STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SUKH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE moot question, which arises for consideration in the present appeal, is as to whether prosecution has been able to establish, through the testimony of the Investigating Officer Balak Ram (PW -9) and consent memo (Ex. PW -5/A), of having complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act), or not. Also, as to whether in the absence of non -association of independent witnesses, prosecution through the testimony of witnesses of search and seizure, namely Fateh Singh (PW -6) and Dharam Singh (PW -10), has been able to prove the charged offence, beyond reasonable doubt.

(2.) STATE has appealed against the judgment dated 25.11.2009 of the learned Special Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, passed in Sessions Trial No. 36 -ST/7 of 2008, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sukh Ram, challenging the acquittal of respondent Sukh Ram (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who stands charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the NDPS Act.

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