SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(HP) 932

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Rajiv Sharma & Sureshwar Thakur, JJ.
Chaman @ Chamaru Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 380/2014
Decided on: 21-08-2015

Advocate Appeared:
For the appellant :Mr. Vinay Thakur and Mr. Brij Chauhan, Advocates
For the respondent:Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General

The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of maintaining the integrity of case property and following prescribed procedures in NDPS cases to ensure the reliability of evidence and prevent doubts about the seized substances.

Headnote:

Narcotic Drugs - Conviction under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - [Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the procedures for search and seizure, and the requirements for maintaining the integrity of case property. The judgment highlighted the importance of maintaining proper records and following prescribed procedures in NDPS cases.

Fact of the Case:

The accused was convicted for possession of Charas under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 based on the prosecution's evidence of seizure and search. The appeal was filed against the conviction.

Finding of the Court:

The court found discrepancies in the handling and documentation of the case property, raising doubts about the integrity of the seized substance. As a result, the conviction was set aside, and the accused was acquitted of the offence.

Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the evidence related to the seizure and handling of the case property, as well as the adherence to procedural requirements in NDPS cases.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of maintaining accurate records, following prescribed procedures for search and seizure, and ensuring the integrity of case property in NDPS cases. The discrepancies in handling the case property led to the acquittal of the accused.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The fine amount, if deposited, was ordered to be refunded to the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Sharma, J.

This appeal is instituted against Judgment dated 20.5.2014/21.5.2014 rendered by learned Special Judge, Chamba Division Chamba (HP) in Sessions Trial No. 2/2013 (45/2013), whereby appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for convenience sake), has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1.00 Lakh, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 6.12.2012 Inspector /SHO Jagdish Chand of Police Station Khairi alongwith other police officials had gone to attend a police meeting at village Brangal. At 10.15 am, when police officials arrived at village Taleru Rain Shelter Dralka, accused was noticed alighting from HRTC Bus and going towards Rain Shelter Dralka. He was having a Pithu Bag on his back. On seeing the police officials, he started running towards village Dralka, which raised suspicion. He was overpowered. Accused was apprised of his legal right to be searched before a Magistrate or equivalent Gazetted Officer. Accused told that that he wanted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer. Accordingly, Kulwant Singh, Additional Superintendent of Police, who happened to be on tour to police post Brangal, was requested over mobile phone to come to the spot and conduct search of the accused. Kulwant Singh reached the spot. He informed the accused to be searched by the police and accused consented to be searched before him in the presence of witnesses. Kulwant Singh alongwith other police officials gave his personal search to the accused and thereafter Jagdish Chand conducted the search of the accused and Pithu Bag. Pithu bag was searched. It contained Charas. It weighed 3.800 kgs. Recovered Charas was put back in the polythene envelopes and Pithu bag and same was packed in a parcel sealed with six seals of ‘M’. IO filled up NCB form in triplicate and affixed seal impression ‘M’ on it. Sample seal was taken and same after use was handed over to Tara Chand. Rukka was prepared. It was sent to the Police Station Chamba through Constable Naresh Kumar. FIR was registered. Case property was produced before ASI Prabhat Nanda, officiating SHO, who resealed the same with six seals of ‘K’. He deposited the case property with MHC Vijay Kumar, who made necessary entry in the Malkhana Register. Case property alongwith docket and documents was sent to FSL Junga for chemical analysis through HHC Veer Singh vide RC No. 81/2012. Investigation was completed. Challan was put up in the Court after completing all codal formalities.

3. Prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused was also examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. His case was of denial simpliciter. Accused was convicted as noticed above. Hence, this appeal.

4. Mr. Vinay Thakur and Mr. Brij Chauhan, Advocates, have vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused.

5. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, has supported the judgment of conviction.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully.

7. PW-1 Anil Kumar deposed that on 6.12.2012, he was present in his shop. At 11.15 am, one constable came to his shop and asked for weights and scale. He gave them to him. After some time, he returned the same to him.

8. PW-2 Moti Singh deposed that the accused was produced before him. His name and parentage was asked. He was declared hostile.

9. PW-3 HC Rajinder Kumar is a material witness. According to him, at 10.15 am, when he reached rain shelter Taleru, one HRTC bus bearing No. HP38B-4235 passed and a person alighted from that bus. He was carrying a Pithu bag on his back and was g


































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top