The main legal point established in the judgment is that the error in the charge, compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 50, NDPS Act, and the acceptance of evidence of recovery by police officials are crucial in determining the validity of the trial and the conviction of the accused.

The present appeal through Superintendent, Model Central Jail, Nahan, has been directed by the appellant, Darshan Singh, hereinafter referred to as the accused, against the judgment dated 16-8-2002 in Sessions Trial No. 34 of 2002 of the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, whereby he has been convicted for the offence under Section 20, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the NDPS Act) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two and a half years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine he has been sentenced to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. Briefly, the prosecution story may be thus stated. On 24-12-2001, P.W. 7 ASI Rattan Lal, In-charge Police Post, Sainj accompanied by P.W. 5 HC Harbans Kumar, P.W. 6 HHC Hem Raj and Constables Bhag Chand and Neel Chand was on patrolling in Larji area. At about 3-30 p.m. when he was proceeding towards Banjar from Larji, he noticed the accused coming from the opposite side. The accused who had covered himself with a Chaddar (bed-sheet) on seeing the police immediately turned back and tried to run away. Such conduct on the part of the accused raised a suspicion in the mind of P.W. 7. The accused was chased and overpowered by the police party. The accused on enquiry disclosed his identity. P.W. 7 conveyed his suspicion to the accused that he might be possessing some contraband and expressed his intention to search him. P.W. 7 gave an option to the accused if he wanted to be searched before some Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The accused opted for being searched by P.W. 7. During the course of personal search of the accused a polythene bag was recovered from underneath the jacket which the accused was wearing. A further search of such polythene bag, Charas wrapped in polythene was recovered which on weighment was found to be 800 grams. Three samples weighing 25 grams each were separated. Such samples and the remaining part of charas weighing 725 grams were separately sealed with the seal mark "H" and taken into possession by P.W. 7. Information was sent to the police station vide Ex. P.W. 7/B on the basis of which a case for the offence under Section 20, NDPS Act came to be registered at Police Station, Banjar vide FIR Ex. P.W. 1/A.

3. The accused after having been informed the grounds, was arrested. P.W. 7 then produced the accused along with the Charas recovered and the samples before P.W. 2 Balwant Singh, the then Station House Officer, Police Station, Banjar. P.W. 2 on the case property having been produced before him by P.W. 7 re-sealed the same with his own seal mark "T" and deposited the same in the "Malkhana". Special report Ex. P.W. 8/A was sent by P.W. 7 to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Kullu. One sealed sample was sent to the Public Analyst, Kandaghat who vide his report Ex. P.W. 1/D reported the contents of the sample to be that of Charas.

4. The accused on having been put to trial, pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution in support of its case examined eight witnesses in all.

5. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, denied the entire prosecution story. He even denied his apprehension at Larji. His defence was that of denial and false implication. No defence evidence was led by him.

6. The learned Sessions Judge on consideration of the evidence led before him, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.

8. The learned counsel for the accused, at the very outset, has contended that the trial against the accused stands vitiated since there has been an error in the framing of charge against the accused. It was contended that in fact, no charge was framed against the accused and that the charge framed in the present case is against one Gorkhu Ram.

9. The charge framed in the present case on 1-4-2002 by the learned Sessions Judge,