SEVAK RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition, warrants, an, adjudication being meted, vis-a-vis, (a) the aggregate or the total, of, the banned narcotic substance, rather comprising the apposite parameter, for, making a further determination, qua, thereupon, the purported recovery(ies), from, the alleged conscious and exclusive possession of the petitioner, being amenable, for, being categorized, as, (a) commercial quantity or more than commercial quantity thereof, (b) AND the aggregate or the gross weight, of, the entire contents, as, carried in the recovered narcotic substance/charas, likewise constituting the reckonable parameter, for making the apt determination, qua effectuation, of recovery(ies) thereof, from, the exclusive, and, conscious possession, of, the accused, being, hence construable to be (i) small quantity or (ii) more than small quantity or (ii)commercial quantity thereof.

(2.) In FIR No. 28 of 2018, registered against accused/petitioner herein, the FSL concerned (i) has, qua, the quantum, of, 1 kg 400 grams of charas allegedly recovered, from, the exclusive and conscious possession of the bail-applicant and co-accused Bhag Singh and Amar Singh, has opined, qua the quantity, of, resin in the apt transmitted thereto exhibit, hence, being 22.57% and 22.86% w/w, thereupon, prima-facie, the pure content thereof of, resin as extracted from bulk thereof, rather falls within, domain, of, less than, the commercial quality thereof, (ii) yet the aggregate weight, of, the narcotic substance/charas, as, recovered from the exclusive possession, of, the afore co-accused/convicts Bhag Singh, and, Amar Singh, without segregating therefrom, the pure contents, of, purified resin rather renders, the apposite haul, to fall, within, the domain, of it being construable to be categorized, as, more than commercial quantity, of charas (iii) thereupon reiteratedly also an adjudication, is to be meted qua only any apt pure contents thereof, hence, comprising the apt parameter(s).

(3.) Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing, for the petitioner, contends, that, with hence cannabis/charas, occurring at serial No. 23 of, the table appended, with, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act), and, with a clear, and, candid prescription, borne therein, wherein rather 100g, is specified, as, small quantity thereof, (i) hence, the aggregate quantum only of purified resin, as, borne in the seized bulk of charas, alone, being construable, to be the apt reckonable principle, for making the further determination, vis-a-vis, the narcotic substance/charas recovered, from the exclusive and conscious possession, of the accused, dehors, the total bulk of charas, hence, falling or not falling, within the domain, of, small or more than small or commercial quantity thereof, (ii) specifically, when the table, with, clear explicity hence refers to cannbis, and, omits to make any explicit reference therein, vis-a-vis, the other part of the charas, carried in the seized charas, rather, being also reckonable, nor , with, the total or of the haul or aggregate, being mandated to comprise, the justifiable principle, hence, for making, the apt reckoning qua, the seizure falling, within, the domain of small quantity or more than small or commercial quantity thereof, thereupon only the resin content borne therein, rather comprising, the, apt reckonable parameter.