The judgment establishes the importance of valid evidence, the conduct of investigating officers, and the presumption of possession under the NDPS Act in determining guilt.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Through an order made on 4.07.2016, the learned Special Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., framed charges against Madan Lal, vis-a-vis, offence(s) constituted under Section 20, of, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and, read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Moreover, through, the afore made order, the learned trial Court also framed a charge against accused Madan Lal, for his committing, an, offence punishable, under, Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, besides through, the afore made order, the learned trial Court also framed a charge against accused Madan Lal, for his committing an offence punishable, under, Section 39 of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, inasmuch, as, for his being found in exclusive and conscious possession, of, 24 bottles of English liquor, Marked Ginnies Fine Whisky. Moreover, the learned trial Court framed a charge on 4.7.2016, vis-a-vis, accused Praveen Kumar, for his committing, an offence punishable, under, Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs, and, Psychotropic Substances Act, read with Section 29 thereto, and, in addition, through an order made, on 4.7.2016, the learned trial Court, framed a charge against accused Lal Chand, for his committing, an offence punishable, under, Section 18, and, under Section 29, of, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. However, through a verdict made on 22.10.2019, upon, Sessions Trial No. 3-3 of 2016, the learned trial Court, made an order of acquittal, vis-a-vis, co-accused Praveen Kumar, and, also, vis-a-vis, co-accused Lal Chand, vis-a-vis, the afore drawn charges against them, and, also the learned trial Court, through the afore verdict, made an order of acquittal, upon, accused Madan Lal, for the charge, drawn, under, Section 29, of, the Narcotic Drugs, and, Psychotropic Substances Act, and, also for the charge drawn, under, Section 39, of, the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, 2011. However, under the afore verdict, accused/convict Madan Lal, became convicted, for commission of offences punishable under Section 18(c), and, under Section 20(ii) (c), of, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The learned trial Court imposed, upon, him sentence, of, rigorous imprisonment, hence, extending upto 10 years, and, also sentenced him, to pay a fine of Rs. One lakh, and, in default of payment of fine amount, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for one year, for, commission of an offence punishable, under, Section 20(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a term of two years, and, to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and, in default of payment, of, fine amount, he was further sentenced, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, for commission, of, an offence punishable under Section 18(C), of, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. All the afore sentences become ordered to run concurrently.

2. Obviously, convict Madan Lal becomes aggrieved, from the afore made verdict, of,conviction, upon, him, vis-a-vis, the afore charges, and, also obviously becomes aggrieved, from the afore order, imposing, upon, him, the afore alluded sentences, of, imprisonment, and, of fine, and, hence becomes constrained to, thereagainst, constitute an appeal, before this Court.

3. Through memo, borne in Ex. PW3/A, the Investigating Officer, made recoveries of 100 grams, of, charas, from the person of co-accused Madan Lal, hence as echoed therein, from, his keeping it, in the pocket(s), of, his shirt, as, became, worn by him, at the relevant time. However, the Investigating Officer concerned, did not, prior thereto, elicit, the, mandatorily enjoined consent, from him, for his, valid personal search being conducted, by him, hence through, a, memo drawn by him. Since, the elicitation of the apposite consent, from co-accused Madan Lal, for his valid person