STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. MANOHAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 29.2.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 10-NS/7 of 1994 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on 25.1.1994 Si-Rattan Singh (PW-8) who was the then S.H.O. Police Station, Arki was on routine patrol duty at Batal Ghati alongwith ASI-Som Dutt, HC- Hem Raj, Constable Sita Ram and Lady Constable Malti Devi. There he received secret information that the accused is indulging in trafficking of drugs. According to PW-8 since it was Statehood Day and offices were closed he could not obtain the search warrant and he also apprehended that if he went to obtain search warrant the accused might come to know of it, and dispose of the contraband. He however telephonically informed the S.D.M., Arki and then proceeded to village Majiat. The S.D.M. also reached the village. The house of the accused was raided after associating two independent witnesses Sh, Balak Ram (PW-4) and Sh. Pawan Kumar (PW-5) and during this raid 990 grams Charas was recovered. Two samples of 100 grams each were drawn. The bulk Charas and the two samples were sealed with seal-A and taken into possession vide memo Ext. PB. Thereafter Rukka Ext. PW-8/B was sent to the police station, Arki and F.I.R. Ext. PW-8/C was registered on its basis. Site plan Ext. PW-8/D was prepared by PW-8. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and after apprising the accused of the grounds of arrest vide memo Ext. PW-8/G the accused was arrested. Special Report Ext. PW-8/H was sent to the immediate superior officer i.e. the Superintendent of Police, Solan. The case property was deposited in the Maalkhana. Thereafter, one sample was sent for chemical analysis to C.T.L. Kandaghat. On analysis the sample was found to be of Charas vide report Ext. PW-8/J and hence the accused was challaned for having committed the offence aforesaid.

(3.) The learned trial Court acquitted the accused mainly on two grounds, firstly that there has been no compliance of Sections 42 of the Act and secondly that Section 50 of the Act has not been complied with. As far as Section 50 of the Act is concerned the same is not at all applicable since no personal search was involved and the search was conducted from the house. Admittedly this is a case of prior information and the raid was conducted in the house which according to the prosecution belongs to the accused. Therefore, Section 42 of the Act is attracted.