1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P. (M) No. 523 of 2008. Date of decision: 26-5-2008. ____________________________________________________________ State of H.P. Appellant -vs- Lal Singh. Respondent __________________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? For the Petitioner : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. _________________________________________________________ Surjit Singh, J. (oral) Heard and gone through the record. A case under the Wild Life Protection Act was registered against the respondent. During the investigation of that case, some explosive substance was recovered from the shop of the respondent for which another case was registered against him and he was arrested. Thereafter the Police went to the cow-shed which was allegedly locked. Respondent produced the key of that lock. It was then opened and inside the cow-shed, two skins of wild animals and a polythene bag containing 775 grams of charas were recovered. The present case pertains to the recovery of charas. Trial Court has acquitted the respondent holding that the key of the lock could not have been with the respondent as claimed by the Police, because prior to the alleged production of key by the respondent, he had already been arrested and whatever was on his person ought to have been taken into possession by Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2 the Police. Trial Court has also held on the basis of the testimony of independent witnesses, who though turned hostile, and also one defense witness examined by the respondent, that the cow-shed belongs to an uncle of the respondent and not to the respondent himself. Prosecution did not produce any authentic evidence in support of the claim that the respondent was the owner of the cow-shed. Police officials who testified about the recovery of charas and wild animal skins from the cow-shed, were not supposed to be knowing as to who was the owner of the cow- shed from which the recoveries were effected. In view of the above said position, we find no merit in the present application for grant of leave to appeal. The same is therefore dismissed. (Surjit Singh) Judge. (Surinder Singh), Judge. May 26, 2008. (bm) 3