1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 621 of 2000 Decided on September 27, 2010 __________________________________________________________ State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Basant Singh ...Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. ¹Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant: Mr.R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General, with Mr.Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Malay Kaushal, vice Counsel. __________________________________________________________ Justice R.B. Misra,J. (Oral) The present Criminal Appeal has come up for adjudication after the grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted in reference to judgment dated 28.7.2000, passed by Learned Special Judge, Sessions Division Solan at Solan, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 12-S/7 of 2000, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short 'NDPS Act'), acquitting the alleged accused/respondent. 2. The prosecution case is that on 20.2.2000, ASI Chaman Lal (PW.8) received an information that accused Basant Singh alias Balaji was habitual in storing, possessing, selling and purchasing the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. On this, ASI Chaman Lal (PW.8) constituted a raiding party, 2 consisting of HC Ranjit Singh (PW.10), Constable Vijay Kumar and Constable Amarjit Singh, besides the two independent witnesses, namely, Mohinder Singh (PW.1) and Jeet Singh (PW.2), apprehended the accused-respondent, who was doing the business on 'Rehdi' and recovered 60 grams of charas. Out of which two samples of 10 grams each from the seized charas were taken and sent for chemical analysis and the recovered charas was sealed on the spot with seal impression 'D' in presence of PW.1 and PW.2. 3. After investigation, the accused was charged for the offence under Section 20 of the 'NDPS Act'. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 prosecution witnesses, whereas, the accused through his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., has denied the prosecution case. 4. Mohinder Singh (PW.1) and Jeet Singh (PW.2) were supposed to have witnessed the search, seizure and recovery of charas in question, have not supported the prosecution case. The police party before making the search was said to have made personal search of the accused-respondent on agreeing of the accused-respondent that he has a right to be searched by the police officials, however, was not apprised of that he has a legal right to be searched and whether he was agreeing to be searched by the police officials or by a Magistrate or by the Gazetted Officer, however, on his only agreeing to be searched by the police officials, personal search was conducted and recovery of charas was made. In these facts and circumstances, compliance of Section 50 of the 'NDPS Act' cannot be said to have been 3 made. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances for non compliance of the mandatory requirement of Section 50 of the 'NDPS Act' and keeping in view the inconsistencies, discrepancies emanating from the prosecution witnesses, we notice that learned Special Judge has carefully analyzed the prosecution witnesses and has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. In our considered view, there is no scope of interference in the findings given by learned Additional Sessions Judge. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present criminal appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. 6. The bail bonds furnished by the accused/respondents are hereby discharged. (R.B. Misra) Judge September 27, 2010 (V.K. Sharma) (Purohit) Judge