STATE OF H P Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment, dated 13.07.2004, delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala, in Sessions Case No. 15 N/2002, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that on 8th February, 2002, PW 8, ASI Onkar Nath, alongwith HC Harjeet Singh, Constables Raj Kumar, Raghubir Singh and Vinod Kumar were on patrolling duty and had laid a nakka near Surajpur khad. They noticed one person coming from the bridge side. On seeing the police officials, the said 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment Yes. person tried to run away. This aroused the suspicion of the police officials, who apprehended the person and asked him to disclose his identity. The said person disclosed his name to be Roshan Lal (accused). The police officials carried out the personal search of the accused and one blue coloured plastic bag was found attached with the nada of the pajama hidden below the kurta. This plastic bag was taken out and it contained another white plastic bag which contained opium. This opium on weighment was found to be measuring 1 kg 250 grams. Two samples of 25 grams each were drawn and thereafter, the two samples and the remaining bulk charas measuring 1 kg 200 grams was sealed with seal impression 'M'. The case property was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW 1/A. Rukka, Ex. PW 8/B, was sent to the Police Station and on this basis, FIR, Ex. PW 8/C was registered. The case property was produced before PW 9, Inspector Salwinder Singh, who re sealed the same and then deposited the case property with PW 2, MHC Swarup Chand, who in turn sent one of the samples to the Chemical Examiner through Constable Kishan Chand. The Chemical Examiner opined that the exhibit contained the contents of opium. On this basis, the accused was charged and challaned with having committed the offence aforesaid.

(3.) Admittedly, the provisions of Section 50 of the Act were not complied with and the only explanation given by the Investigating Officer is that since the place was a remote place and there was no possibility of procuring the presence of the Gazetted Officer or other officer, hence no option under Section 50 was given to the accused.