IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.422 of 1996. Date of decision: 25.03.2010. State of H.P. ….Appellant. Versus Dharu ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr.P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr.Raman Sethi, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The State has appealed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba, whereby the accused-respondent was charged to face trial for an offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein after referred to as the `Act’) and has been acquitted. In addition to the police personnel, two witnesses, namely, PW-1 Soni Mohammad and one Shri Kala Khan, have not been produced for examination in Court while they were associated with the recovery of 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 the contraband which was stated to be 180 grams of `Charas’. The prosecution case is that this contraband was recovered from the possession of the accused and 10 grams of this was sealed separately with seal `K’ and the seal after use was handed over to witness Kala Khan. The prosecution case is that the provisions of the Act were complied with and that the respondent was guilty of the offence as charged. We find it strange that Kala Khan, who was a very material witness, has not been produced in Court. How and in what circumstances his evidence was withheld, is not clear. Since the seal was entrusted to him after its use, it was a very important link to establish that the seized contraband was infact `Charas’ which was recovered from the respondent kept in safe custody and sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. There is also no evidence to show as to whether the seal after use was given to somebody else than Kala Khan. This goes to the very root of the case as it is for the prosecution to show that the sample sent to the Chemical Examiner was that which was infact sealed in the presence of the witnesses with a seal which was entrusted to a particular witness as also the safe keeping of the contraband which had been sealed. This fact has not been established. The learned trial Court, also holds, that PW-1 Soni Mohammad states that the contraband was recovered from the pocket of the pant of the accused, 3 but PW-6 SI/SHO Nasib Singh states that it was recovered from a polythene bag tucked around the waist towards the left side of the belly of the accused. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the finding of the Court that independent witnesses have not been associated is not correct. We need not go into this point since we hold that two aspects, namely, the factum of seizure as also safe keeping of the contraband after seizure, have not been established on the record and evidence of one of the material witnesses on this aspect, namely, Kala Khan, has been withheld. We also find that there is no compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 57 of the Act and the report as required has not been sent. We, thus, find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. The bail bond stands discharged. (Dev Darshan Sud) Judge. March 25, 2010. (Kuldip Singh) (aks) Judge.