BUDH SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and gone through the record.

(2.) APPELLANT is aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, whereby he has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of rupees one lakh; in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years for allegedly being in possession of 1 Kg. 750 grams of 'Charas'.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that neither the case property had been produced in the Court during the course of the trial nor does the report of the Chemical Examiner Ext. PX stand connected with the stuff allegedly recovered from the appellant. He has drawn our attention to the testimony of PW-11 Inspector Jatinder Kumar, who stated that the case property, when produced before him by PW-10 S.I. Vijay Singh Pathania, was re-sealed by him with his own seal, which produced the impression of letter 'S' and that thereafter he deposited the parcels, containing the bulk stuff and the samples, with the M.H.C. PW-7 MHC Jagdish Chand has also stated that the three parcels were initially sealed with seal 'A' and then re-sealed with seal 'S' and that mention of re-sealing of the parcels was also there in the N.C.B. form Ext. PX at the bottom of which report of the Chemical Examiner also appears. We find no mention of seal impression 'S' or the re-sealing of the samples or the other parcel. The N.C.B. form makes mention of the two sample parcels being sealed with a seal that produced the impression of letter 'A' of English alphabet and of no other seal. That means the report pertains to the stuff contained in a parcel, which bore the seal impression 'A' only. The sample of the stuff recovered from the appellant was initially sealed with a seal which produced the impression of letter 'A' and thereafter re- sealed with a seal which produced the impression of letter 'S'. Hence the report does not stand connected with the sample of the stuff, which was allegedly seized from the appellant.