STATE OF H.P. Vs. TEJ RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, whereby the respondent, who was tried for offences under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), has been acquitted.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 9.11.1989 ASI Shyam Lal (PW-1) Incharge Police Post, Manikaran accompanied by Head Constable Dhabe Ram, LHC Inder Singh and Constable Chet Ram was on patrolling near village Malana. When they reached village Chowki, they met the respondent. Shyam Lal (PW-1) was suspicious that the accused was carrying contraband and asked him whether he was ready to be searched or wanted his search to be given or ordered to be searched in presence of some gazetted officer. The case of the prosecution further is that he gave his consent to be searched by the police.

(3.) LEARNED Deputy Advocate General appearing for the appellant states that the judgment of the learned trial Court is not in accordance with law, as compliance with the provision is directory and not mandatory. He places reliance on Gurbax Singh v. State of Haryana (AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 1002). It is submitted that the prosecution having established its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is not entitled to acquittal. In Gurbax Singh 's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: