STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SAFRI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State has appealed against the judgment dated 17.1.2008 of the learned Special Judge, Chamba, Division Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, passed in Sessions Trial No. 41 of 2006, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Safri Ram, challenging the acquittal of respondent Safri Ram (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who stands charged for having committed offence punishable under the provisions of Sec. 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) It is the case of prosecution that on 14.12.2005, SHO Madan Lal (PW-8), alongwith Constable Ram Prakash Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment (not examined), Constable Madan Kumar (Pw-2) and Yogesh Gurang, had set up Naka at Bhukru. At about 3.30 p.m., when a Maruti Van bearing No.HP1323 was being checked, police party saw the accused run towards Chamunda Temple side. On suspicion, he was apprehended. Bag, which he was carrying on his shoulder, was searched, from which Charas in the shape of Battis was recovered. Constable Madan Kumar (PW-2) was asked to arrange for weights and scales. On weighment, contraband substance was found to be 750 grams. Two samples, each weighing 25 grams, were drawn and sealed in empty cigarette packets with seal impression 'K'. Remaining bulk parcel was also sealed with the same seal impression. NCB form, in triplicate, was filled up. Constable Yogesh Gurang carried Ruka (Ex. PW-3/A) to Police Station, Chowari, District Chamba, on the basis of which FIR No.101, dated 14.12.2005 (Ex. PW-6/A), under the provisions of Sec. 20 of the Act, was registered. Kuldip Singh (PW-7), who was posted as ASI in the same Police Station, brought the file and handed it over to Madan Lal (PW-8). Sealed samples were deposited with MHC Kuldip Kumar. Sample was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through Constable Rishikesh (PW-1) and report (Ex.PW-7/D) taken on record. Investigation revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime. Hence, challan was presented in the Court for trial.

(3.) Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Sec. 20 of the Act to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.