STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. VAJINDER PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 31.5.2007 in Sessions Case No. 5 of 2005 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Una, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act').

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 12.4.2004, around 4.30 p.m. when constable Ranjit Singh was present at a bridge known as Swan Pul in Santokhgarh village, he received secret information that accused was engaged in the sale of poppy husk. He was also informed that in case the accused is apprehended near Holli Pul in Santokhgarh village, huge quantity of contraband could be recovered. Constable Ranjit Singh came across a police party headed by ASI Darshan Singh and informed him about the secret information received by him. The statement of Ranjit Singh was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and sent the same for registration of a case to Police Station, Una through constable Jaswinder Singh. The raiding party was formed and two independent witnesses namely Rajesh Kumar and Balbir Chand were associated with the raiding party which then proceeded towards guava orchard where the accused was found sitting beside a gunny bag. The gunny bag was searched and poppy husk was found. On weighment the poppy husk was found to be 19 kg. 500 grams. Two samples of 250 grams each were drawn and thereafter two samples and remaining bulk poppy husk were packed in three separate parcels and sealed with seal bearing impression "D". The seal impression was taken on two pieces of clothes. The accused was arrested. Thereafter the case property as well as accused were produced before Station House Officer, Police Station, Una. The SHO resealed the case property i.e. three parcels, one poppy husk and two of the sample parcels with seal bearing impression 'N'. The other codal formalities were completed. Thereafter one parcel was sent for chemical examiner.

(3.) We need not go into other aspects of the matter since the main question raised by Mr. Vinay Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent-accused is that substance found in the possession of the accused cannot be said to be poppy straw within the meaning of the 'N.D.P.S. Act' as the report of the Chemical Examiner is incomplete, which does not lead to the inference that what was recovered was opium poppy within the meaning of the Act.