Point of Law: Section 50 of NDPS Act are reproduced as Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted.

JUDGMENT :

1. The State has filed the present appeal filed under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 28.02.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’).

2. By way of judgment dated 28.02.2011, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents (hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused persons’) from the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’).

3. Brief facts, leadings to the filing of the present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up as under:-

On 19.06.2010 ASI Vinod Singh, Incharge, Police Post, Sultanpur has forwarded a ‘Rukka’ to the Police Station Chamba disclosing therein that he, alongwith other police officials, was on picketing and traffic checking duty and was present at “Bhataluan bridge”. When, he was checking the vehicles, then, at about 3.30 p.m. one scooter was noticed, being driven by its driver, coming there, from Chamba side.

3.1 Apart from the driver, one pillion rider was also there on the scooter. On seeing the police party, the driver stopped the scooter, at a distance of about 15-20 meter away and tried to return back and to flee away, upon which, the pillion rider, who was having the rucksack, on his back, had thrown the said rucksack towards the scooter driver and fled away. The said person was nabbed at a distance of 20-25 meter. Meanwhile, the scooter driver also made efforts to flee away along-with the rucksack, however, he was also nabbed.

3.2 From the activities of the said persons, ASI developed a suspicion, in his mind, that the said persons might be having some illegal article or narcotic substance in their possession, as such, keeping in view their activities, ASI has associated Harish Chand son Tara Chand, HC Uttam Chand and HHC Raj Kumar and inquired about the name of those persons. (Both the accused persons).

3.3 On inquiry, the pillion rider has disclosed his name as Kuljeet Singh son of Gurbax Singh and scooter driver has disclosed his name as Suresh Kumar son of Joginder Singh. (Both the accused person).

3.4 Thereafter, the IO had obtained the written consent of aforesaid persons regarding their personal search and search of their rucksack. After obtaining their consent to be searched by the police, the rucksack was searched. On its checking, a plastic envelop was found in it. On opening the same, charas was found in it. On weighment, the charas was found to be 3.750kgs.

3.5 Other codal formalities were completed on the spot and accused persons were arrested. After receipt of the positive report from FSL, Junga, the police has filed the challan, for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act against the accused.

4. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C found a prima-facie case, for the commission of the offence, punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act against both the accused and accordingly, both of them were charge-sheeted.

5. When, the charge, so framed, put to the accused persons, they have not pleaded guilty and claimed trial.

6. Since, the accused persons have not pleaded guilty, as such, the prosecution has been directed to adduce evidence, to prove the charge, against the accused persons.

7. Consequently, the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses.

8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the entire incriminating evidence, appearing against the accused persons, was put to them, in their statements, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

9. The accused persons have denied the entire prosecution case and took the plea that they are innocent persons and have falsely been implicated, in this case.

10. However, the accused persons have not opted to lead evidence, in defence.

11. Thereafter, the learned trial Court, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned defence