BIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:-

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, are that FIR bearing No.347 of 2011, dtd. 21/6/2011 under Ss. 409 and 120-B of IPC, came to be registered at police Station, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh against the petitioner, who at present is working as Honorary Head Constable alongwith other seven coaccused. FIR No. 266 of 2002, dtd. 24/12/2002 under NDPS Act was registered against the Chande Ram at police Station, Manali on account of recovery of one quintal seven kilograms and five hundred grams of Cannabis/charas from one shed. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the respective parties held above named Chande Ram guilty and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 20 years and pay fine to the tune of Rs.20,000.00.

(3.) Above named Chande Ram being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence approached this Court by way of an appeal. While hearing the appeal, Division Bench of this Court called upon the prosecution to produce the locks, which were allegedly put on the door of the shed from where huge quantity of charas was recovered. Though, in terms of direction passed by Division Bench of this Court, prosecution produced two locks, which were kept in the malkhana, but since those could not be opened with the keys produced alongwith the locks, Division Bench of this Court directed Director General of Police to hold an inquiry against all the persons, who remained In-charge of malkhana during the relevant time. In the aforesaid background, FIR No.347 of 2011, dtd. 21/6/2011 under Ss. 409 and 120-B of IPC came to be registered against eight persons including the petitioner, who also remained In-charge of malkhana during relevant time. Besides above, police Department also initiated departmental proceedings against all the accused, named in the FIR, including the petitioner, but they were exonerated vide inquiry report dtd. 2/4/2012 (Annexure P-3).