IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 352/1995 Date of decision: 2. 9. 2009 State of H.P. …..Appellant Versus Basant Ram ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the Appellant: Mr. Ramesh Thakur Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Advocate. Surjit Singh (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 4.8.1994 of learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby respondent, who was charged with and tried for offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for allegedly possessing charas, has been acquitted. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - Case of the prosecution which led to the trial of the respondent is like this. On 21st October, 1993, there was a Mela at Jawalaji temple. A large number of devotees had gone to the temple to pay obeisance. Around 2 p.m., Head Constable Anoop Chand PW-8 produced respondent to PW-1 Surinder Paul, Executive Magistrate- cum-Mela Officer and told him that respondent was holding a card board box, meant for packing shoes but was not allowing its inspection and he suspected that the respondent might be carrying some explosive therein. Upon that, PW-1 Surinder Paul Executive Magistrate-cum- Mela Officer searched the box and found charas therein. The stuff was weighed and found to be 963 grams. Two samples each weighing 10 grams were separated. The samples and the recovered charas were made into separate parcels and the same were sealed with a seal which produced the impression of letter “T” of English alphabet. Search and seizure memo was prepared. A written report Ext.PB was drawn and sent to the Police Station by PW-1 Surinder Paul for registration of the - 3 - case. Case was formally registered vide FIR Ext. PB/1. One of the two samples was sent to the Chemical Examiner who opined that its contents were of charas. Prosecution examined PW-1 Surinder Paul, Executive Magistrate-cum-Mela Officer who conducted the search, PW-8 Head Constable Anoop Chand, PW-2 Constable Lal Singh and PW-3 Uday Shankar, an independent witness of search and seizure. Uday Shankar did not support the prosecution version. PW-1 Surinder Paul, PW-8 Anoop Chand and PW-2 Lal Singh though testified that search was conducted and charas was recovered from the shoe box, which the respondent was carrying, learned trial court disbelieved their testimony holding that there were serious contradictions and inconsistencies. We have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. PW-1 Surinder Paul, Executive Magistrate-cum-Mela Officer stated that formal report Ext.PB had been written by him in his own hand after conducting the - 4 - search. His statement is falsified by PW- 8 Head Constable Anoop Chand who states that it was he who wrote the report and that it is in his hand. According to the site plan Ext. PF, respondent was produced before PW-1 on the stairs, which lead to temple of Radheshayam and Gorakhdibi but PW-1 Surinder Paul and PW-8 Anoop Chand stated that he was produced at the entrance of Jawalamukhi temple. Again PW-1 Surinder Paul stated that search was conducted by a constable and the samples were also separated and sealed by a constable. Prosecution examined a constable PW-2,namely, Lal Singh who was present at the time of search. He stated that the search was conducted by PW-8 Head Constable Anoop Chand. Anoop Chand PW-8 stated that the search was conducted by Surinder Paul. Again, Surinder Paul stated that the seal after use had been handed over to the constable, which means PW-2 Lal Singh but Lal Singh stated that it had been handed over to Anoop Chand Head Constable PW-8. Head Constable Anoop Chand denied that the seal had been handed over to him. - 5 - Besides relying upon the aforesaid contradictions and inconsistencies, learned trial court has observed that if the box was suspected to contain some explosive, as disclosed by PW-8 Head Cosntable Anoop Chand to PW-1 Surinder Paul, the latter was not supposed to have carried out the search himself. He would have called some explosive expert to carry out the search. In view of the above stated position, we do not think this to be a fit case for interfering with the judgment of acquittal. Hence appeal is dismissed. (Surjit Singh),J. September 2, 2009 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)