STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. DHANI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is instituted at the instance of the State against the judgment dated 25.7.2007, rendered by the learned Special Judge Chamba, H.P., in Sessions trial No. 35/07/06, whereby the respondentaccused (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ND & PS Act), has been acquitted.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that on 18.11.2005 ASI Abhey Singh (PW-12) along with HC Roop Singh, Const. Parbhat Nahar, Const. Mazid Mohammad, Const. Gajinder Singh and Const. Sanjay Kumar was on patrol duty. When they were present at Zero Point, Goli, accused came from Chauhra side at about 2:10 PM. He tried to escape. He was apprehended. The charas was recovered from the accused which was concealed by him in the socks. ASI Abhey Singh (PW-12) called independent witnesses Hans Raj and Parkash Chand to the spot. The charas was recovered. It weighed 950 grams. Out of the recovered charas, two samples of 25 grams each were separated. The sample parts of the charas were put in empty cigarette cases which thereafter were wrapped and sealed by affixing seal impression "A". The remaining charas was put in the same socks and parcel was prepared and sealed by affixing seal impression "A". The rukka Ext. PD was prepared and sent to the Police Station Dalhousie through Const. Gajinder Singh. FIR Ext. PW-6/A was registered. The site plan was also prepared. The case property was produced before Addl. SHO Swaru Ram for resealing. He resealed the same with seal impression "S". The case property was deposited in the malkhana on 18.11.2005. It was sent for chemical examination. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up before the Court after completing all the codal formalities.

(3.) The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as fifteen witnesses. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. His case is of denial simplicitor. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.