IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 1998. Date of decision: 25.3.2010. State of Himachal Pradesh …Appellant. Versus Hem Raj and another. ..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice, Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the appellant : Mr. P.K.Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. M.L.Brakta, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, Judge (Oral) The respondents were the accused and charged before the learned trial Court for offences punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for possession of 1.400 Kgs. of Charas and ordered to stand trial. The prosecution case is based mainly on the statements of two witnesses PW-3 Ravinder Kumar, Inspector and PW-4 N.S.Paul, Dy.S.P. Before considering their testimony, the facts in brief may be noted. PW-3 Ravinder Kumar, Inspector states in his evidence ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes 2 that on 9.9.1995, he received a secret information that the two accused were dealing in illicit liquor. He, therefore, organized a raiding party in which PW-2 Kishori Lal and one Ganga Singh were associated as independent witnesses. The prosecution story is that when the shop of the accused was raided, 1.400 Kgs. of Charas was recovered in the presence of the police personnel and independent witnesses. PW-2 Kishori Lal does not support the prosecution case at all. He states in his evidence that he was called to the Police Station and made to sign some blank papers after he was shown a plastic bag purportedly containing Charas as he was told. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution, but nothing has come on record in his cross-examination which could be isolated to establish the complicity of the accused. Ganga Singh, the other independent witness associated has not been examined in the Court for reasons best known to the prosecution. There is also no evidence on record that Charas after its seizure was properly sealed in a parcel and deposited in the malkhana. We find that the seal used for sealing the parcel has not been produced in the Court. PW-3 Ravinder Kumar states that he kept the contraband in his possession and not in the Malkhana. Why he adopted this course is not explained. Where the contraband was kept has also not been explained. His statement otherwise tries to corroborates the allegations made in the FIR that the accused were in possession of the contraband. The learned Sessions Judge, concludes that it has not been established on the record as to from whose possession the Charas was recovered. The learned trial Court also holds on the statement of PW-3 Ravinder Kumar that he himself was not sure as to 3 who was present in the shop when the purported seizure was made. We need not say more. 4. We find no reason to interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge as we are in agreement with the findings on fact which are based on sound appraisal of evidence. The conscious possession of the Charas as also the safe keeping of the contraband material after its seizure has not been established on the record. There is no reason discernible as to why this evidence was not led. We are not persuaded to take a different view than that which has been taken by the learned Sessions Judge. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds of the respondents shall stand discharged. (Kuldip Singh) (Dev Darshan Sud) Judge. Judge. March 25, 2010. (GR)