1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 641of 2000 Decided on September 29, 2010 __________________________________________________________ State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Ishwar Dass ...Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. ¹Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant: Mr.R.K. Sharma,Senior Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate. Justice R.B. Misra,J. (Oral) The present Criminal Appeal has come up for adjudication after the grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted in reference to judgment dated 13.7.2000, passed by Learned Special Judge (Sessions Judge) Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Sessions Case No.3-29-J/VII/99, under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'NDPS Act'), acquitting the alleged respondent-accused. 2. The prosecution case is that on 19.4.1999, at about 6.45 A.M. PW.14 Kushal Kumar, SHO Police Station Shahpur, while present at Kotla bazar in connection with patrolling, received a secret information that the accused had cultivated poppy plants in his land in village Anuhi, accordingly, he associated PW.3 Satpal Kanungo and PW.4 Onkar Singh Patwari 2 to the spot and sent a ruka Ex.PG to the police station for registration of the case and also sent the information to his superior officer vide Ex.PJ. Thereafter, PW.14 S.I. Kushal Kumar, proceeded to the spot alongwith photographer PW.5 Balbir Singh, Pardhan of the village, namely, Kalu Din (PW.13) and Up Pardhan PW.1 Parshotam Lal and noticed that poppy plants had been cultivated in the land. The plants were got photographed by the photographer PW.5 Balbir Singh. The land was demarcated by PW.3 Satpal Kanungo and the copies of the revenue record were obtained. The poppy plants 400 in number were uprooted and two samples of these plants each were taken out and sealed separately and the remaining plants were also sealed at the spot, thereafter, the samples of the poppy plants were sent to chemical examiner. 3. After investigation, respondent-accused charged for the offence under Section 18 of the 'NDPS Act'. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 prosecution witnesses, whereas, the accused through his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., has denied the prosecution case and shown his innocence. 4. PW.1 Parshotam Lal, an independent witness, the Up Pardhan of the Panchayat, has stated that on 20.5.1999 at about 2 P.M., he was called by the police and was taken to police post, Kotla where he put his signatures on some papers without going through the contents thereof, as such, PW.1 has not supported the prosecution case. 3 5. PW.13 Kalu Din Pardhan of the Panchayat has stated that the police never came to the village in his presence nor he accompanied the police to the fields of the accused and nothing was recovered in his presence. 6. PW.2 Baldev Singh, resident of the village, in which the land of the accused-respondent is situated, has denied that the accused had grown poppy plants in his land behind his land, this witness was also declared hostile. 7. PW.3 Satpal Kanungo has stated that he was called by the police and demarcated the Khasra number and gave his report and there were 400 poppy plants in all. He prepared Tatima Ex.PB and three parcels were sealed at the spot. PW.3 in his cross-examination has stated that there is no name of the accused in the jamabandi in the ownership column and that the land is entered as 'Khareter'. He has further stated that the plants were sown in his presence, and the land of Khasra No.1421 is owned jointly and there may be 5 or 7 owners of the land comprised in Khasra No. 1421 and adjoining to this land there is Shamlat land, which is a forest land. 8. PW.4 Onkar Singh Patwari in his endeavour to support the prosecution case has stated that in the column of possession names two persons are entered i.e Munshi Ram and Jhano. PW.4 has further stated that land of Khasra No. 1421 purchased by Vijay from Munshi. 9. PW.5 Balbir Singh photographer, PW.7 Munshi Ram, PW.8 HC Vinod Kumar, PW.9 LHC Harbans Lal and PW.10 Mastan Singh have endeavoured to support the prosecution 4 case to the extent official role assigned to them. 10. On scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we find that none of the independent witnesses have supported the prosecution case and the land from where the poppy plants were said to have been uprooted and taken into possession cannot be said to be linked with the accused-respondent and the said poppy plants were not said to have been recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused-respondent and it can also not be proved that it was the accused alone, who has cultivated the recovered contraband / poppy plants. 11. On the perusal of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we notice that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In our considered view, there is no scope of interference in the findings given by learned Sessions Judge. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present criminal appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. 12. The bail bonds furnished by the accused/respondents are hereby discharged. (R.B. Misra) Judge September 29, 2010 (V.K. Sharma) (Purohit) Judge