IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 521 of 2000 Date of decision: 27.09.2010 _________________________________________________________ The State of H.P. .....Appellant. Versus Laxman Mahanto & another. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra,J. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? __________________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. R.B. Misra, J (Oral). The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted in reference to the impugned judgment and order dated 24.05.2000, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Una, District Una, in Sessions Case No. 45 of 1999, acquitting the alleged accused-respondents under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, in reference to FIR No. 460 of 1999 dated 20.08.1999. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ...2... 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.08.1999, on receiving secret information that the accused-respondents are dealing with sale and purchase of contraband goods, the information was recorded in writing and sent for registration of the case. The room of the accused-respondents was searched and from the room one bag was recovered containing six packets of charas. On weighing 5 packets were found containing 500 grams charas each while 6th packet was containing 250 grams of charas and after taking samples etc. the charas and the samples were sealed. On chemical examination, the contents of the samples were found to be of charas. The entire charas was 2 kg 750 grams. As such, after completion of investigation, the accused- respondents were charged for the aforesaid offences. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as sixteen witnesses, whereas, accused through their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. 4. Two independent witnesses, i.e., PW-9 Hari Om and PW-10 Brij Mohan, Shopkeeper, who were alleged to have witnessed the search and recovery of the contraband goods, were declared hostile and they did not support the prosecution case. PWs 9 and 10 have stated that no search of the house of the accused-respondents was conducted in their presence, nor anything was recovered from the accused in their presence. 5. PW-11 Ram Pal, who was allegedly called on the spot for weighing the charas with scales has categorically stated that he was ...3... called with scales in the Police Post and not in Gula Mohalla, where the alleged recovery stated to have been made. This witness was declared hostile and in cross-examination he has also not supported the prosecution case. 6. From the scrutiny of the prosecution witnesses and the material on record, we also notice that Shreshta, the owner of the house, has not been examined to prove that the accused-respondents were tenants in the room of that house, nor any other person has been examined to prove that the accused-respondents paid any rent to Shreshta or to any relative of Shreshta as tenants of the room. We also notice that no person from the Municipal Committee, Una, has been examined to prove that the accused-respondents were recorded as tenants in records in the house of Shreshta. No doubt, police officials have endeavoured to support the prosecution case, but there is nothing to suggest as to why the above independent witnesses should have deposed falsely to implicant the accused-respondents in such a heinous crime. 7. The above mentioned contradictions and non support of the two independent witnesses coupled with other inconsistencies and contradictions noticed by the learned Sessions Judge renders the prosecution case doubtful. 8. On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and the material on record, learned Sessions Judge has rightly found that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable ...4... doubt. In our considered view also, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt against the accused-respondents. In these circumstances, criminal appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. (R.B. Misra) Judge (V.K. Sharma) Judge 27th September, 2010 (virender)