Integrity of evidence and chain of custody are crucial in drug possession cases for establishing guilt.

State of H.P. f ...Appellant Versus Gogan Logani r ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Wh ether approved for reporting?¹ No For the appellant : Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

H For the Respondent: Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Sr.

Advocate, with Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.12.2010, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan, HP (learned Appellate

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

Court) vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted for the commission o.f an offence punishable under Section 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (in short ‘Drugs Act’) (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learnefd Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present case are tuhat ASI Ram Phal (PW-1) and H.C. Paramjit Singoh (PW-2) were present at Excise Barrier, Kala Amb on 15.3.2002 at 12.00 midnight. They saw the accused wearing a black jacket coming from the Haryana hside. They heard some noise when the accused crossed g them. They stopped the accused in the presence of Mohan i Singh and Rajesh Kumar (PW-3). The accused was found in possession of 38 strips of 10 capsules each of Hypnotec, Nitrazepam capsules B.P. and 16 bottles of Rexcof syrup having 100 ml each, concealed in the jacket worn by the accused. The accused was asked to produce the documents to carry the drugs, but he failed to do so. Hence, he was brought to the Police Post, Kala Amb, with the witnesses. Inspector/SHO K S Pathania (PW-7) was informed about the recovery. He informed Kapil Dhiman (PW-4), the Drugs Inspector, about the recovery. An.

entry in the rapat roznamcha (Ext.PW1/A) was recorded. Spot map (Ext. PW7/C) was prepared, and an FIR (Ext.PW7/B) was registered in the Police Station. Kapil Dhiman (PW-4) reached the Policef Post Kala Amb and demanded the documents from the accused. He also checked the medicines. The accused revealed on inquiry that these were meant for personal use. However, the accused could not produce any prescription slip. Hence, the Drugs Inspector seized the drugs vide form 16 (Ext. PW2/A). He obtained two samples for analysis and prepared the memos (Ext. PW2/B and Ext. PW2/C). He kept 12 bottles of Rexcofs and 22 strips of Nitrazepamin a cardboard box (Ext. M-1) and sealed it in the presence of H the accused and the witnesses. He prepared four parts, and each part was signed by the accused and the witnesses. The samples were sent for analysis, and a report (Ext.PW4/C) was issued, showing that the drugs were of the standard quality. The complaint was filed before the Court by the Drugs Inspector.

3. Learned Trial Court recorded the pre-charge evidence and framed the charges against the accused fo.r the commission of offences punishable under Section 27 B (ii) read with Section 18(c) and Section 28 read with Section 18A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimefd to be tried.

4. The complainant examined eight witnesses to prove its case. ASI Ram Phal (PW-1) effected the recovery of the drugs. Paramujit Singh (PW2) and Rajesh Kumar (PW-3) are thoe witnesses to the recovery. Kapil Dhiman (PW-4) conducted the proceedings and filed the complaint before the Court. Jai Pal (PW-5) is the witness hto the personal search. Khem Raj (PW-6) carried the g samples for chemical analysis. Inspector K.S. Pathania i (PW-7) was posted as SHO to whom the information was given. Garima Sharma (PW-8) was posted as a Drugs Inspector, who filed a complaint before the Court.

5. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. denied the complainant’s case in its entirety. He stated that witnesses deposed against him because they wer