BABU RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment, dated 3.7.2006, of the court of ld. Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Fast Track Court, Chamba (the name of the court has been wrongly mentioned as Kullu in the appeal), vide which the appellant was held guilty under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.00 lac. In case of default of payment of fine, the appellant was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that PW-12 Inspector Rajesh Chhabra, the then SHO, Police Station Dalhousie, was present at Zeero Point Goli alongwith PW-4 Constable Ram Parkash, PW-5 Constable Mazid Mohammad and they laid a naka at Zeero Point. He also joined HHC Darshan Kumar and other police officials at 4.00 p.m. and was on patrolling and was checking vehicular traffic. PW-7 Hans Raj and PW-8 Parkash Chand, independent witnesses, also met the police party and they were joined in the naka party at about 4.00 p.m. One person appeared at the spot from Chaura Dam side, who tried to escape on seeing the police party. On suspicion, he was apprehended. He was having one bag on his right shoulder and on checking, it was found to be containing a polythene envelope in which charas was recovered in the shape of balls and sticks. The charas was weighed at the spot, which was found to be 4 kg. Two samples of 25 grams each were taken in accordance with the procedure and the samples and the remaining charas was sealed and were taken in possession. The necessary documents, namely, recovery memo, ruka etc. were prepared at the spot by HC Baldev Singh and on completion of the investigation and on receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, the challan was filed and the case was ultimately assigned to the learned trial Court, who tried the appellant leading to his conviction as detailed above.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the appellant had raised various points which were duly answered by the learned Deputy Advocate General and the points so raised during the course of arguments shall be discussed at length. Before we refer to the points raised during the course of arguments, we would like to make a brief reference to the evidence produced by the prosecution in support of their case.