IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 477 of 2015 Decided on: 22.04.2025 _________________________________________________________

State of Himachal Pradesh …..Appellant Versus Om Nath ……Respondent _________________________________________________________

Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge

1 Whether approved for reporting?

_____________________________________________________

For the appellant: Mr. Yashwardhan Chauhan, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr. Navlesh Verma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General.

For the respondent: Mr. S.C. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate. Sushil Kukreja, Judge (oral)

The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-

State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) against the judgment of acquittal dated 01.04.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge (II), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.3/2009, whereby the accused (respondent herein) was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the ‘NDPS Act’).

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, giving rise to instant appeal as per the prosecution story, are that on 14.09.2009 a police party headed by HC Prem Pal was on traffic checking duty at place Suki- Bain on National Highway (NH-21) and at about 7:55 pm a bus bearing registration No. PB10BY-7698 came from Manikaran and was going to Ludhiana, which was stopped for checking. The bus was being driven by driver Sikander and one Mohan Lal was conductor of the bus. The police started checking the luggage of the passengers inside the bus and when the police reached at seat No.41, the person (respondent/ accused herein) sitting thereon, who was having a bag in his lap, he kept his bag under the seat and got perplexed. On suspicion, he was asked to pick-up his bag and thereafter his consent was taken for checking the bag. During checking of his bag, a light red coloured polythene bag was found inside the aforesaid bag, which was containing a chapatti type substance and the same was found to be cannabis. Thereafter, the recovered contraband was weighed, which was found to be 1 kg 200 grams. Thereafter, the cannabis was kept in the same polythene and then put in the said bag, which was sealed with seven seals of seal impression "D". The police completed all the codal formalities, viz., recovered contraband was taken into possession, statements of the witnesses were recorded and the spot map was prepared. Rukka was sent to police station, on the basis of which, the FIR in question was registered.

3. On the completion of the investigation and receipt of the FSL report, the charge-sheet was prepared and presented before the Trial Court.

4. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 14.01.2011 framed charge against the accused under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as eleven witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr.PC was recorded, wherein he denied all set of incriminating evidence led by the prosecution against him, besides pleaded to be innocent and falsely implicated in the case. However, he did not examine any witness in his defence.

6. The learned trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 01.04.2015, acquitted the accused for commission of the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, hence, the instant appeal preferred by the appellant-State.

7. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General contended that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record in a slip shod and perfunctory manner. He further contended that the learned trial Court has discarded the testimonies of the pro