IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 290 of 1998 Decided on : May 6, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant Versus Ram Lal ...Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 20.4.1998, of learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby respondent Ram Lal, who was tried for offence, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, has been acquitted. 2. A police party headed by PW-11 ASI Dole Ram left Police Station, Aut towards Mandi side, on 19.11.1996. Around 7.45 p.m., when the party reached a place called Thalot, it noticed that someone was coming from the other side of the river along suspension bridge. That man (the respondent) on reaching the side of the river, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… i.e. towards roadside along which the police party was proceeding, became nervous on seeing the police. That aroused suspicion of PW-11 ASI Dole Ram. At that time PW-1 Sher singh and one Hakam were accompanying ASI Dole Ram. Respondent was overpowered. He was carrying a bag. That was searched and Charas, weighing 1080 grams, was recovered. Two samples, each weighing 25 grams, were separated. The samples and the bulk Charas were made into separate parcels and sealed with a seal that produced impression of letter ‘C’ of English alphabet. Search and seizure memo. was prepared. Report of the matter was drawn and sent to Police Station, Aut, for registration of case, where case was formally registered, vide FIR Ext. PW3/D. Both the samples were sent to Chemical Examiner, who, vide report Ext. PX, reported that contents of sample were of Charas. 3. Respondent was challaned. He was charged by the trial Court with 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 PW-11 ASI Dole Ram, PW-1 Sher Singh, independent witness, PW-2 HC Mool Raj and PW-10 LHC Dhameshwar Singh, to prove the search and seizure. Report Ext. PX of Chemical Examiner was tendered in evidence. 5. Trial Court did not believe the prosecution evidence and acquitted the respondent. …3… 6. We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the evidence. 7. Reasoning given by the trial Court is that mandatory provision of Section 50 had not been complied with. Provision of Section 57 has also been held to have not been complied with. Testimony of prosecution witnesses has been disbelieved, because of some contradictions. It has also been held that after the search had been conducted by PW-11 ASI Dole Ram, investigation should have been entrusted to some other police official, but he himself continued with the investigation till its completion. 8. Recovery had been effected from a bag, which the respondent was carrying and, therefore, Section 50 of the Act is not attracted. Section 57 is not mandatory and hence, its non-compliance can also not be a ground for acquittal. 9. Of course, some contradictions are there in the testimony of independent witness, namely PW-1 Sher Singh and the Investigating Officer, namely PW-11 ASI Dole Ram, which render the prosecution story doubtful. According to PW-11 ASI Dole Ram, PW-1 Sher Singh joined him, when he was walking from Police Station, Aut, towards Thalot, but Sher Singh (PW1) stated that police people came to his shop and took him to the spot in a van. 10. Report of Chemical Examiner, Ext. PX, does not stand linked with the stuff allegedly recovered from the …4… spot. According to PW-2 ASI Dole Ram two samples of recovered stuff were taken and they were made into separate parcels, which were sealed with a seal that produced impression of English letter ‘C’. He stated that he had produced the samples and the bulk Charas before the SHO, namely PW-8 Vidya Dhar, who stated that he put the two parcels and the parcel, containing bulk Charas, in three separate cloth bags and sealed those bags with a seal that produced impression of letter ‘T’ of English alphabet. 11. PW-6 ASI Surender Pal stated that he had sent both the samples to Chemical Examiner through PW-7 Constable Sukh Ram, who stated that he carried two samples to the Chemical Laboratory. According to them, one sample was sent to CTL, Kandaghat and the other to CFSL, Chandigarh. Report Ext. PX had been obtained from Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. It reads that the parcel was sealed and the seal impressions read like English letter ‘T’. As a matter of fact, sample parcel bearing impression of English letter ‘T’, had another parcel in it, sealed with letter ‘C’. Report of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, does not indicate if there was a parcel inside the outer cover, bearing seal impression ‘T’. 12. Moreover, the aforesaid report Ext. PX, cannot be used as a piece of evidence, because it does not state if any test was conducted. It simply says that the contents of the exhibit were found to be of Charas. …5… For the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. Consequently, appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh), J May 6, 2010 (ss) (V.K. Sharma), J.