IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.628 of 1996 Decided on: December 15, 2009 State of HP …Appellant Versus Ratti Ram …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. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 7.12.1995 of learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, whereby respondent Ratti Ram, who was tried for offence, under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, has been acquitted. 2. Prosecution case, which led to the trial of the respondent, may be stated thus. On 22.11.1993 PW-6 Punita Bhardwaj, Dy. S.P., received secret information, when she was present at Raj Bhawan, that a man with a bag had been moving in the area in suspicious circumstances and it was quite likely that he had some contraband with him. She formed a raiding party in which Sh. D.W. Negi, SHO Shimla, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… PW-3 Constable Ram Chand and PW-4 ASI Madan Kant were associated. Respondent was spotted on the Forest Road. On seeing the police party, he tried to withdraw, but was overpowered. He was carrying a bag. On search, 1.500 kgs. of Charas was recovered. Two samples, each weighing 100 grams, were separated. The samples and the bulk stuff were made into separate parcels and the same were sealed with a seal that produced the impression of letter “H” of English alphabet. Written report of the search and the seizure was prepared and sent to the Police Station for registration of the case. That report is Ext. PW1/A and the FIR of the case, registered on the basis of that report, is Ext. PW1/B. 3. Prosecution examined PW-6 Dy. S.P. Punita Bhardwaj, PW-3 Ram Chand and PW0-4 Madan Kant to prove the search and the seizure. 4. Respondent denied that Charas was recovered from him. 5. Trial Court held that mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act had not been complied with and, hence, the respondent was entitled to acquittal. 6. We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. 7. It has been fairly conceded on behalf of the respondent that neither Section 42 nor Section 50 of the Act …3… was attracted to the facts of the case, because the respondent was apprehended and his search was conducted at an open place and not in any building, conveyance or enclosed place and, hence, Section 40 was not applicable and similarly, Charas was recovered not from the personal search of the respondent, but from a bag, which he was carrying. He, however, submits that there is no evidence linking the report Ext. PX of the Chemical Examiner with the stuff allegedly recovered from the respondent. 8. Case property alongwith samples had been deposited with PW-1 MHC Ramesh Kumar by PW-6 Dy. S.P. Punita Bhardwaj. Reference in this behalf may be made to the testimony of PW-6 Dy. S.P. Punita Bhardwaj as also PW-1 MHC Ramesh Kumar. PW-1 MHC Ramesh Kumar stated that he sent one sample to Chemical Laboratory at Kandaghat through constable PW-2 Mohinderjit. He did not say that the sample which he sent to the laboratory bore the seal impression “H”. 9. PW-2 Constable Mohinderjit, who carried the sample to the laboratory at Kandaghat also did not say that the sample was sealed and the seal impression read like letter “H” of English alphabet or that the sample pertained to the case in hand. Neither PW-1 MHCRamesh Kumar nor PW-2 Constable Mohinderjit did state that the specimen impressions of the seal had also been sent to the Chemical Examiner for comparison with the impressions of the seal on the sample …4… parcel. No doubt the Chemical Examiner in his report Ext. PX has certified that the seal impressions on the sample tallied with the specimen seal impressions, received separately, but when neither PW-1 MHC Ramesh Kumar nor the Constable PW-2 Mohinderjit, who carried the sample to the laboratory, testified that any specimen impressions of the seal were also carried, certification by the Chemical Examiner, which is just by means of impressing a rubber stamp, does not carry much weightage. 10. We find no evidence on record as to who prepared the docket portion or the NCB Form of report Ext.PX. PW-6 Dy. S.P. Punita Bhardwaj did not say that she had filled in NCB Forms or deposited the same alongwith the case property nor did she say that the NCB Form, appearing above the report Ext. PX, was filled in or signed by her. The NCB form appears to be signed by the SHO, who was not examined. 11. Thus, the link evidence adduced by the prosecution is deficient and ambiguous. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J. December 15, 2009(ss) (Surinder Singh), J.