RAJA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the court of learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, dated 30.12.2004, vide which the appellant was held guilty under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, hereinafter referred to as the ˜N.D.P.S. Act for possessing 6 Kg. of Charas in his possession. The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rupee one lac. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was to suffer imprisonment for four years.

(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that on 30.10.2003, at about 5.30 a.m., PW -5 H.C. Yoginder Pal alongwith PW -4 HHC Fateh Singh was present in the area of Rasu Forest in connection with patrolling and nakabandi. They spotted a person coming from Malana side on foot, who became perplexed on seeing the police. The said person was carrying a rucksack on his back and on enquiry, he told that he was coming from village Malana and was going to Panjab. The said person was the appellant and the Investigating officer associated two officials accompanied him since it was an isolated place and thereafter checked the rucksack after giving personal search to the accused. On search, the said bag was found containing 6 Kg. of Charas. Two samples of 25 grams each were separated from the recovered Charas and were sealed separately and the remaining Charas was also sealed on the spot and these were taken into possession vide recovery memo. The Investigating Officer completed the formalities, deposited the case property with the S.H.O. at the Police Station and on completion of the investigation and on receipt of the report of the expert, the challan was filed as against the appellant, who was tried by the learned trial Court, leading to his conviction and sentenced as detailed above.

(3.) THE submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant were that the sample sent to the expert for analysis was not the same since it was sealed only and was not marked and, therefore, the report of the expert cannot be linked with the appellant. It was also submitted that the Investigating Officer has stated that two samples of 25 grams each were taken, while the sample received in the laboratory was weighing 25.4416 grams and, therefore, its shows that the sample was tampered with and as such, the report of the Chemical Examiner cannot be linked with the accused.