SANDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and gone through the record. Appellants are aggrieved by the judgment of the Session Court, Chamba whereby they have been convicted of offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of rupees one lac each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution is that the two appellants were travelling by a Car which was being driven by one of them, namely, appellant Sandeep Singh. The other appellant was occupying the rear sear. Police intercepted the Car at a place called Mohri Nallah -. When the checking was being done, the two appellant became nervous which aroused the suspicion of the Police Officer heading the party, namely, ASI Ranjit Singh (PW -14). He searched the persons of the two appellants and found that both of them were having polythene wrappers hidden inside their shirts. The wrappers were opened and charas found inside. Two independent witnesses were associated. Three samples weighing 25 grams were separated from each of the two wrappers recovered from the appellants. Samples were sealed with a seal that produced the impression of letter ˜T of English alphabets. Wrappers containing the bulk charas were also made into separate parcels and those parcels were sealed with the same seal. Further investigation of the case was handed over the Head Constable Hans Raj (PW -15). Said Hans Raj completed the investigation on the same day and deposited the case property with Anjana Sharma, Sub Inspector (PW -16) who was officiating as Station House Officer on that day. She re -sealed the sample parcels as also the parcels containing the bulk stuff with her own seal which produced the impression of English letter ˜H. Two samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner vide NCB Form Exhibit PW 14/A. The Chemical Examiner gave the opinion that the samples contained contents of charas as they had resin of cannables plants to the extent of 31.01% in one of them and 30.11% in the other.

(3.) THE main thrust of the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants is that two samples out of six samples were sent to the Chemical Examiner, without putting on them any special mark, indicating that one sample was in respect of the stuff recovered from one appellant and the other sample was in respect of the stuff recovered from the other appellant and that in the absence of any such distinguishing marks, it could not have been possible to determine whether the samples which were sent to the Chemical Examiner represented the stuff allegedly recovered from both the appellants or that both the samples were of the stuff recovered from one of them only and if they were in respect of the stuff recovered from one of them only which the appellants was in possession of that stuff.