SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, whereby he has been convicted of 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 Rs. 1,00,000/ ; in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years.

(2.) ALLEGATIONS on which the appellant was put on trial may be summed up thus. On 1st May, 2003, at 12.10 a.m. (midnight), bus No. HP 48 4532 started from Chamba for Amritsar. A police party headed by PW 10 Jatinder Kumar, SHO, Police Station, Dalhousie, got the bus stopped at 1.30 a.m. at a place called Panjpulla for checking. Appellant was found occupying seat No. 36 in the bus. He was holding a plastic bag on his lap. PW 10 Jatinder Kumar suspected that Charas was there in the bag. He required the appellant to alight from the bus. His bag was searched. There were three plastic packets inside the bag, which contained Charas. On weighment the contents of plastic packets were found to be 1.500 kgs. Two samples, each weighing 25 grams, were separated. Samples and the bulk stuff were made into three parcels and the parcels were sealed with a seal that produced the impression of letter 'S' of English alphabet. The aforesaid search was conducted in the presence of witnesses Yog Raj (PW 1) and Raj Kumar (PW 2). NCB form was filled in on the spot. The case property, i.e. the parcels containing bulk stuff and the samples, alongwith the NCB form and specimen impressions of the seal, were deposited with the MHC, PW 8 HC Jagdish Chand. Next day, one of the two samples was sent to the Chemical Examiner, through HC Jaram Singh (PW 12). The Chemical Examiner found resin of cannabis plant in the sample and reported that the sample contained contents of Charas.

(3.) WE have gone through the record and heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and also the learned Deputy Advocate General. The main thrust of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant is that the case property alongwith the samples remained with the SHO, PW 10 Jatinder Kumar, till one of the two samples was sent to the Chemical Examiner and, therefore, the possibility of his having tampered with the contents of the sample cannot be ruled out. It was submitted that the record suggests that the case property was not deposited with PW 8 HC Jagdish Chand, but false evidence of the property having been deposited with him was sought to be led in the form of testimony of the said Head Constable. Our attention was drawn to the statement of PW 8 HC Jagdish Chand, who, in his cross examination, stated that as per entry in the register of Malkhana the case property is shown to have been kept in the custody of SHO Jatinder Kumar himself. The copy of the entry in the Rojnamcha is not on record. The statement of the witness shows that the case property remained with the SHO, because he has said that as per entry in the Register Malkhana, the case property was kept with the SHO himself. The aforesaid evidence that the case property remained with the SHO, is corroborated by the contents of NCB form Ex. P 6, in which the date of the dispatch of the sample, i.e. 2.5.2003, appears to be written by the SHO himself, because not only the pen and the ink used to write the date are the same as the rest of the contents of the NCB form, but also it appears that the date is written in the hand of the same person, who wrote the rest of the contents of the NCB form. Admittedly, the NCB form is written in the hand of PW 10 SHO Jatinder Kumar. Now, if the case property alongwith the NCB form had been deposited with the MHC, PW 8 HC Jagdish Chand, on 1.5.2003, how could the SHO, PW 10 Jatinder Kumar, have mentioned the date of dispatch of sample, which is 2.5.2003, in the said form.