IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 402 of 2007 Date of Decision 7th September, 2011 ________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Appellant Versus Lakhvinder Singh & another ….Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. For Respondent No.1: Mr. Ramakant Sharma and Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocates. ____________________________________________________________ (Dev Darshan Sud), J.(oral) The State is aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, Camp at Nalagarh in Sessions trial No. 11-NL/7 of 2006/2004 acquitting both the respondents for offences under Section 18 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that both the accused- respondents were found in possession of packets of opium 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 containing 170 and 130 grams each by PW11 Bisham Thakur, S.H.O. Police Station, Barotiwala, who was on patrol duty in his official jeep. The case alleged is that he was present at Bus Stand, Baddi and was accompanied by PW10 ASI Jatinder Singh Kanwar, PW7 Kewal Singh, PW3 C. Harvinder Kumar, H.C. Sohan Singh and C. Harbans. It is urged that the patrolling party had received secret information that two persons, namely; Lakhvinder Singh @ Lakhu and Mohinder Singh (both accused in the present case) are selling opium, wrapped in ‘Pudis’ (in small packets) near the Truck Union office at Baddi. They proceeded to the spot where they found both the respondents-accused, who tried to run away when they saw the police party. They were apprehended and informed that they could be searched either by the Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer if so desired, but they consented to be searched by the police officials. The case then proceeds that a polythene bag was recovered from the right pocket of the pant of accused Lakhvinder Singh. This packet contained 14 small packets (pudis) of opium in blue polythene. These packets were weighed and found 170 grams opium. Out of these, two packets of 10 grams each were taken as sample for chemical analysis and were put in two match boxes and sealed with seal impression ‘H’. A polythene packet containing 10 small packets (Pudis) of opium was also recovered from the possession of respondent-accused Mohinder Singh. Out of these packets, two packets of 10 grams each were also preserved separately for chemical analysis. The remaining packets were also sealed in a separate cloth parcel with same seal. The sample impression of seal used was also taken on a piece of cloth. 3 3. According to the prosecution, the NCRB Form was prepared on the spot itself. The learned trial Court holds that the search and recovery of the purported contraband is proved by the police witnesses. However, the respondents have been acquitted on the ground that no homogeneous sample was made of the entire contraband so seized and NCRB Form was not proved to have been prepared on the spot. The seal was also not proved to have been affixed as alleged. 4. We have heard Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the State as also Mr. Ramakant Sharma and Ms. Devyani Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. We do find it extremely strange that the NCRB Form is totally at variance to the evidence on record. We are surprised to notice that Ext.PW11/A, which is the NCRB Form and contains the report of the Chemical Analyst does not corroborate the prosecution case. The facsimile impression of seal has not been affixed on this Form. The seal used is mentioned as ‘E’. PW11 in his evidence states that it was seal ‘H’ which was affixed on the samples of contraband so seized. We fail to understand as to how the parcels, sent to the Laboratory at Kandaghat, had seal ‘E’ whereas PW11 is categoric in his statement when he states that it was seal ‘H’. The Court holds that the parcels of the contraband produced in the Court are also affixed with seal ‘E’. This not only casts a very serious doubt on the case of prosecution with respect to the sample sent for analysis, but also it is a clear pointer to the fact that NCRB Form was not filled in on the spot, but the same has been filed in at a later point of 4 time may be at the Police Station. We are at pains to note that the investigation in this case has been carried out in a most lackadaisical manner. We find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds stand discharged. (R.B. Misra) Judge September 7, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge