LAWS(HPH)-2008-5-46

STATE OF H.P. Vs. DELU RAM

Decided On May 07, 2008
STATE OF H.P. Appellant
V/S
Delu Ram Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State has appealed against the judgment of trial Court, whereby the respondent, who was tried for an offence, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, has been acquitted.

(2.) Prosecution case may be stated like this. On 16.12.1992, around 2 or 2.30 a.m., PW -7 SI/SHO Kishan Chand had organized a Nakka at a place called Meru Nullah, within the jurisdiction of his Police Station. Respondent was seen coming on foot from the side of village Grohan. He was questioned by PW -7 SI/SHO Kishan Chand. Respondent was carrying a gunny bag on his back which contained Charas. Respondent was given option to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. He opted for being searched before of a Gazetted Officer. He was taken to a place called Salooni where there is a Tehsildar. That day Teshildar was not available. Respondent was then taken to Medical Officer of PHC Salooni and searched was conducted in his presence. Charas contained in gunny bag was recovered, which on weighment was found to be 9.070 kgs. Two samples, each weighing 10 grams, were separated. The samples and the bulk were made into three separate parcels and sealed with a seal, which produced impression of English letter ˜K. The Medical Officer also put his own seal on all the sealed parcels and the seal impression read like English Letter ˜M. Search and seizure memo. was prepared. Written report was sent to Police Station for formal registration of the case. Special report of the search and seizure was sent to the Superior Police Officer. Case property alongwith the samples was deposited with PW -5 MHC Chattar Singh. One sample parcel as sent to Chemical examiner, who gave the report that the sample contained contents of Charas.

(3.) Trial Court has acquitted the respondent holding that independent witnesses had not been associated, provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act had not been complied with and that the link evidence adduced by the prosecution did not connect the report Ext.PK of the Chemical Examiner with the sample, which was allegedly taken from the stuff recovered from the respondent.