STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SARABJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgement dated 23rd April, 2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that PW -10 Kulwant Singh alongwith other police officials including PW -9 ASI Saroop had laid a Naka at Hardaspur Chowk in Chamba town and at about 1 a.m in the night they saw a person coming from the side of Julakari Mohalla. The police officials saw that this person had hidden something inside his jacket. The said person tried to run away on seeing the police officials. This aroused the suspicion of the police officials and they apprehended the person who on inquiry disclosed his name as Sarabjeet Singh S/o Gurbax Singh. Thereafter his personal search was conducted and on his personal search, inside the jacket, a polythene bag was recovered on which the words 'M/s Sham Lal and sons, Dogra Bazar Chamba ' were written. Inside this bag charas was found. This charas was weighed and after taking samples, separate parcels were made and other codal formalities were completed.

(3.) IN our view the contention of the State cannot be accepted. It is true that in some cases of chance recovery where contraband is recovered on personal search Section 50 may not be attracted but this has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. In case checking is being done for some other purposes and during the course of such checking contraband is recovered Section 50 may not be attracted. For example, if at the airport while frisking is being done and at the time some contraband is recovered Section 50 may not be attracted. Similarly, when a person enters a place where metal detectors, etc. are located and checking is conducted for security purposes this can be said to be a case of chance recovery. However, here we are dealing with a case where even as per the police officials they saw a person coming at about mid night and on seeing the police officials he tried to run away. According to the police officials there was something hidden in his jacket. Therefore, even if they were not suspecting that there was charas inside the jacket they were checking the accused to see whether he was carrying contraband or not. In such circumstances, the prosecution cannot say that Section 50 is not attracted.