HEM CHAND Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned Counsel for the parties in this case, and with their assistance have also examined the record of the trial Court.

(2.) Appellant was found guilty for having committed offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psycho-tropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act). He was sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. one lakh. In default of payment whereof he has been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three years. Appellant has challenged this judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Solan in case No. 17-S/7 of 2000, dated 21/4/2001.

(3.) Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, learned Counsel for appellant submitted that looking to the over all facts and circumstances of this case and assuming everything against his client, without either admitting or conceding, still there is no legally acceptable evidence brought on record by the prosecution so as to sustain the impugned judgment. Per him this being a case of prior information, violation of Sections 42 and 50 of the Act is writ large. This by itself is a sufficient ground to allow this appeal and conse-quently acquitting the appellant.