STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. ROHIT SAGOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the appeal and the petition arise out of the very same impugned judgment, they are being disposed of as such.

(2.) On 13.5.2009, police allegedly recovered 288 capsules of Spasmo Proxivon and 148 capsules of Spas Poxymone (hereinafter referred to as the stuff) from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused. With the filing of the challan, accused was charged for having committed offences, punishable under the provisions of Sections 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act) and 18(c) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as Drugs & Cosmetics Act).

(3.) Trial Court, based on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, vide judgment dated 29.3.2011, passed in Sessions Trial No.19-S/7 of 2010, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rohit Sagotra, held the stuff to have been recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused, but however, finding the same not to be a psychotropic substance, so as to fall within the definition, ambit and scope of the provisions of the NDPS Act, and in the absence of any cognizance having been taken by the competent Officer, under the provisions of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, while acquitting the accused under the provisions of the NDPS Act, directed a copy of the judgment be sent to the Assistant Drugs Controller, Solan, for taking appropriate action, in accordance with law.