STATE OF H P Vs. PHOOL MAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the criminal appeals have come up for consideration after leave to appeals under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have been granted in reference to the impugned judgements and orders dated 6.12.1999, passed by learned Special Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, in Sessions Trial Nos. 8 of 1999 and 6 of 1999 acquitting the alleged accused-respondents, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, NDPS Act), in reference to FIR Nos. 471 and 470 of 1998. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 9.11.1998 when SI Rulia Ram was on patrol duty alongwith other police officials and was going towards Tibetan Colony at 1.00 p.m. observed one Nepali lady coming with a bag. On seeing the policy party, she tried to escape. The police on suspicion made an inquiry from her, she disclosed her name as Phool Maya. SI Rulia Ram asked her to give consent for her search in presence of the witnesses and on obtaining her consent, search of her bag was made and four tin container containing charas were recovered and on weighing it was found 3 Kg. 550 grams, out of which two samples of 25 grams each were taken and were sealed alongwith the remaining quantity of charas at the spot and seal was handed over toRajinder Sharma. After filling up NCB form and after completion of investigation, the accused-respondents were charged for offence under Section 20 of N.D.P.S. Act.

(3.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses in Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 2000 and 11 witnesses in Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 2000, whereas, the accused- respondents through their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case.