IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. A. No. 661 of 2000 Decided on: 30.9.2010 State of H.P. ..…Appellant Versus Puran Chand. ..…Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. For the respondent : Mr. Raman Seithi, 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 dated 11.8.2000, passed by learned Special Judge, Kullu (H.P.), in Sessions Trial No. 27/99, acquitting the respondent-accused for the offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( in short “ND&PS Act”). 2. Prosecution case is that on 11.5.99, Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Kullu Shri Tejinder Verma (PW-7), accompanied 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 by Constable Lokender Singh (PW-1) and Chand Parkash Constable (PW-6), while on patrolling duty at Sarwari near bridge received information describing a person bringing charas, wrapped in yellow polythene bag. The information was reduced into writing (Ext.PW2/A) which he sent to Addl. S.P. Kullu through Constable Lokender Singh (PW-1) and associated two independent witnesses Joginder Singh (PW-4) and Ram Lal (PW-5). After obtaining option to be searched by the police party and giving his personal search to the respondent-accused Tejinder Verma searched envelope carried by the respondent- accused. The envelope contained another plastic envelope having charas which on weighment was found to be 550 grams. Two samples of 25 grams each were separated, sealed separately and the remaining recovered charas was also sealed in separate packet which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext. PW4/D. After filling NCB form, disclosing grounds of arrest to the respondent-accused, ruqa Ext.PW6/A was sent to police Station through constable Chand Parkash (PW-6) on the basis of which FIR Ext.PW8/A was registered. Seal after use was handed over to Joginder Singh. Nihal Chand SHO, P.S. Kullu (PW-8), after registration of the case, visited the spot and resealed the recovered charas and sample with his own seal ‘H’ and deposited case property with MHC Gangbir Singh (PW-9) who sent the sealed sample parcel for chemical analysis to CTL, Kandaghat through Lokender Singh (PW-1). After investigation, respondent-accused was charged for the aforesaid offence and case was committed to the Sessions Court. 3 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, whereas, the respondent-accused through his statement, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. 4. On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and materials on record, we notice that two independent witnesses of recovery have not supported the prosecution case and have turned hostile. Other remaining police officials have endeavoured to corroborate the prosecution case. PW-7 Tejinder Verma, PW-6 Chand Parkash Constable, PW-8 Nihal Chand SHO and PW-9 Gangbir Singh MHC have endeavoured to support the prosecution case to the extent the role assigned to them in their official capacity. Doubt is also created on the credibility of the sample sent for chemical examination as nothing is known as to how the sample was taken as the charas recovered was found in sticks and sample was taken after mixing the contraband goods harmoniously and the sample of entire bulk of recovered charas was taken. Keeping in view the inconsistencies and contradictions and that the link evidence is missing as nothing could be indicated correctly that the sample taken was from the same bulk of contraband goods which was recovered on the fateful day. 5. On analysis of prosecution witnesses and materials on record, learned Special Judge has rightly arrived at the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In our considered view, there is no scope of any interference in the judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is, therefore, dismissed. 4 6. Bail bonds, furnished by the respondent-accused, are hereby discharged. (R.B. Misra), Judge. September 30, 2010 (V.K. Sharma), Judge. (vs)