SHAM LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The appellant stands convicted and sentenced under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. I am inclined to accept the appeal on the following three grounds.

(2.) Through the Station House Officer and so also the Investigating Officer state that after the recovery of Charas from the possession of the appellant the C.F.S.L. Form was filled in, it is clearly borne out from the statement of the Moharir Malkhana and so also from the entries made by him in the Malkhana Register (Ex.PW 23/A) that no C.F.S.L. Form was actually deposited with him and that even when sample was sent to the C.F.S.L. that Form was not handed over to the Constable carrying the sample parcel. The position thus boils down to this that though C.F.S.L. Form may be taken to have been filled in, it can neither be taken to have been deposited with Moharir Malkhana nor can it be taken to have been sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory. In Chameli Devi v. State, 1993 JCC 293 and Mool Chand v. State, 1993 (2) Delhi Lawyer 14=II (1993) CCR 964, it was held by this Court that if the C.F.S.L. Form is neither deposited in the Malkhana nor sent to the C.F.S.L. alongwith the parcel containing the sample it would be sufficient to give the accused the benefit of doubt. In Mool Chand's case, referred to above, the learned Single Judge had placed reliance on two other judgments, namely Lachho Devi v. State, 1990 (2) C.C. Cases 395 and Anup Joshi v. State, 1990 (2) C.C. Cases 314.

(3.) The second ground which has persuaded upon me to acquit the accused is the fact that though it is claimed that the Station House Officer was leading the raiding party and was present at the time of the alleged recovery, he did not put his own seal on the parcel prepared after the recovery. The only seal which was put on the parcel was that of the Investigating Officer. This lapse makes the prosecution version look fishy.