THE STATE OF H.P. Vs. MAUN RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 17.10.1996, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, District Shimla, in Sessions Trial No. 21 -S/7 of 1996, acquitting the alleged accused under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short 'NDPS Act').

(2.) IN order to adjudicate the criminal appeal, it is necessary to give the factual background of the case. According to the prosecution, on 27.03.1996, Shri Baldev Singh, SHO, conducted a raid in village Mundlah alongwith Head Constable Madan Lal, Constable Kamla Nand, Shri Prem Chand Kanungo and Shri Satpal Patwari and visited the field of the accused, comprised in khasra Nos. 817 and 904. Demarcation of the field was carried by the revenue officials in presence of accused Maun Ram and after demarcation it was found that there were 620 poppy plants grown in the field of accused Maun Ram. Tatima of the said field was prepared by the revenue officials and the said tatima was taken into possession by the police. Thereafter, the poppy plants were uprooted and were put in a gunny bag. Sample plants were taken and put in a sealed parcel. Rukka was sent to the Police Station, Chopal, on the basis of which, F.I.R. was registered. Sample parcel was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Kandaghat. As per the report of the Chemical Examiner, the contents of the sample plants were that of poppy plant. Accordingly, case under Section 18 of the NDPS Act was registered against the accused -Respondent.

(3.) ON analysis of the prosecution witnesses, we find that the police has not associated sufficient number of independent witnesses and only one independent witness, namely, Shri Sita Ram (PW -2), was associated by the police. However, PW -2 Sita Ram has not supported the prosecution case. He has stated that he does not know who had been cultivating the land, in question, from where the opium poppy plants were recovered. PW -2 has also stated that he does not know if the accused and his brother have been jointly cultivating the land, in question. Despite the said version of Shri Sita Ram (PW -2), the prosecution has failed to cross -examine him.