IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP No.2824 of 2025 in Cr. A.

No.103 of 2021

Reserved on 02.01.2026

Date of Decision: 08.01.2026

_________________________________________________

Tilak Raj @ Shammi

...Applicant

Versus

State of H.P.

...Respondent.

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the applicant: Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. J.S. Gulria, Deputy

Advocate General.

___________________________________________________

Romesh Verma , Judge

Present order shall dispose off an application

filed by the applicant/appellant for the suspension of sentence, as passed by the learned Special Judge-I,Kangra

at Dharamshala, District Kangra,H.P.,

2. The applicant/appellant has approached this Court on account of judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as passed by the learned Special Judge-I, Kangra

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

at Dharamshala, District Kangra, HP, whereby vide judgment dated 31.12.2020, the present applicant/appellant has been ordered to be sentenced to udergo simple imprisonment for 10 years under Section 20(b)(ii) (C) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances, Act (here-in- after called as ‘ the NDPS Act’ for short) and in default of payment of fine, the convict has been ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

3. It has been averred in the application by the applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is not involved in any manner in the case. It has been stated that applicant is in jail and he has already undergone the period of more than six years. It has been submitted that disposal of appeal shall take some time for its disposal, therefore, during the pendency of the appeal,his sentence may be suspended.

4. The State has filed the reply to the application and opposed the same.

5. It has been averred in the reply that the applicant/appellant was found in conscious and exclusive possession of 2.025 Kgs of charas and in such like offences, no leniency can be shown. It has further been stated in the reply that the learned Court below has rightly convicted the present applicant/appellant after appreciating the entire oral as well a documentary evidence placed on record. Further it has been stated that the offence committed by the applicant is serious and grave in nature, therefore, no relief can be granted to him.

6. We have heard Sh. Manoj Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and Sh. J.S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant that the story as projected by the prosecution is false and highly improbable. He states that the present case as set-up is full of contradictions and inconsistencies and his client has got no link in any manner to the case as set-up by the prosecution.

8. It is canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecution has projected its case to be of chance recovery but the memo Ext.PW1/E (recovery memo) regarding the search of the officials, Ext.PW1/C (notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act) and the memo regarding the personal search of the accused, Ext.PW1/D which as per the examination-in-chief of the Investigating Officer, PW- 12 S.I. Naresh Kumar, were prepared before conducting the search of the bag, clearly contradict/demolish the case of the prosecution. He has submitted that as per these memos, which were prepared before conducting the search of the bag, on the top of these memos, Section 20 of the NDPS Act has been clearly written by the Investigating Officer. He further submitted that it is very surprising that when it is a chance recovery, then how the Investigating Officer came to know that they were going to recover charas.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the statement of PW-12, S.I. Naresh Kumar. PW-12 has stated in his st