State of H.P. vs Prem Singh

Surjit Singh, J.—Respondent''s acquittal, on a charge, u/s 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, by the Sessions Judge, Shimla, has been assailed by the State in the present appeal.

Case of the prosecution, as it emerges from the evidence on record, may be stated. On 26.11.1994, PW-5 Govind Singh, Dy. S.P. was on his way to Nerwa from Chopal. He was travelling by a government vehicle. Around 6.30 p.m., when the vehicle reached a place called Khadar Nalla, respondent gave signal for stopping it. Vehicle was stopped at a short distance. When the respondent reached near the vehicle and saw PW-5 Govind Singh in uniform in the vehicle, he got unnerved and tried to run away. He was overpowered by PW-5 Govind Singh, with the help of police officials, including PW-4 HC Mohinder Kumar, accompanying him. It having grown dark, respondent was taken to Nerwa. There PW-1 Hira Singh, Pardhan of the Panchayat and one other person, Raj Kumar, member of Gram Panchayat, were called and in their presence, bag, which the respondent was carrying on his shoulder, was searched. It was found to contain Charas, which weighed 3 Kgs. Two samples, each weighing 50 grams, were separated. Separated samples and the bulk stuff were sealed into three separate parcels with a seal that produced impression of letter ''H'' of English alphabet. All the three parcels were deposited with PW-3 H.C. Paramjit of Police Station, Chopal, who sent the two samples to Chemical Examiner. Sample was opined to be of Charas.

Respondent was challaned. Trial Court charged him with an offence, u/s 20 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act. He pleaded not guilty and was, therefore, tried for the said offence.

Prosecution examined PW-1 Hira Singh, Pardhan of the panchayat, PW-4 HC Mohinder Kumar and PW-5 Govind Singh, to prove the search and seizure. It examined PW-3 MHC Paramjit Singh to link Chemical Examiner''s report Ext. PX, with the recovered stuff.

Trial Court acquitted the respondent, holding that provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, having not been complied with, respondent was entitled to acquittal and consequently passed the impugned judgment.

We have heard learned Assistant Advocate General as also learned Counsel, representing the respondent and gone through the record.

It has fairly been conceded by learned Counsel, representing the respondent, that neither Section 42 nor Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is attracted to the facts of the case. However, he submits that there are certain contradictions and lacunae in the prosecution evidence, which not only create a reasonable doubt, but suggest that prosecution version is inherently incorrect.

According to the testimony of PW-5 Govind Singh and PW-4 HC Mohinder Kumar, respondent on being taken from the spot to Nerwa, was searched at the police post. PW-1 Hira Singh says that he was called to the police post at Nerwa and it was there that he was told that charas had been recovered from the respondent. However, site plan ext. PW5/B, proved by PW-5 Govind Singh, shows that search of the bag was conducted not at police post Nerwa, which is depicted by letter ''T'' in the site plan, but near a PWD shed, shown by letter ''C''.

Again, according to PW-5 Govind Singh and PW-4 HC Mohinder Kumar, PW-1 Hira Singh reached police post, Nerwa, on being called by a police official around 7 p.m., but PW-1 Hira Singh himself stated that he was called at 9 p.m.

Above stated position apart, only two samples had been separated from the alleged recovered stuff, per testimony of PW-5 Govind Singh and PW-4 HC Mohinder Kumar, but PW-3 MHC Paramjit stated that three sample parcels had been deposited with him and out of those three sample parcels he sent two to the chemical laboratory. During the course of trial, besides the parcel, containing bulk charas, one parcel containing sample, was also produced. It has not been explained by the prosecution how three parcels came to be deposited with PW-3 MHC Paramjit, when only two samples had been separated and both the samples had been sent to chemical laboratory, as stated by PW-3.

In view of the above stated position, we find no justifiable reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial court. hence, the appeal is dismissed.