JASVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court in Sessions Trial No.2 of 2010, on 15.2.2011, for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in short "the Act", allegedly for keeping in possession Charas i.e. 27.20 % weight -in -weight resin of Cannabis plant i.e. 489.60 grams Charas in the total recovered stuff of 1.8 K.G. by the appellant, hereinafter referred to as "the accused", thus sentenced him to Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) THE facts germane to the present appeal emerging from the evidence, can be stated thus. In the year 2003, PW11 ASI Bhim Sain was Incharge of Police Post Pandoh. On 31.10.2009, he alongwith PW9 HC Jagdish Chand, PW2 HHC Nathu Ram and PW1 C. Param Dev were on patrolling in the area of Deoth. When they reached 'Pandoh Dam ' near 'Kainchi Mor ' around 5 p.m, they noticed the accused coming from the opposite direction carrying a polythene bag in his right hand. On seeing police, he returned back and started walking briskly. Police entertained suspicion, as such he was apprehended. His identity was asked. Since, it was a lonely and deserted place, no independent witness was available, as such, PW9 HC Jagdish Chand and PW1 C. Param Dev both were associated as the witnesses and the polythene bag which was in the hands of the accused bearing the mark of "Fashion Shoppe", was checked. It was found to have contained one kilo 800 grams stuff, which was put back in the same Polythene bag and the polythene bag was put back in the yellow coloured bag and this bag was wrapped in a piece of cloth and sealed at six places with seal producing the impression of English alphabet "U".

(3.) SHRI Naresh K. Thakur, Learned Counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the raiding party did not chose to join independent witnesses deliberately, which were available in the vicinity. He further pointed out that the statements of the official witnesses are contradictory, rendering the prosecution case doubtful. It is also argued that there has been a noncompliance of the mandatory provision of Section 50 of the Act and the link evidence is also not complete.