STATE OF HP Vs. BHIMI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Criminal Appeal has come up for adjudication after the grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of criminal Procedure in reference to judgment dated 21.4.2005, passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kullu, H.P. in Sessions Trial No.100 of 2003, RBT Sessions Trial No. 6 of 2004, acquitting the alleged accused/respondent under Sections 20 of the Narcotic Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short `NDPS Act'), in reference to FIR No.81 of 2003 dated 30.01.2003.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30.01.2003, at about 7.45 PM, the police party apprehended two persons, namely, Chet Ram son of Sh.Dahlu and Bhimi Ram(present accused). First of all, on personal search of Chet Ram, 2 kilograms of charas was recovered from his possession. Two samples of 25 grams each were taken out from the recovered charas and sealed with seal having impression `H'. Remaining bulk was also sealed with same seal. THEreafter, on personal search of accused-respondent Bhimi Ram was conducted and on his personal search 1 kilogram 800 grams of charas was recovered. Two samples of 25 grams each were taken out from the recovered charas and sealed with seal having impression `H'. Remaining bulk was also sealed with same seal. On 31.01.2003 two sealed samples along with documents were sent for chemical examination through HHC Santosh Kumar (PW.2), who deposited the same at CTL Kandaghat. Keeping in view the Chemical Examiner's report and the investigation, accused Bhimi Ram was charged for the aforesaid offence. In this case, though a common FIR was registered against Chet Ram and present accused-respondent Bhimi Ram, but separate challans were filed against them.

(3.) ON analysis of the prosecution witnesses and material on record, Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kullu, has arrived at the finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Inter alia on many other grounds, one important aspect which requires consideration is that on perusal of Ex.PW.5/A, it appears that `NCB Form' was not filled in, on the spot. The Chemical Examiner has opined that on microscopic examination cystolithic hair were found present. Beam alkaline test was found positive and resin was found 31.16%. In these circumstances, the Chemical Examiner has opined that contraband good so recovered was charas.