State v. Paramjeet Singh
Case brief
What is this about?
The Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh considered an appeal against an acquittal in a drug case. It held that the Chemical Examiner's report, which identified poppy husk based on meconic acid and morphine tests, did not prove the substance belonged to the specific plant species Papaver somniferum-L required by the NDPS Act. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove the essent
What did the court decide?
The petition for leave to appeal against the acquittal was dismissed; the acquittal was upheld.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. M.P(M) No. 593 of 2004
Date of decision: 15.10.2008
State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Paramjeet Singh … Respondent
Coram :
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge.
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the appellant: Mr. R.M.Bisht , Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General.
For the respondent: None
Deepak Gupta, J (Oral).
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.4.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan in Sessions Trial No. 13-N/7 of 2003, whereby he has acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( for short: the NDPS Act).
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Chemical Examiner's report regarding poppy husk is sufficient to prove the substance was 'opium poppy' under the NDPS Act.
Whether the Division Bench judgment in Rajiv Kumar requires the expert to identify the plant species to convict for possession of poppy husk.
Whether the High Court should accept the acquittal of the respondent on the ground of insufficient proof of the plant species.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
State of H.P.
- respondent
Paramjeet Singh
Coram
Deepak Gupta
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Himachal Pradesh HC
- Decided on
- · October
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRMPM/593/2004
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court