The judgment emphasizes the importance of complying with statutory requirements for the recovery process and the need to establish a clear link between the case property and the accused's possession.

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgement of acquittal rendered on 12.09.2008 by the learned Special Judge, Mandi, H.P. in Sessions trial No.25 of 2008, whereby he acquitted the accused/respondent herein for his having committed an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act).

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that SHO Dharam Singh, alongwith ASI Sita Ram, HHC Ghanshyam, C.Virender Kumar, C.Murari Lal, was on patrol duty at place Sawla on Kanda road. At about 8.30 p.m. a person after seeing the police party, tried the move backwards and on the direction of SHO Dharam Singh ASI Sita Ram, HHC Ghanshyam, Virender and Murari that person was captured and brought before him, who made an inquiry qua his name whereupon he disclosed his name as Chet Ram. Dharam Singh SHO apprised the accused that he was carrying cannabis and enquired from the accused whether he intended to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. However, the accused consented to be searched by the police present on the spot. Consent memo of the accused was obtained in Ext.PW-1/A which was also signed by the witnesses. Thereafter, SHO and the police officers offered themselves to be searched by the accused and accused searched the police party in presence of Pradhan and memo Ext.PW-1/B was prepared. Thereafter, accused Chet Ram was searched in presence of Pradhan. The accused had wrapped a paper in his body and cannabis was found in the said paper. Constable Virender was sent to bring scale and weights. The recovered charas was weighed and the same was found to be 5-½ kg. The cannabis was in the shape of sticks. Two sample parcels of 25 grams each were taken out for sample purpose. Remaining bulk cannabis was kept in a carry bag and put in sealed parcel alongwith wrapping papers. The sample parcels and bulk parcel were sealed with seal D. Thereafter seal impression was also obtained on memo Ext.PW-3/A. Ruka was sent to the P.S. through HHC Ghanshyam. The NCB forms were filled in triplicate. Grounds of arrest was also conveyed to the accused vide memo Ext.PW-3/B. SHO deposited the case property with H.C.Khem Chand. Thereafter, FSL’s report was obtained which proved that the parcel containing extract of cannabis and sample of charas.

3. After completion of necessary investigations into the offence allegedly committed by the accused/respondent herein, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by the Investigating Officer before the Court concerned.

4. The accused/respondent herein was charged by the learned trial Court for his having committed an offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. In proof of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Court, in which he claimed false implication besides pleaded innocence. In defence, the accused/respondent did not choose to examine any witness.

6. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused for his having committed an offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act.

7. The State of H.P. is aggrieved by the findings of acquittal recorded in favour of the accused/respondent herein by the learned trial Court. The learned Assistant Advocate General appearing for the appellant/State has concerted to vigorously contend before this Court qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court being not based upon a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather theirs being sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court in favour of the accused being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and be replaced by findin