STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. LALMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 20.10.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 38 of 1999 whereby the accused has been acquitted of having committed an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that on 8.7.1999 at about 9 a.m. PW -10 Inspector Ram Swroop was on traffic checking and patrolling duty on National High Way No. 21 near Badanu. He received secret information that accused Lalman, who has a shop at Gharyan, is in possession of charas in his shop. He thereafter associated PW -1 Jeet Ram and went to Gharyan. Accused Lalman was alone in his shop. He was told that his shop was to be searched because the police suspected that he had kept charas in the shop. The accused consented to get his shop searched in the presence of the Magistrate. Thereafter, the Magistrate was called for and PW -2 Partap Singh came to the spot. It is further the case of the prosecution that thereafter Ram Swroop carried out the search of the shop under the instructions of PW -2 Partap Singh. When PW -10 searched the shop he found one polythene bag hidden behind a bag containing soyabean. The polythene bag was yellow in colour and contained charas which on being weighed was found to be 4 k.g. 700 gms. Two samples of 40 grams each were drawn and both the samples and bulk charas were sealed in three separate packets with seal ˜K ' and seal was handed over to PW -1 Jeet Ram. Ruqua Ext.PW -4/A was sent and accused was informed of the ground of arrest vide memo Ext.PW -3/A. Thereafter, special report Ext.PW -8/A was sent after PW -10 returned to the Police Station. One of the samples was sent for chemical examination and Chemical Analyst opined that it was a sample of charas vide report Ext.PW -10/A and thereafter challan was filed against the accused.

(3.) ACQUITTAL on this ground may not be justified since the shop is a public place and the provisions of Section 42 would not be attracted and in such a case provisions of Section 43 would apply. However, after going through the entire evidence, we find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the recovery was made in accordance with law.