LAWS(HPH)-2007-7-8

RAM LAL Vs. STATE OF H P

Decided On July 05, 2007
RAM LAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment, dated 5.3.2004 of Sessions Judge, whereby he has been convicted of an offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for allegedly possessing 2.500 Kgs of Charas and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.

(2.) Prosecution case, as per evidence on record, is as follows: On 12.5.2003, a police party headed by PW3 SI Kaur Singh, of which HHC Darshan Singh (PW5), Constable Mukesh Kumar (PW1) and Constable Nihal Chand were the other members, went to a place called Gugra, falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Ani, to organize a Naka. Around 10.30 in the night they noticed moving light of a torch towards a hill. They spotted that three persons were coming down towards the road where Naka had been organized. The Police officials, above named, laid an ambush near the point where the path along with the three persons were seen descending, joins the road. After some time all the three persons reached that point. They were overpowered. The appellant was found to be carrying a polythene bag which contained Charas. His two companions were not carrying anything. The Charas, which was being carried by the appellant, was seized. Two samples, each weighing 25 grams, were separated. The bulk Charas and the samples were made up into three separate parcels and sealed with a seal which produced the impression of English letter 'T'. One of the two samples was sent to the Chemical Examiner, who gave the opinion that the sample contained contents of Charas.

(3.) On receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, the appellant along with his companions, who were alleged to be his co-conspirators, was sent up for trial. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid. His two alleged co-conspirators were, however, acquitted.