STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. MUKESH MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present appeal, the State has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Special Judge -I, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Sessions Trial No. 23 -ST/7 of 2010, vide which the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused for the commission of offence under Section 20/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (in short the 'Act').

(2.) The case of the prosecution was that on 18.12.2009 Inspector Om Parkash along with ASI Ranjeet Singh, HC Subhash Chand, Constables Mukesh Kumar, Mohd. Khalid and Kailash Panwar proceeded to Illaqua after making an entry in the Rapat Rojnamcha and at around 4:30 p.m., when they were present at Bus stand Sainwala, Inspector Om Parkash received secret information that accused Mukesh and Jagat Singh were standing in front of Punjabi Dhaba and if they were searched, some contraband can be recovered from their possession. Accused Mukesh was stated to be carrying a red and black coloured bag on his shoulder. On receipt of the said information, Inspector Om Parkash reduced into writing reasons of belief (Ext. PW8/A) and sent the same to Addl. Superintendent of Police, Nahan through constable Kailash Panwar. Thereafter Inspector Om Parkash associated independent witnesses Dilshad and Kamal Kumar as well as other police officials and proceeded towards the said Dhaba. At around 5:00 p.m., Inspector Om Parkash along with raiding party reached said Dhaba where two persons were standing outside the Dhaba and on asking their names, one of them disclosed his name Mukesh Mohan son of Yash Pal Singh, whereas second disclosed his name as Jagat Singh son of Dhongu Ram. A red and black coloured bag was hanging on the shoulder of accused Mukesh Mohan. Memo Ext. PW14/A seeking consent of accused Mukesh Mohan was issued by Inspector Om Parkash in presence of witnesses Dilshad Khan and Kamal Kumar and before searching the bag of accused Mukesh Mohan, the raiding party gave its personal search to accused vide memo Ext. PW4/A, which was signed by witnesses Raj Kumar and Jagdish. The search of the bag revealed one polythene envelope and on opening the same, black coloured substance in the shape of sticks was found which turned out to be charas. The same was weighed and it turned out to be 1.100 grams. Two samples of 25 grams were separated from the recovered charas which were put into the empty match boxes and the same were packed in a cloth packet and both samples were sealed with seal impression 'H'. The remaining bulk charas was put in a cloth packet and the same was sealed with seal impression 'H' and the same seal was taken on a piece of cloth. The bulk charas, bag and two samples were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW2/A which was signed by both independent witnesses as well as the accused. The seal after use was handed over to witness Dilshad Khan. NCB forms in triplicate were filled on the spot and seal impression 'H' was affixed on the said forms. Jama Talashi of accused was also conducted and articles mentioned in Ext.PW14/B were recovered. Accused was arrested and informed of grounds of his arrest. The case property was produced before ASI Agya Ram Officiating SHO, Police Station Nahan along with sample seal, who after checking the same resealed the sample parcels and remaining charas with seal impression 'K'. Case property was deposited with MHC, Police Station Nahan along with sample seals, who forwarded the sample parcels along with sample seals and connected documents to SFSL, Junga through HHC Surender Singh who deposited the same at SFSL, Junga and as per report of Chemical Examiner, Ext. PZ, the same was found to be containing contents of charas. FIR Ext. PW11/A was registered at Police Station, Nahan on the basis of Rukka, Ext. PW13/A sent through Constable Mohd. Khalid. On completion of the investigation, challan was presented and as a prima facie case was found against the accused, he was charged for commission of offences under the NDPS Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) In order to substantiate its case, prosecution, in all, examined 14 witnesses, whereas, accused also examined one witness in defence.