IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 310 of 1997 Date of decision: 30.08.2010 _________________________________________________________ The State of H.P. .....Appellant. Versus Sant Ram .....Respondent. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh,J. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? __________________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: None. Surjit Singh, J (Oral). State has appealed against the judgment, dated 1st September, 1992, of learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, whereby respondent, Sant Ram, who was charged with and tried for the offence, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, has been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, as per trial Court's record, is like this. On 01.02.1992, around 4 p.m., when, SI Bidhi Chand, (PW-8), SHO, Police Station Dalhausie, was present at a place called Tunnuhatti, two persons, including respondent Sant Ram, alighted from a bus that came from Chamba side. Respondent, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ...2... Sant Ram, was carrying a bag. Bidhi Chand (PW-8) suspected that the respondent was carrying some contraband in the bag. Two independent witnesses, namely PW-1 Mohan Singh and PW-2 Tek Chand, were already with PW-8, Bidhi Chand. In the presence of those two witnesses, Bidhi Chand (PW-8) searched the bag, which the respondent was carrying. It was found to contain charas, which weighed 800 grams. A sample, weighing 10 grams, was separated from the recovered stuff and sealed in a separate parcel with a seal that produced the impression of letter 'K'. Bulk charas was made into a separate parcel, which too was sealed. Specimen impressions of the seal were taken on a separate piece of cloth. Both the parcels and the specimen seal impressions were deposited with the Head Constable Dev Raj (PW-3), who sent the sample parcels to the Chemical Examiner, Kandaghat. The Chemical Examiner reported that the contents of the sample parcels were of charas. 3. Respondent was charged by the trial Court with the offence, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. He pleaded not guilty and was, therefore, put on trial. 4. Prosecution examined eight witnesses to prove the charge. Trial Court has acquitted the respondent, holding that the two witnesses of search and seizure, examined to corroborate the testimony of PW-8, Bidhi Chand, are under the influence of the police and also their testimony is self- ...3... contradictory, besides being contradictory to the statement of Bidhi Chand. 5. We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General. Nobody appears for the respondent. 6. Both the alleged independent witnesses have admitted that they had been cited as witnesses by the police earlier also in cases of charas. They stated that respondent and one more person who were traveling by a bus, that came from Chamba side, were required by PW-8, Bidhi Chand, to alight from that bus, but Bidhi Chand (PW-8) himself testified that he apprehended the respondent, when he and another person alighted from the bus on their own. Also the two witnesses, namely PW-1 Mohan Singh and PW-2 Tek Chand testified that search was conducted at the police post and all the papers were also prepared at the said post, but Bidhi Chand (PW-8) stated that search was conducted on the spot and entire proceedings, including the preparation of search and seizure memo, took place on the spot. 7. It may also be noticed that link evidence, adduced by the prosecution, is deficient. Head Constable Dev Raj (PW-3), who sent the sample parcel through PW-4 Constable Ravinder Kumar, did not say as to what was the seal impression on the parcel that was sent to the Chemical Examiner. Similarly, PW-4 Ravinder Kumar, who carried the sample from the police station to the Laboratory at Kandaghat, also did not ...4... say anything about the impression of the seal on the parcel. Thus, it does not stand established if the same sample was sent to the Chemical Laboratory, which was separated from the stuff allegedly recovered from the respondent. 8. In view of the above stated position, we see no merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh) Judge (V.K. Sharma) Judge 30th August, 2010 (virender)