The prosecution must prove exclusive possession of contraband and comply with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Contradictions in witness statements and failure to establish exclusive possession can lead to acquittal.

Rajiv Sharma, J.

The State has come in appeal against Judgment dated 26.8.2009 rendered by learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Sessions Trial No. 05 of 2009, whereby respondent-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 acquitted.

2. “Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that on 12.3.2008, at 6.20 PM, SI Om Parkash along with ASI Daya Ram, C. Nikka Ram and Home-guard Amar Singh reached near 15 Mile (name of place) on patrolling in official vehicle driven by C. Dinesh Kumar. Near the bridge on the National Highway 21, one young man was found standing. On seeing the police vehicle, he turned back and ran away towards village Batahar via bridge. He was apprehended. No independent witness was available. During the course of personal search of the accused one polythene envelope was recovered from the right pocket of his jacket. On checking of this polythene envelope, it was found containing charas in the shape of sticks. Recovered charas was weighed in the street light and it was found to be 400 grams. Two samples of charas, 25 grams each, were separated from the recovered charas and were sealed in separate parcels. Remainder of the charas was put back in the same polythene envelope and was sealed in separate parcel. Seal impression ‘T’ had been affixed on each parcel. NCB-I in triplicate was filled on the spot. Seal after use was handed over to ASI Daya Ram. Search and seizure memo was prepared. Rukka was prepared. It was sent to the Police Station, Manali through HG Amar Singh for registration of FIR. Site plan was prepared. SI Om Parkash went to the Police Station, Manali alongwith accused and case property. Case property was deposited with MHC Hem Raj at Police Station, Manali. Report of FSL Junga was received. Investigation was completed. Challan was put in the Court after completing all the codal formalities.

3. Prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused was also examined under Section 313 CrPC. He denied the case of the prosecution. Accused was acquitted as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal.

4. Mr. M.A. Khan, Additional Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused.

5. Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate, has supported the Judgment dated 26.8.2009.

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

7. PW-1 ASI Daya Ram deposed that on 12.3.2008, he alongwith SI Om Prakash, Constable Nikka Ram and HHG Amar Singh, reached at 15 Mile. They were on patrol duty. They had reached on the spot in the official vehicle being driven by Constable Dinesh Kumar. Near bridge at 15 Mile, one person was standing on the road. On seeing the police party, said person tried to flee away from the spot towards village Batahar side via bridge. Said person was chased and apprehended by SI Om Prakash. It was a secluded place. No independent witnesses were present. SI Om Prakash took personal search of accused in his presence as well as in the presence of Constable Nikka Ram. Accused was wearing blue jean jacket. During the checking of jacket, one polythene envelope was recovered from the right pocket of jacket. Polythene envelope was removed from the pocket of the jacket and was checked. polythene envelope was containing Bhang/Charas in the shape of sticks. The recovered Charas was weighed on the spot. It weighed 400 grams. . Two samples of charas 25 grams each were separated from the recovered charas and were sealed in separate parcels. Remainder of Charas was put back in the same polythene envelope and was sealed in separate parcel. Three seal impressions of ‘T’ were fixed on each sample parcel and five seal impressions of ‘T