STATE OF H.P. Vs. VEDGIRI BABA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and gone through the record.

(2.) THE respondent was sent up for trial, for the offence punishable, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for allegedly possessing 400 grams of charas. As per prosecution version, on 5.1.2004, when SI Tameshwar Singh (PW 4) of Police Station, Kullu, was present at Bajaura Check Post alongwith Constable Uttam Chand (PW 1) and a lady constable named Gita Devi, he received information from some reliable sources that a Baba was travelling by bus No. HP-31-3786, from Kullu to Mandi, and he had in his possession some quantity of charas. The information was reduced into writing and sent to the superior police officer of PW 4 Tameshwar Singh, through Constable Gita Devi. Around 12.25 p.m., the bus reached Bajaura barrier. PW 4 SI Tameshwar Singh, accompanied by PW 1 constable Uttam Chand and the driver and the conductor of the bus carried out the checking. The respondent a Baba by appearance was made to alight from the bus and was taken to a tent. He was told that he had a right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and in case he so desired, search in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer could be arranged. The respondent allegedly opted for being searched on the spot by PW 4 SI Tameshwar Singh. Thereafter search of the person of the respondent was conducted inside the tent and charas weighing 400 grams was recovered from a bag, which he had kept under his armpit. Two samples, each weighing 25 grams were separated. A written report of the search and seizure was drawn up and sent to the Police Station for the registration of the case. One of the two samples was sent to the Chemical Examiner, who opined that it contained 33.11% of resin.

(3.) STATE is aggrieved by the acquittal recorded by the trial court. Learned Additional Advocate General, has submitted that there is unassailable evidence on record suggestive of the compliance of the aforesaid provision of law. It is also his submission that as a matter of fact in the facts and the circumstances of the case, Section 50 of the Act, is not applicable and even if the court may come to the conclusion that there is no compliance of Section 50, the respondent is liable to be held guilty of the offence, punishable under Section 20 of the Act.