The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving the prosecution's case beyond a reasonable doubt, highlighting the vital infirmities in the prosecution's case and the necessity for flawless compliance with legal provisions.

Virender Singh, J.

1. Appellant Hukam Singh suffered conviction under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short the Act) vide impugned judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani dated 23/24.8.1995. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac, in default thereof to further undergo RI for six months. He preferred an appeal in this Court, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 691-SB of 1995. The same was allowed vide judgment dated February 4, 1999.

2. The State of Haryana preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgment of acquittal in the Honble Supreme Court and the same was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 649 of 1999. While allowing the State appeal, the Honble Apex Court has remanded the instant appeal to this Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law and the appellant was directed to surrender before this Court, pursuant to which the appellant surrendered before this Court on 15.2.2006 and is presently confined in jail.

3. Since the appellant was not in a position to engage a counsel, the office was directed to appoint some Advocate from the Haryana Legal Services Authority. Ms. Upasana Gupta has now appeared as Amicus Curaie to assist this Court.

4. The allegation against the appellant is that on 20.2.1994 at about 9.30/10.00 a.m. he was found in conscious possession of 20 Kgs. of poppy husk when apprehended by SI Maya Ram (PW-3) at railway crossing, Pilani Road, Loharu. Sh. S.N. Kaushik, DSP (PW-2) was also present there besides other police officials, accompanying SI Maya Ram. On completion of investigation he was put to trial for the charge of Section 15 of the Act.

5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined has many as 4 witnesses. Three main witnesses to recovery are DSP S.N. Kaushik (PW-2), SI Maya Ram, the Investigating Officer (PW-3) and HC Ashok Kumar (PW-4). ASI Raghunath Singh (PW-1) is a witness of formal character, who had simply recorded the FIR after receipt of ruqqa from the spot. The prosecution has also tendered into evidence the affidavit of Constable Anoop Singh (Ex. PD) and that of HC Dhram Singh (Ex. PE) besides the report of Chemical Examiner (Ex. PF). SI Amrik Singh at that time was incharge of police station Loharu, was given up as unnecessary.

6. The stand taken up by the appellant as emerges from his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is of false implication. He asserts that he was taken to the police station to project him as a witness against one Krishna, but ultimately he was implicated in this case. In order to strengthen his case, he has examined Babu Lal Sharma, Station Superintendent Loharu (DW-1) and Mahabir Parshad, Gateman at Loharu Pilani Phatak (PW-2).

7. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and with their assistance, gone through the impugned judgment very minutely.

8. Before discussing the evidence in detail, it would be pertinent to mention here that the appellant was acquitted by this Court in his Criminal Appeal No. 691-SB of 1995 primarily on the ground that there was non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act. The Honble Supreme Court while setting aside the judgment of acquittal and remanding the case to this Court has observed as under :-

"...... The appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed on this sole ground and certainly respondent must have other contentions against his conviction and sentence. The article seized from the appellant was "Chura" (poppy straw) and its weight was 20 Kgs., but it was less than the commercial quantity. In the result, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the matter is remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law........."

9. Ms. Gupta submits that although the appellant cannot develop his case on the point of Section 50 of the Act, yet the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against him beyond s