IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.407 of 1995 Decided on : September 9, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Joginder Singh …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 31st October, 1994, of learned Sessions Court, Una, whereby respondent Joginder Singh, who was charged with and tried for offence, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, has been acquitted. 2. According to the prosecution, on 8th November, 1993, when Sub Inspector Om Prakash (PW-8), Incharge Police Post, Haroli, was on election duty and was travelling by Jeep No.HPG-4241, driven by Roop Lal (PW-1), in the area of village Pubowal Baliwal, he spotted the respondent, carrying a gunny bag on his head. On seeing the police, the respondent became nervous, which aroused the suspicion of Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… PW-8 SI Om Prakash. He required the respondent to stop and told him that it was intended to search his person and in case he so desired search could be arranged in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Respondent agreed for his search on the spot by PW-8 SI Om Prakash. The gunny bag, which he was carrying, was searched. It was found to contain poppy husk. One sample, weighing 250 grams, was separated and made into a parcel and the parcel was sealed. Bulk poppy husk was also sealed in the gunny bag itself. 3. Respondent made a disclosure statement, leading to the discovery of four more bags of poppy husk from a jungle. Samples were separated from those four bags also and sealed separately. Samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner, who gave the opinion that the same were of poppy husk. 4. Prosecution examined Roop Lal, the driver of the Jeep, as PW-1, Om Prakash, Sub Inspector, as PW-8 and one more witness, namely Updesh Singh (PW-3), in whose presence the respondent allegedly made disclosure statement and got discovered four bags from a jungle. 5. PW-1 Roop Lal did not support the prosecution version. He stated that he was driving the Jeep, on the relevant date, with Sub Inspector Om Prakash travelling therein, but denied that the respondent was carrying any gunny bag of poppy husk and he made any disclosure …3… statement, leading to the discovery of four more bags from a jungle. PW-8 Updesh Singh though stated that four bags of poppy husk were recovered from a jungle, yet he denied that the respondent made disclosure statement or got those bags discovered. 6. Learned Sessions Judge observed that since the aforesaid two witnesses had not corroborated PW-8 SI Om Prakash and that the four bags were recovered from an open place, in the jungle, the case could not be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. 7. In view of the fact that PW-1 Roop Lal does not support PW-8 SI Om Prakash, as also the fact that PW-3 Updesh Singh does not support the version that the respondent made a disclosure statement, despite PW-3 Updesh Singh being under the influence of the police, on account of his involvement in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, another case under the Opium Act and third case under the Excise Act, we do not think this to be a fit case for interference with the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. 8. Moreover, we find from the record that Chemical Examiner’s report Ex. PAA does not stand connected with the samples allegedly taken from the bags got recovered by the respondent. Particulars of the case are not given in the report. Also, the seal impressions appearing on the sample parcels are not mentioned in this report. LHC Amrit Lal, …4… who allegedly carried the samples to the Chemical Laboratory, also does not specify in his affidavit Ex. PN as to what were the particulars of the case, the samples of which were carried by him. For the foregoing reasons, appeal is dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J September 9, 2009(sd) ( Surinder Singh ), J