which had been separated from the stuff allegedly recovered from the respondent. 8. For the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. (Surjit Singh), J. March 25, 2010 (ss) (Rajiv Sharma), J.