IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No.: 382/1998 Decided on: 15.5.2010 _____________________________________________ State of Himachal Pradesh. …Appellant. Versus Ram Singh. …Respondent. ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. _________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J (oral). This is an appeal by the State against the judgment dated 3.3.1998 of learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, whereby respondent, who was tried for offence, under section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for allegedly possessing 470 grams opium, has been acquitted. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? . 2 2. According to the prosecution, a police party led by PW-9 Duni Chand, S.H.O. Police Station Rekong Peo, comprising among others PW-4 Ahmad Saeed and PW-3 Madan Lal, Sub Inspector left the Police Station for detection of excise crime. On the way, PW-5 Zehar Singh, an independent witness met them. When the police party reached near the cremation ground of village Dakho, respondent was seen coming from the opposite direction. On seeing the police, he got panicky and turned about. He tried to flee but was over powered by the police party. He was carrying a bag, on search of which 470 grams opium was recovered. Two samples, each weighing 10 grams, were separated. Samples and the bulk were made into three separate parcels and each parcel was sealed with a seal that produced impression of letter ‘H’ of English alphabet. A report of search and seizure and the proceedings conducted on the spot was prepared, which is Ex. PD. Rukka Ex. PE was prepared and sent to the Police Station for formal registration of the case. FIR Ex. PB was registered on the basis of Ex. PE. All the three parcels were deposited with MHC PW-2 Rup Lal. He sent both the samples, per his testimony to Chemical Examiner, Kandaghat through constable Madan Lal (PW-8). Chemical Examiner, vide report Ex.PH, opined that the sample was of opium. 3 3. Trial Court charged the respondent with offence under section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, to which he pleaded not guilty, and therefore, it proceeded to try him for the said offence. 4. Prosecution relied upon the testimony of Zehar Singh (PW-5), Duni Chand, SHO (PW-9) and Ahmad Saeed (PW- 4) to prove the search and seizure. To establish link between Chemical Examiner report Ex.PH and the stuff recovered from the respondent, prosecution examined PW-2 Rup Lal and PW- 8 Madan Lal. Trial Court found some infirmities and discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution and concluded that the case of prosecution was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 5. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General as also learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record carefully. 6. The entire story of the prosecution appears to be fabricated. According to PW-9 Duni Chand as also PW-4 Ahmad Saeed and PW-5 Zehar Singh, respondent was seen coming near the cremation ground of village Dakho at 12.10 P.M. and that on seeing the police, he tried to flee but was over powered and then he was told that it was intended to search his person, as it was suspected that he was carrying some narcotic drug or psychotropic substances and that a 4 memo Ex. PC to the effect was prepared and when the respondent opted for being searched on the spot, search was conducted and opium was recovered, two samples were separated from it, samples and bulk opium were stitched into three separate parcels, parcels were sealed, specimen impression of the seal used to seal parcels were taken on two separate pieces of clothes, search and seizure memo was prepared and thereafter report Ex. PE was sent to the Police Station at 12.15 P.M. for the formal registration of the case, where FIR Ex.PB was registered at 12.30 P.M. 7. Now, if the respondent had been seen coming from the opposite direction at 12.10 P.M. and the timing of Rukka Ex.PE is 12.15 P.M., which was prepared per its own contents after completing all the aforesaid formalities, it is unbelievable that just in five minutes, all the aforesaid formalities had been completed. This fact alone is enough to disbelieve the prosecution version. 8. Also, we find that the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PH does not stand connected with stuff allegedly recovered from the respondent. MHC Rup Lal (PW-2) says that he had sent both the samples to Chemical Examiner on 30.10.1994 through Madan Lal constable. Madan Lal in his testimony as PW-8 stated that he was entrusted with one sample and that too not on 30.10.1994, as testified by PW-2 5 Rup Lal, but on 2.12.1994. Report of the Chemical Examiner says that sample was received in the Laboratory on 2.12.1994. Date below the signatures of the Police Officer, who prepared the docket, is 24.11.1994, which suggests that the sample was sent on 24.11.1994. Report Ex.PH reads that the seal on the sample tallied with specimen impressions of the seal received separately. No witness has stated that specimen impressions of the seal had been sent to the Chemical Examiner either alongwith the sample or separately. 9. In view of above stated position, appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh), J (Rajiv Sharma), J 15.5.2010 *awasthi*