Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, J. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J.
State of H.P. ……..Appellant.
Versus
Ramesh Chand. ……..Respondent.
Cr. Appeal No.87 of 2001.
Decided on: February 23, 2011.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Acquittal Challenge - Section 20 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - The court discussed the non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act, the mandatory requirement of apprising the suspect of their right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, and the implications of such non-compliance on the trial. The court also highlighted the lack of connection between the analysis report and the alleged recovery, as well as the absence of proper sealing and documentation procedures.
Fact of the Case:
The State challenged the acquittal of the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, allegedly for keeping in possession 500 grams of Charas. The respondent was apprehended by the police, and the case property was taken into possession. The respondent was acquitted on the grounds of non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act and contradictory statements of witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the case against the respondent was not proved by the prosecution in accordance with the law and there was non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act. The court also highlighted the lack of connection between the analysis report and the alleged recovery, as well as the absence of proper sealing and documentation procedures.
Issues: Non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act, contradictory statements of witnesses, lack of connection between the analysis report and the alleged recovery, absence of proper sealing and documentation procedures.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory requirement of apprising the suspect of their right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer under Section 50 of the Act, and the implications of such non-compliance on the trial. The court also highlighted the importance of proper sealing and documentation procedures in handling case property.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged of his bail bonds. The court found no ground to convert the acquittal into conviction.
SURINDER SINGH,J
The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondent, passed in Sessions Trial No.10-S/7 of 2000, on 26th August, 2000 by the learned trial Court, for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, in short ‘the Act’, allegedly for keeping in possession 500 grams of Charas.
2. The respondent was represented by Shri T.R. Chandel, Advocate, who has expired. Shri Jagdish Vats, Advocate, whose Power of Attorney is on record is not present. Keeping in view the old pendency of the case and facts involved, we do not think it proper to adjourn the case. We appoint Shri Pardeep K. Sharma, as ‘Amicus-Curaie’. The paper book has been supplied to him to prepare the case and assist the Court.
3. Heard and gone through the record.
4. In short, the prosecution case as emerges from the prosecution evidence on record can be stated thus. On 21st February, 2000 at about 4.15 P.M., PW10 ASI Madan Lal was heading a police party in Ganj Bazzar, Shimla. He was accompanied by HC Chet Ram, Constables Parma Nand, Jagdish Kumar and Mohinder Singh. When they were passing through the place known as ‘Ghora Astbal’, they spotted the respondent, who on seeing the police party turned back and had tried to escape. Police got suspicious of some contraband with him, as such apprehended him and asked about his identity. Thereafter, the respondent was given option to be searched before the Magistrate or the Gazetted Police Officer into writing Ex.PW1/B. The respondent gave his consent that he was ready and willing to be searched by the police in the presence of two independent witnesses PW1 Dalel Singh and PW2 Kishori Lal. Accordingly, the said ASI after rendering himself to be searched by the respondent in the presence of the witnesses took personal search of the respondent in the presence of aforesaid independent witnesses and discovered a polythene packet kept concealed beneath his jacket worn by him. It contained 500 grams of Charas. The recovered stuff was taken to the nearby shop of PW3 Hans Raj for weighing. Thereafter, the police separated two samples of 25 grams each from the recovered stuff, for analysis and each of the samples were sealed with seal producing the impression of English letter ‘A’. The remaining bulk was also sealed with the same seal and after its use, it was handed over to PW2 Kishori Lal.
5. The case property was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW1/A, which was signed by the aforesaid independent witnesses.
6. Ruqa Ex.PW7/A was sent to the Police Station through PW4 Constable Jagdish Kumar, for the registration of the case, which culminated into FIR Ex.PW7/B alongwith the case property. Case property was resealed by PW7 Addl. SHO Ram Lal with seal impression “W”. It was deposited with PW6 MHC Duni Chand. The respondent was arrested and was informed about the grounds of arrest.
7. On 22nd February, 2000, PW6 MHC Duni Chand handed over one of the parcel vide RC No.24/2000 to PW5 Lady Constable Ranjana to deposit it in the CTL Kandaghat. After obtaining its receipt, she handed over it to the MHC aforesaid.
8. The sample parcel was analyzed in the Laboratory. It tested positive for Charas, it contained 26.19% weight-in-weight resin of the Cannabis plant. The report of the Analysis is Ex.PW12/B.
9. After recording the statements of the witnesses and completing the investigation, the challan was presented against the respondent for his trial in the Court.
10. Finding a prima-facie case against the respondent, he was accordingly charge-sheeted for the offence aforesaid, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
11. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses. The respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the circumstances, which were found attendant upon him. His case was denial simplicitor. When called upon to enter into his defence, he did not lead any evidence in defence. At the end of tria
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
