The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the State's criminal appeal challenging an acquittal under the NDPS Act. The trial court had acquitted the accused of possessing contraband after the High Court found procedural flaws in the prosecution's compliance with search requirements.
Appeal dismissed; bail bonds discharged; pending applications disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Appeal No. 200 of 2009 Date of Decision : 6.7.2021
State of Himachal Pradesh. …..Appellant.
Versus Sita Ram .....Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? No.
For the appellant : Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ram Lal Thakur, Assistant Advocate General.
For the respondent : Mr. C.N. Singh, Legal Aid Counsel.
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE
_________________________________________________________________ Anoop Chitkara, Judge (Oral)
FIR NUMBER 188/2006 dated 5.12.2006, Registered in Police Station Rampur, District Shimla, HP TRIAL NUMBER Case No. 147-3 of 2007; Instituted on 13.4.2007, Decided on 1.12.2008 by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla, H.P.
CHARGES & TRIAL COURT’S VERDICT
Sita Ram Section 20-61-85 Acquitted of NDPS Act.
Challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Sub
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla, in a
case involving 40 grams of Charas, the State has come up before this Court by filing appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.
2
3
the Investigating Officer filled up NCB forms in triplicate and handed over the seal to independent witness Ramesh Kumar (PW1). Subsequently, the Investigating Officer arrested the accused for violating Section 20 of NDPS Act.
4
Rampur Bus Stand is a busy station where at least 30 to 35 passengers are waiting for to and fro journey and despite that no independent witnesses are associated by the Investigating Officer. He has also argued that PW9, Investigating Officer, in his testimony states that they searched the accused, which does not inspire confidence. Similarly, there is contradiction as to how many people were at the location of the incident so far as independent witnesses were available and the seal was marked as ‘H’ and later ‘N’ and whether there were three or five seal impressions. As on Ext. PW7/B, it is
written 5 seal impressions, however, in his statement he has stated that there are 3-3 seal impressions. He further argued that PW1 in his examination in
5
chief has stated that the police did not give their search to the accused. The accused was not informed that search must be conducted in front of the Magistrate. At the time of weighing of the charas there were people present and that accused is not aware about the written process conducted by the police and rather he is uneducated and there were 5-6 persons at the choki (traffic post). He further argued that PW2 has stated that the charas was weighed with weights from the Radi Wala and it weighed 40 grams which was divided into 10 grams and 20 grams and it was measured at the police choki and in his cross examination he said that there were 3 to 4 people where the measurement was conduced. He further argued that PW3 in his statement said that the charas was recovered from an illiterate and there was one plunda having 5 sealed ‘H’ thereupon N3 and H5. The accused was drunked and fighting with PW1, Ramesh. On suspicion, the accused was searched. The BATTA (measuring scale) was of Radi Wala and the recovered charas was 10-10 grams and it is not known as to how many times seal ‘N’ was marked and later it was produced as seal bearing ‘H’. He has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as Krishan Chand Vs. State of H.P. (2018) 1 SCC 222 .
6
violation of NDPS Act. Under that circumstance, the Investigator made search and gave an option under Section 50 of NDPS Act before conducting his personal search. Such option is tendered in evidence and marked as Ext.PW1/A. A perusal of the option reveals that the Investigator had stated to the accused that he has a right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and can get his search conducted from a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. He also informed the accused that he has been informed of his right, however, this option is not in consonance with the requirement of Section 50 of NDPS Act.
7
needs to be under Section 50 of NDPS Act and not of Cr.P.C. Given above, the necessary question never put up to the accused under Section 50 of NDPS Act and he was not liable to answer the same.
(Anoop Chitkara), Judge
6th July, 2021 (Guleria)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should allow the State's appeal challenging the trial court's acquittal in an NDPS case involving possession of charas.
Whether procedural violations regarding Section 50 of the NDPS Act invalidate the conviction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Krishan Chand Vs. State of H.P.Referred¶30
Krishan Chand Vs. State of H.P. (2018) 1 SCC 222 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Himachal Pradesh
Sita Ram
Anoop Chitkara
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
