IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. : 66 of 1998. Decided on: 25.02.2010. _________________________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. -Versus- Darshan 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. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Yashpal Singh Dhaulta, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) : State has appealed against the judgment dated 30th July, 1997 of learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, whereby respondent Darshan Singh, who was charged with and tried for offence, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, has been acquitted. 2. According to the prosecution, on 19th December, 1996, respondent Darshan Singh was apprehended by a Police party headed by Narinder Kumar ASI (PW-10) at a place called 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. Tunuhatti in Chamba District. On search of his bag, 2 Kgs. Charas was recovered. Samples were taken. One sample was sent to Chemical Laboratory at Neemuch (M.P.). The head of the said Laboratory vide report Ex.-PJ, opined that the sample was of Charas. 3. Respondent was put on trial. Trial Court acquitted him, holding that mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act had not been complied with, in asmuch as respondent was not made aware of his right to be searched by a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer of any of the Departments notified for the purpose, under Section 41 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Learned Trial Court has also held that there are contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses of the prosecution, which render its case doubtful. Link evidence adduced by the prosecution has also been observed to be lacking. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General and the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. We find that the report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex.-PJ, simply records the opinion that the sample was of Charas without indicating as to what tests were conducted and how did the unspecified tests indicate that the sample was of Charas. Charas has been defined as resin of Cannabis plant, per Section 2(iii) (a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. There is nothing in the report indicating that the sample was of resin of Cannabis plant. In view of the above stated position, we do not think this to be a fit case for interfering with the judgment of acquittal. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (Surjit Singh), Judge (Rajiv Sharma) Judge February 25, 2010. (bhupender)