LAWS(HPH)-2014-11-76

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAMESH CHAND

Decided On November 26, 2014
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Appellant
V/S
RAMESH CHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASSAILING the judgment dated 30.04.2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge -I, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Sessions Case No.37 -J/04, titled as The State of H.P. Versus Ramesh Chand and another, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) IT is the case of prosecution that on 26.06.2004, SI Surender Kumar Thakur (PW.13) alongwith police officials was on patrol duty at Labh market, Jawali, where he received information that accused were indulging in illicit trade of liquor. Accordingly he associated Surinder Kumar (PW.1) Pradhan Veopar Mandal, Ashok Kumar (PW.9), Kishore Chand, Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, for conducting search and seizure operations of the house of the accused. Upon search liquor and two skins of animal were recovered in relation to which separate FIR was registered. Also from different rooms of the house of the accused, charas weighing 320 grams, opium 815 grams and poppy husk 500 grams were recovered. After weighing the same, two samples of 25 grams each from each contraband substance were drawn and sealed with seal of seal impression 'K'. NCB form was filled up in triplicate. Rukka (Ex.PW.8/A) carried by Budhi Singh (PW.12), on the basis of which FIR (Ex.PW.13/B) was registered against the accused at Police Station, Jawali by Vinod Kumar (PW.8). With the completion of investigation, contraband substance was deposited with MHC Vinod Kumar. Special report (Ex.PW.7/A) was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Kangra. Sample was sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory and reports (Ex.PW.13/H, Ex.PW.13/J and Ex.PW.13/K) obtained by the police. With the completion of investigation, which prima facie revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, Challan was presented in the Court for trial.

(3.) THE accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 15, 18 and 20 of the NDPS Act, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.