IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.367 of 1996. Date of decision: 16.3.2010 State of H.P ..Appellant Versus Dile Ram & ors. ..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the appellant: Shri Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. Advocate General with Mr.Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr.B.K.Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.3. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J, (Oral). This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 29.5.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul-Spiti, District at Mandi in Sessions Trial No.13 of 1995 acquitting the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 2 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Respondents No.1 and 2 are Nepali citizens. They could not be served and therefore, have been declared as proclaimed offenders. We heard this appeal only in respect of respondent No.3 and are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case qua respondents No.1 and 2. The prosecution case is that on the night intervening 31.1.1995 and 1.2.1995, taxi No.HPZ-242 was intercepted at Dalah Nalla at about 1.30 a.m. This place is between Mandi and Jogindernagar. The taxi was going from Mandi towards Jogindernagar. When respondent No.3 was driving the taxi in question, on the back seat of the taxi, the other two accused Dile Ram and Rajender Kumar were sitting. They had kept a bag in between them and from this bag, 5 kgs and 120 grams charas was recovered. There is no evidence whatsoever to link the driver of the taxi with the bag from which the charas was allegedly recovered. Even according to the prosecution, 3 this bag was kept on the rear seat of the taxi where the two passengers were sitting. Other than the mere fact that the bag was being carried in the taxi being driven by respondent No.3, there is no other material on record to link him with the bag or the contraband in the said bag. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal against respondent No.3 which is accordingly dismissed on merits. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. This appeal was admitted on 28.2.1996. Despite repeated attempts, respondents No.1 and 2 could not be served. They were declared proclaimed offenders but the State is not even in a position to locate the accused or their property. It is apparent that the whereabouts of the respondents No.1 and 2 are not known to the State and, therefore, it is virtually not possible to take any coercive steps to procure the presence of the acquitted persons. It is not known whether respondents No.1 and 2 are dead or alive. The State has been unable to find out any information with regard to said respondents. In such a 4 situation, no purpose shall be served to keep the appeal pending. The appeal is accordingly disposed of with liberty reserved to the State to apply for revival of the appeal in case they can procure the presence of the accused. The appeal is ordered to be consigned. However, the record shall not be destroyed without specific order from the Court since we have given liberty to the State to apply for revival of the appeal. While disposing of the appeal, we are following the orders passed by the Apex Court on 31st August, 2001 in Cr.Appeal No.917 of 1997 titled State of H.P. vs. Satish Kumar. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge 16th March, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (m) Judge