In appeals against acquittal under NDPS Act, interference justified only if trial court's view perverse or based on misreading evidence; material contradictions in recovery witnesses and lack of independent support warrant upholding acquittal as reasonable view.

JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29th December 2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the charged offence.(Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the Police presented a challan against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (in short ‘NDPS Act’). It was asserted that Inspector Anil Dutt (PW13), ASI Chet Ram (PW8), Head Constable Prem Pal, Head Constable Gian Chand (PW7), Constable Virender Singh (PW1) and Constable Madan Lal (PW6) were on patrolling duty on 24th September 2003. They received a secret information that the accused was selling and purchasing illicit drugs. He (accused) was going towards Kalibari Road, carrying a polythene bag in his right hand, and a huge quantity of charas could be recovered by searching him. The information was reduced to writing (Ex. PD) and was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Shimla, through Constable Gian Chand. The accused was found coming towards the Grand Hotel with a Polythene bag. Darshan Kumar (PW12) and Pankaj Kumar (PW10) were coming from the Scandal Point towards Kalibari. The police associated them as independent witnesses and told them about the secret information. The Police apprehended the accused. He identified himself as Aehsan. The police told the accused that they had received a credible information regarding the possession of charas by him (the accused), and he could specify in writing whether he wanted to be searched before a Magistrate, gazetted officer or the police. The accused consented to be searched by the Police vide memo (Ex. PN). Inspector Anil Dutt gave his personal search to the accused and prepared a memo (Ex.PA). He searched the carry bag (Ex. P2) being carried by the accused and found two more Polythene bags (Ex. P3 and Ex. P4) in it. Inspector Anil Dutt opened the polythene bags and found a khaki packet (Ex. P3A) and a polythene packet (Ex. P4A). He checked the packets and found pancake and ball-shaped cannabis (Ex. P5) in the khaki packet and pieces of cannabis (Ex. P6) wrapped in maize cone leaves in the Polythene packet. Many people gathered on the spot. Hence, the police took the accused and the recovered substance to the office of the CIA. Constable Madanlal was sent to bring scales and weights. He brought them from Rajwan, a fruit seller in the lower Bazaar. Inspector Anil Dutt smelled the recovered substance and confirmed it to be cannabis. The weight of the pancake and ball-shaped cannabis was found to be 3 kilograms 400 grams, and the weight of the pieces of cannabis was found to be 1 kilogram and 700 grams. Thus, 5 kilograms and 100 grams of cannabis was recovered from the accused. Two samples weighing 25 grams each were taken from each type of cannabis. In all four samples of 25 grams each were taken out. Each sample was sealed in a parcel, and each parcel was sealed with four seals of seal impression ‘A’. The remaining cannabis was put in the same polythene bag from which it was recovered in the same manner in which it was found. The polythene bag was put in a Clo