LAWS(HPH)-2011-12-164

STATE OF H.P. Vs. REKHA DEVI

Decided On December 07, 2011
STATE OF H.P. Appellant
V/S
REKHA DEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 2.4.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu in Sessions Trial No. 83 -02 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 NDPS Act).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that on 21.3.2002 at about 5.15 p.m. PW -9 ASI Narain Singh alongwith other police officials were present at Khunan Maur in connection with patrolling duty. Accused Rekha Devi and her husband Des Raj were seen coming from Bathahar Gosheni side. Accused No. 1 was wearing a shawl and accused No. 2 was having a bag in his hand. The accused did not appear to be residents of the area and therefore they were asked to stop. The police officials asked from them their names and also asked what they were doing in Banjar. They failed to give a satisfactory answer. The police therefore started suspecting that they may be involved in the business of sale and transport of contraband.

(3.) PW -7 Lady Constable Pinki Devi was deputed and she reached at the spot at 8.00 p.m. Thereafter, the accused were given option that they could be searched either before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer or by the police official. Both the accused were searched by the police. Nothing was recovered from the search of the husband, but when the personal search of the lady was conducted, one polythene packet was found concealed under her left arm beneath the shawl. When the polythene packet was opened, it was found to contain 1 Kg. 950 grams of Charas. Two samples were drawn and after completing codal formalities, one sample was sent for Chemical Analyst, who opined that the sample was of Charas. It is not necessary to give all the facts in detail since we are of the opinion that this appeal can be disposed of on the short ground that there is non -compliance of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.