STATE OF H. P. Vs. DEEP CHAND
LAWS(HPH)-2020-9-5
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on September 01,2020

State Of H. P. Appellant
VERSUS
DEEP CHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The instant appeal is directed against the judgment rendered, on29.5.2017, by the learned Special Judge (IV), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., upon Session Trial No.07-B/VII/2014, and, where through(s), the appellant stands acquitted.
(2.)Brief facts of the case, are, that on 2.1.2014, at about 6:30 p.m. SI Gian Chand alongwith HC Kuldeep, HC Rajinder Kumar, C Kuljeet Singh, and, C Pawan Kumar was present at Paprola in connection with patrolling and detection of Crime under NDPS Act, vide Rapat Ext. PA. The aforesaid police party headed by SI Gian Chand received a secret information that a person wearing blue coloured jacket holding a carry bag in his hand is wandering near Railway Crossing, Baijnath, in order to sell cannabis, and if, the person is raided immediatedly, a huge quantity of Charas can be recovered from him. On the basis of this information, I.O. Gian Chand prepared information under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act Ext. PW4/A and sent it to SDPO/Dy.SP Puneet Raghu. Thereafter, PW-9 Investigating Officer SI Gian Chand alongwith other police officials visited Railway crossing, Baijnath, where accused was found standing, holding a carry bag in his hand. On inquiry accused disclosed his name as Deep Chand. SI Gian Chand the Investigating Officer gave an option and apprised accused about his right, as to whether he intend to be searched before the Magistrate or before some Gazetted Officer and memo Ext. PW1/A was prepared. The aforesaid memo was also signed by accused as well as by Dy.SP. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer as well as other Police officials gave their personal search to accused and memo Ext. PW1/B was prepared. The personal search of the accused was conducted, but no contraband was found, however, during the search of the carry bag, held by accused, it was found containing one polythene bag having charas. On weighing the contraband, it was found to be 500 gms, of, charas. The recovered charas was again put into the same polythene and carry bag, which was sealed in a cloth parcel with six seals of "A" and NCB form in triplicate Ext. PW9/A was filled in this regard. The specimen seal impression "A" was also taken on a separate piece of cloth Ext. PW1/C and the seal, after use, was handed over to witness Ravi Kumar. The case property i.e. parcel Ext. P-1 containing carry bag Ext. P-2, polythene bag Ext. P-3, and, Charas (cannabis ) Ext. P-4, was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW1/D in presence of witnesses, who signed the same alongwith accused. Ruqua Ext. PW9/C was prepared at the spot and sent the same to the SHO Police Station, Baijnath through C.Pawan Kumar, on the basis of which FIR No. 2/2014 Ext. PW6/A was registered against accused. During investigation, Investigating Officer prepared the spot map Ext. PW9/B as per the factual position on the spot. Thereafter, accused were arrested vide memo Ext. PW1/E and information qua arrest of the accused was given to his mother. On 2.1.2014 at about 11:15 p.m. I.O. handed over the case property to SHO police Station, Baijnath, who re-sealed the same with five seals, of, seal impression "K", and, issued the re-seal certificate Ext. PW6/D. The specimen seal impression "K" was also taken on a separate piece of cloth Ext. PW6/C. On 4.1.2014. Special report, under, Section 57 of NDPS Act, report whereof, is, Ext. PW4/C, was also prepared. The seized contraband was sent to SFSL Junga, for, chemical examination vide Road Certificate, borne in Ext. PW5/B, and, the chemical examiners report, is, borne in Ext. PY. During investigation, the, statements of witnesses, under, Section 161 Cr. P.C. were recorded. After completion of investigations by PW-9 SI Gian Chand, the case file was handed over to SHO/Insp. Rajinder Singh, Police Station Baijnath, who prepared the present Challan, and, presented it before the Court, and, the accused was produced to face trial.
2. The accused was charged for committing an offence punishable under Section 20 of the ND and PS Act. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. On conclusion of recording, of, prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused, under, Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the trial Court, wherein, he claimed false implication. However, he did not lead any evidence in his defence.

(3.)On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court, recorded findings of conviction against the accused/appellant herein.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.