STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. KARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the judgment dated 28.05.2011, passed by Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 5/2011, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Karam Singh, whereby accused stands acquitted, 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 30.11.2010, HC Kartar Singh PW.8 alongwith Constables Yaqub Mohd. (PW.1), Mohd. Aslam (PW.2) and HHC Kewal Krishan (not examined), was on a patrol duty at a place known as Koti, falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Tissa, District Chamba. At about 5.20 PM, they found the accused to be present under suspicious circumstances. Suspicion arose more so for the reason that underneath the sweater worn by him, it could be noticed that he had concealed some substance. As such, he was informed of his statutory right of being searched under the provisions of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act) and after obtaining his consent (Ex.PW.1/B), searched by the police party present on the spot. From the custody of the accused contraband substance weighing 1 kg and 800 grams came to be recovered. The recovered stuff was sealed with seal having impression 'K'. NCB form (Ex.PW.4/C) was prepared on the spot and Rukka (Ex.PW.8/A) carried by Mohd. Aslam (PW.2) led to registration of FIR No.286/2010, dated 30.11.2010 (Ex.PW.4/B), at Police Station, Sadar Chamba, under the provisions of Section 20 of the NDPS Act, against the accused. With the file having been brought to the spot, accused was arrested and the case property entrusted to ASI Joginder Singh (PW.4), who resealed the same with seal having impression 'H'. Thereafter, case property was entrusted to MHC Pawan Kumar (PW.5), who through Vikram Singh (PW.6) sent the contraband substance for chemical analysis and report (Ex.PX) taken on record 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 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.