IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 355 of 2015 Reserved on : 14.08.2025 Decided on: 29.08.2025 _________________________________________________________

State of Himachal Pradesh …..Appellant Versus o Ram Singh ……Respondent _____________________________t_____________________________

Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge

1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

______________________________________________________

For the appellant: Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General.

For the respondent: Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate.

Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State Hunder Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 21.03.2015, passed by the learned Special Judge(II), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.32/14/13, whereby the accused (respondent herein) was acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 18 and 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the ‘NDPS Act’).

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, giving rise to present appeal as per the prosecution story, are that on 03.03.2013, a police

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

party, headed by ASI Jeet Singh, was on patrolling duty towards Ka.nda-

Bagshad-Kharshi and had laid a naka at place Khalut Mod, then at about 7:00 p.m., one person, coming from Kharsi road sidHe was noticed, who was having a pithu bag (rucksack ) on his back. On seeing the police, he suddenly tried to run back, but was apprehended by the police. Having suspicion of some contraband, the police inquired his name and whereabouts, who disclosed his tname as Ram Singh (respondent- accused herein). Thereafter, he was made aware about his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and in this regard, consent was taken from him as required under Section 50 of ND&PS Act and then, the pithu bag being carried by him was searched. During search of the bag, a carry bag, containing black coloured substance in the shape of round and sticks was recovered and on the basis of experience and smell, it was found to be cannabis/charas. Inside the said pithu bag, three chappati type black coloured substance, wrapped in a piece of newspaper, was also recovered, which was found to be opium. On weighing the aforesaid contraband, it was found to be 3 kg and 250 grams of cannabis and 100 grams of opium. Thereafter, the cannabis as well as the opium were kept inside the same carry bag and then put in the aforesaid pithu bag, which was sealed with seven seals of seal impression "A". 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 the p.olice station, on the basis of which, the FIR in question was registered.

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

4. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 19.06.2013 framed charge against the accused under Stections 18 and 20 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 the impugned judgment dated 21.03.2015, acquitted the accused for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 18 and 20 of NDPS Act, hence, the instant appeal by the appellant-State.

7. The learned Deputy Advocate General contended that the Trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record in a very slip-shod