High Court of H.P.IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

Cr. Appeal No. 513/2015

Reserved on: 1.1.2016

Decided on: 4.1.2016

_______________________________________________________________

Farid Deen …… Appellant

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh ……..Respondent

_______________________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?

1 yes.

_______________________________________________________________

For the appellant : Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant

Advocate General.

_______________________________________________________________

Per Rajiv Sharma, Judge:

This appeal has been instituted against Judgment dated

20.11.2015 rendered by learned Special Judge -II, Kangra at

Dharamshala, District Kangra (HP) in Session Case No. 15-

D/VII/2014, whereby appellant and another co-accused were

charged with and tried for offence under Sections 20 and 29 of

the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985

(hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for convenience sake). The

appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for

convenience sake) has been convicted and sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of `1.00

1

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2022 20:04:49 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 2

Lakh, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of two years for offence under Section

20 of the Act. Co-accused Gani Mohammad was acquitted of

offence under Section 29 of the Act.

2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on

8.1.2014 ASI Ajit Kumar, In charge, Police Post Kandwal was on

patrolling duty alongwith other police officers. He was checking

traffic at Pail Lodhwan. At about 4.40 pm a car No. PB-35B-

5642 came from Bhadroya side and was stopped. Surjeet Singh

and Suvinder Singh were sitting in the car and while the ir

documents were being checked, a silver coloured Maruti 800

Car No. HP-39A-1944 came from Kandwal side. Accused, Farid

Deen was driving the car. Car was stopped and its documents

were demanded. A bag was found lying under the driver seat

and on checking the bag in the presence of Surjeet Singh and

Suvinder Singh. Charas in the shape of sticks and balls was

found, which weighed 2.200 kgs. It was sealed in a cloth parcel

with 5 seals of ‘A’. Seal after use and obtaining specimen seal

was handed over to Surjeet Singh. Investigating Officer filled up

the NCB form. Charas was taken into possession in the

presence of witnesses. Investigating Officer thereafter prepared

Rukka and sent the same through HHC Naresh Kumar to Police

Station Nurpur for registration of case. FIR was registered at

Police Station Nurpur. Investigating Officer prepared spot map.

::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2022 20:04:49 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 3

Accused alongwith Charas was produced before SI Tilak Singh,

SHO PS Nurpur, who resealed the Charas with four seals of ‘K’

and filled up relevant columns of NCB form in triplicate and

deposited the Charas alongwith relevant documents with MHC,

Police Station, Nurpur. Contraband was sent for chemical

examination. Investigation was completed and Challan was put

up in the Court after completing all codal formalities.

3. Prosecution has examined as many as 20 witnesses

to prove its case against the accused. Accused was also

examined under Section 313 CrPC. He pleaded innocence.

Learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as

noticed herein above. Hence, this appeal.

4. Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate has vehemently

argued that the prosecution has failed to prove case against the

accused.

5. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General,

has supported the judgment dated 20.11.2015.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties

and also gone through the judgment and record carefully.

7. PW-1 Suvinder Singh deposed that the traffic Naka

was laid by police at Lodhwan. Their vehicle was stopped for

checking. Thereafter, they went from the spot. Nothing was

recovered from the accused in his presence. He did not

remember his statement was recorded by police and he has put

::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2022 20:04:49 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 4

his signatures. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by

the learned Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination, he has

admitted that on 8.1.2014, at about 5.40 pm, they were stopped

by the police for checking. Documents were demanded by the

police. These were checked. He did not remember car bearing

registration No. HP-39A-1944 came on the spot and it was

checked. He did not know whether one person was sitting in the

car. He did not know that bag was recovered from the car and

on opening the bag, Charas was found. He did not know car

driver told his name as Farid Deen. He did not know Charas

was weighed in his presence alongwith Surjeet Singh and it

weighed 2.200 kgs. He denied that contraband was sealed on

the spot and car alongwith accused was taken into possession

and sealed with seal impression ‘A’ and that the specimen of

seal impression was taken on a separate piece. He denied that

NCB form was filled at the spot. He admitted his signatures on

mark X alongwith signatures of Surjeet Singh. He also admitted

that mark A was related to recovery of Charas weighing 2.200

kgs alongwith Car No. HP-39A-1944 alongwith documents and

driving licence and key of the car. He also admitted his

signatures on specimen of seal impression mark A alongwith

signatures of Surjeet Singh. He admitted that parcel of Charas

bears his signatures alongwith signatures of Surjeet Singh. In

his cross-examination by the defence counsel, he has admitted

::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2022 20:04:49 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 5

his signatures alongwith signatures of Surje et Singh were

obtained by the police in the police post Kandwal. He signed on

the alleged parcel of Charas at the instance of the police

8. PW-2 Surjeet Singh deposed that traffic Naka was

laid at Lodhwan. Their vehicle was stopped for checking. One

bag was recovered from the car. He did not know what was in

the bag. His statement was not recorded by the police but his

signatures were obtained. He was declared hostile and cross-

examined by the learned Public Prosecutor . In his cross-

examination, he has admitted that on 8.1.2014, at about 5.40

pm, their vehicle was stopped for checking. In the meantime,

car bearing registration No. HP-39A-1944 came on the spot. It

was checked and bag was found in it. He admitted that a

person was sitting in it. He did not know car driver told his

name was Farid Deen. He did not know Charas was weighed in

his presence and Suvinder Singh and that it weighed 2.200 kgs.

He denied that contraband was sealed on the spot and car

alongwith documents was taken into possession and sealed

with seal impression ‘A’ and specimen impression of seal was

also taken on a separate piece of cloth. He denied that police

prepared NCB form at the spot. He admitted his signatures on

memo mark X alongwith signatures of Suvinder Singh and

accused. He denied that mark X was related to recover y of

Charas weighing 2.200 kgs alongwith car No. HP-39A-1944. He

::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2022 20:04:49 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 6

admitted his signatures no mark A and also of Suvinder Singh

and accused Farid Deen. He admitted that parcel of Charas

bears his signatures. He admitted that he puts his signatures

after reading and thinking. He denied that accused Farid Deen

put his signatures in their presence on the memo. He admitted

that PW-1 Suvinder Singh put his signatures in his presence.

He admitted that they put their signatures. He admitted that

they went from the spot and never met the police in the police

post. In his cross-examination by the defence counsel, he

admitted that he had put signatures over the memo and seal

sample at the instance of the police.

9. PW-3 Bhav Deen deposed that Gani Mohammad

never met him and nothing was handed over to Farid Deen by

Gani Mohammad in his presence. He was declared hostile and

cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He denied

that on 7.3.2014, at 6-7 pm, Gani Mohammad met him at

Bammota. He denied that Gani Mohammad asked him to

deliver one bag at Pathankot containing Charas. He denied that

police apprehended accused Farid Deen alongwith Charas. He

denied that statement under Section 164 CrPC was reco rded

before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nurpur. He did not

remember that any statement had been recorded before JMIC

on 9.4.2014. He admitted that there are two thumb impressions

of his on statement of Mark N. He denied that he stated before

::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2022 20:04:49 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 7

JMIC that accused asked him to deliver packet of Charas at

Pathankot and he refused to do so. He denied that on his

refusal, Gani Mohammad handed over Charas to driver of

Maruti Car, who was present in the Court. He admitted that on

Mark N there are thumb impression and signatures of

Magistrate at two places. Volunteered that he was illiterate. He

has put thumb impression at the instance of police. According

to him, he has not given correct statement before JMIC Nurpur.

In his cross-examination by the defence counsel, he deposed

that police has got recorded his statement Mark N by

pressurizing him before the Magistrate. He denied that he met

Gani Mohammad or that he has shown him bag containing

Charas. He denied that the bag was handed over to any driver

in his presence.

10. PW-4 Deen Mohd. deposed that he was Pradhan of

Gram Panchayat Shalela Bari. He did not know about the case.

Police usually met him. His statement was recorded by the

police in the case. He was declared hostile and cross-examined

by the learned Public Prosecutor. He denied that accused Farid

Deen gave statement before police regarding the spot where

Charas was handed to the driver of the vehicle. He admitted his

signatures on mark K. He did not know whether memo mark K

bears signatures of accused Farid Deen and Roshan. In his

cross-examination by the defence counsel, he admittd that he

::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2022 20:04:49 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 8

went to the police station for personal work and at the instance

of police he put his signatures on memo K.

11. PW-7 Roshan Deen deposed that he is an

agriculturist. He did not know anything about the case. Police

sought his signatures when he was present at Colony Mor

alongwith his wife on the way to Hospital. He was declared

hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor.

He denied that on 12.1.2014, he remained associated in police

investigation. He denied that accused Farid Deen disclosed in

his presence to the police and demarcated the place at Colony

Mor where he had taken 2.200 kgs Charas in his Maruti vehicle

for sale towards Kandwal Pathankot. He deni ed that police

prepared mark K. It was signed by him. He ad mitted his

signatures on mark K in red circle ‘A’. He denied that accused

Farid Deen has also appended his signatures on the memo. In

his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, he

deposed that he did not know anything about the case. He did

not know what was written by police. No identification memo

was prepared in his presence. He did not know Farid Deen

neither he saw him at the place where police had written in the

demarcation memo. Wrong identification memo was prepared

by the police without his knowledge. His signatures were

obtained from him at Colony Mor, when he was going to the

hospital.

::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2022 20:04:49 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 9

12. PW-8 HHC Naresh Kumar deposed that they were

checking traffic at Lodhwan. At about 5.40 pm, a car No. PB-

35B-5642 came from Bhadroya side which was signalled to

stop. In the meantime, another Maruti car bearing registration

No. HP-39A-1944 of silver colour came from Kandwal side and

it was signalled to stop. On checking, one bag was found under

the driver seat. On enquiry, driver disclosed his name as Farid

Deen. IO also conducted videography. Bag was checked by

Investigating Officer. It contained black coloured substance in

the shape of sticks and balls. It smelt like Charas. Investigating

Officer directed Bir Singh to bring weights and scale. Charas

weighed 2.200 kgs. Charas was sealed in a parcel and seal

impressions of ‘A’ five in number were affixed. Investigating

Officer prepared NCB form and specimen was taken on separate

cloth. Seal after use was handed over to Surjeet Singh.

Investigating Officer prepared Rukka and same was sent

through him to be delivered for registration of FIR. He delivered

the same and on the basis of same, FIR No. 6/14 dated

8.1.2014 was registered. Case property was produced while

recording examination-in-chief of the PW-8 HHC Naresh Kumar.

In his cross-examination by the defence counsel, he deposed

that the recovery memo Mark X was prepared thereafter by

Ajeet Kumar.

::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2022 20:04:49 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 10

13. PW-9 Bir Singh deposed the manner in which

vehicle was stopped. Charas was recovered. Rukka was

prepared and sent to the Police Station. NCB form was filled up.

Search, seizure and sampling proceedings were completed at

the spot.

14. PW-10 Rakashpal Singh deposed that on 8.1.2014,

SI SHO Tilak Raj deposited one sealed parcel of Charas sealed

with seal impression ‘A’ and ‘K’ alongwith reseal sample seal

and NCB form. He entered the same in register of Malkhana.

Parcel of Charas, NCB form and specimen impression etc. were

sent to the FSL for chemical examination through constable

Nasib Singh. He proved abstract of Malkhana Register Ext. PW-

10/A, copy of RC Ext. PW-10/B. In his cross-examination, he

has admitted that he has not brought Malkhana Register in the

Court.

15. PW-12 Constable Nasib Chand deposed that he took

the case property to FSL Junga.

16. PW-15 Tilak Singh deposed that on 8.1.2014, ASI

Ajeet Singh produced a parcel containing Charas weighing

2.200 kgs, which was sealed by him with 5 seal impressions of

seal ‘A’ alongwith NCB form for resealing. He resealed the parcel

with four seal impressions of ‘K’ in the presence of Rachpal

Singh. He prepared memo Ext. PW-15/A. He filled in NCB form

::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2022 20:04:49 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 11

and affixed seal impression ‘K’. Thereafter he sealed the parcel

and deposited the same with MHC Police Station, Nurpur.

17. PW-17 Ajeet Kumar also deposed the mann er in

which vehicle was stopped. Charas was recovered. Search,

seizure and sampling proceedings were completed at the spot.

He prepared Rukka Ext. PW-17/B and sent the same to Police

Station through HHC Naresh Kumar. FIR Ext. PW -16/A was

registered. He presented the parcel containing Charas, NCB

form to SI Tilak Raj for resealing the same. Parcel of Charas was

resealed by him. Thereafter accused Farid Deen was produced

in the court. Accused Farid Deen disclosed to the police that

Charas and Car No. HP-39A-1944 belonged to Gani Mohammad

On 12.1.2014, accused Farid Deen gave demarcation of the

place where Gani Mohammad handed over Charas to him. He

prepared memo Ext.PW-17/F. He also prepared Ext. PW-17/G

i.e. site plan. In his cross-examination by the defence counsel,

he categorically admitted that he did not know about the

destination of Suvinder Singh and Surjeet Singh. In his cross-

examination, he has admitted that in the site plan Ext PW-

17/G he has recorded in column No. 2 that other accused had

received the Charas at that place from unknown person. There

was no mention Ext PW -17/G that Charas was received by

Farid Deen from Gani Mohammad He could not say who

identified PW-4 Bhav Deen in the Court.

::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2022 20:04:49 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 12

18. Statement of Bhav Deen PW-4 was recorded by PW-

19 Sandip Sihag, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Manali. He

proved Ext. PW-19/A. He has admitted in his cross-examination

that in the statement Ext. PW-19/A, there was no warning that

he was not bound to make statement, though it was mentioned

in the zimni orders Ext. PW-19/B and also in the endorsement

appended to Ext. PW-19/A. He also admitted that in statement

Ext. PW-19/A, it is not recorded that the witness was identified

by IO who accompanied the witness before him. Volunteered

that after recording the statement, endorsement of the IO in

record to identification has been obtained overleaf Ext. PW-

19/A. He has also admitted that he has not explained the zimni

order to Bhav Deen in Hindi language.

19. PW-20 Sanjay Kumar deposed that he has a shop at

Damtal and owns car No. HP-39A-1944. He sold the car to one

Shri Sumeet Kumar son of Subash Chander. He denied that he

has sold the car to Gani Mohammad as per affidavit Mark-Z.

20. PW-1 Suvinder Singh and PW-2 Surjeet Singh, are

the independent witnesses. Both of them have not supp orted

the prosecution case. They were declared hostile and cross-

examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. According to PW-1

Suvinder Singh, nothing was recovered in his presence. He did

not remember that his statement was recorded by the police, on

which he put his signatures. In his cross-examination he

::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2022 20:04:49 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 13

specifically deposed that he did not remember Car No. HP-39A-

1944 came to the spot and was checked. He did not endorse

that the bag was recovered from the car and on opening bag, it

was found to contain Charas. He denied even filling of NCB

form on the spot. He has identified his signatures on the memo

mark X alongwith signatures of Surjeet. PW-2 Surjeet Singh has

also deposed that though one packet was recovered from the

bag but he did not know what was in the bag. In his cross-

examination he deposed that he did not know that bag was

recovered from car and on opening the bag, it was found

containing Charas. He identified the signatures on mark X. He

denied that the memo mark X was recorded and recovered

Charas weighed 2.200 kgs. According to the PW-1 Suvinder

Singh and PW-2 Surjeet Singh, they have put their signatures

on the seizure memo at the instance of the police. PW-3 Bhav

Deen has also not supported the case of the prosecution.

According to him, accused Gani Mohammed never met him and

nothing was handed over to Farid Deen by Gani Mohammed in

his presence. It belies the case of the prosecution that the

contraband was handed over to accused Farid Deen by Gani

Mohammed. He was also declared hostile and cross-examined

by the learned Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination by

the learned Public Prosecutor, he denied that Gani Mohammed

gave packet of Charas to accused Farid Deen to be delivered at

::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2022 20:04:49 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 14

Pathankot. PW-4 Deen Mohd. h as also not supported the

prosecution case. He was declared hostile and cross-examined

by the learned Public Prosecutor. He denied that accused Farid

Deen gave statement before the police regarding the spot where

Charas was handed over to the driver of the car. PW-7 Roshan

Deen has also not supported the case of the prosecution. He

was declared hostile. He also denied that accused Farid Deen

had disclosed in his presence to the police and demarcated the

place at Colony Mor, Tehsil Churah and that he had taken

2.200 kgs Charas in Maruti vehicle to sell the same towards

Kandwal, Pathankot. PW-17 ASI Ajeet Kumar has deposed in

his cross-examination that he did not know about the exact

destination of Suvinder and Surjeet. Statement of Bhav Deen

under Section 164 CrPC has not been recorde d in accordance

with law. PW-19, Sandip Sihag, Judicial Magistrate admitted

that in his statement Ext. PW-19/A, that there is nothing to

suggest that any warning was given to the maker of statement

that he was not bound to make the statement. He also admitted

that certificate Ext. PW-19/C was written by him after

recording the statement of witness. He also admitted that

warning to the maker of the statement was not written prior to

recording of statement Ext. PW-19/A. PW-20 Sanjay Kumar has

denied that he has sold the vehicle as per affidavit Mark Z to

Gani Mohammad son of Dhiana. He was also declared hostile.

::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2022 20:04:49 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 15

21. Case of the prosecution has not been supported by

the independent witnesses PW-1 Suvinder Singh, PW-2 Surjeet

Singh, PW-3 Bhav Deen, PW-4 Deen Mohd., PW-7 Roshan Deen

and PW-20 Sanjay Kumar. According to PW -1 Suvinder Singh

and PW-2 Surjeet, nothing was recovered in their presence.

Version of the prosecution that contraband was supplied to

accused Farid Deen by Gani Mohammad , has also not been

proved.

22. Case property was produced during the statement of

PW-8 HHC Naresh Kumar. Who has brought the case property

from Malkhana to the Court has not been examined. Entry in

the Malkhana register to the effect that who has taken the

property to the Court, is necessary as per Punjab Police Rules,

1934. Para 22.70 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable

to the State of H.P., reads as under:

“22.70. Register No. XIX- This register shall be

maintained in Form 22.70.

With the exception of articles already included in

register No. XVI every article placed in the store-

room shall be entered in this register and the

removal of any such article shall be noted in the

appropriate column.

The register may be destroyed three years after

the date of the last entry.”

The register is to be maintained in Form 22.70.

It reads as under.

“FORM NO. 22.70.

POLICE STATION_________

____DISTRICT

Register No. XIX. -Store-Room

Register (Part-I)

::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2022 20:04:49 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 16

Column 1.- Serial No.

2. No. of first information report (if any),

from whom taken (if taken from a person),

and from what place.

3. Date of deposit and name of depositor.

4. Description of property.

5. Reference to report asking for order

regarding disposal of property.

6. How disposed of and date.

7. Signature of recipient (including person by

whom dispatched).

8. Remarks.

(To be prepared on a quarter sheet of

native paper).”

23. It is necessary that as and when case property is

taken out from Malkhana, necessary entry is required to be

made in the Malkhana Register and also at the time when case

property is redeposited in the Malkhana. Case property in NDPS

cases is required to be kept in safe custody from the date of

seizure till its production in the Court. It is also necessary that

when case property is taken out from Malkhana, DDR is made

and also at the time when case property is redeposited in the

Malkhana. Thus, it casts doubt whether it is the same case

property which was recovered from the accused and sent to FSL

or it was case property of some other case.

24. Sub-rule (2) Rule 22.18 of Punjab Police Rules,

reads as under:

(2) All case property and unclaimed property, other than

cattle, of which the police have taken possession shall, if

capable of being so treated, be kept in the store-room.

Otherwise the officer in charge of the police station shall

make other suitable arrangements for its safe custody until

such time as it can be dealt with under sub-rule (1) above.

::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2022 20:04:49 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 17

Each article shall be entered in the store-room register and

labelled. The label shall contain a reference to the entry in

the store-room register and a description of the article itself

and, in the case of articles of case property, a reference to

the case number. If several articles are contained in a

parcel, a detail of the articles shall be given on the label

and in the store-room register.

The officer in charge of the police station shall examine

Government and other property in the store-room at least

twice a month and shall make an entry in the station diary

on the Money following the examination to the effect that

he has done so.

25. Rule 27.18 of Punjab Police Rules, reads as under:

27.18. Safe custody of property.-

(1) Weapons, articles and property sent in connection with

cases shall on receipt be entered in register No. 1 and shall

(excluding livestock) be properly stored in the store-room of

the head of the prosecuting agency, or the police station.

See Rule 22.18. When required for production in court

such articles shall, at headquarters, be taken out in the

presence and under the personal order of an officer of rank

not less than prosecuting sub-inspector and an entry made

in the register of issue from and return to the prosecuting

agency’s store-room, which register shall be maintained in

Form 27.18(1).

Animals sent in connection with cases shall be kept

in the pound attached to the police station at the

place to which they have been sent, and the cost of

their keep shall be recovered from the District

Magistrate in accordance with Rule 25.48.

(2) In all cases in which the property consists of bullion,

cash, negotiable securities, currency notes or jewellery,

exceeding in value Rs. 500 the Superintendent shall obtain

the permission of the District Magistrate, Additional

District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Officer to make it over

to the Treasury Officer for safe custody in the treasury.

(3) All cash, jewellery and other valuable property of small

bulk, which is not required under sub-rule (2) above to be

sent to the treasury, shall be kept in a locked strong box in

the store-room. Each court orderly shall be provided with a

strong lock-up box in which he shall keep all case property

while it is in his custody in the court to which he is

attached. Case property shall invariably be kept locked-up

in such box except when it is actually produced as an

exhibit in the course of proceedings. After being so

produced it shall be immediately replaced in the lock-up

::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2022 20:04:49 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 18

box. Boxes shall be provided from funds at the disposal of

the District Magistrate.

(4) Property taken out of the main store -room for

production in court shall be signed for by the court orderly

concerned in register No. 2 and the prosecuting officer

authorizing the removal shall initial this entry. Such

officer shall similarly, after personal check, initial the entry

of return of the property to the main store-room on the

closing of the courts.

(5) Every day, when the courts close, an officer of the

prosecuting branch of rank not less that of sub-inspector

shall personally see that the articles produced in court are

returned to the store-room, restored to their proper places

in the shelves, cup-boards or strong box and registered as

required by sub-rule (4) above. The opening of the

storeroom in the morning and its closing in the evening

shall invariably be in the presence of the police officials

named in this rule. Animals brought from the pound shall

be repounded under the supervision of a head constable.

26. Thus, it is evident from rule 22.18 that the case

property is required to be kept in store room and each article is

to be entered in store room, registered and labelled and label

shall contain a reference to the entry in the store-room register

and a description of the article itself and, in the case of articles

of case property, a reference to the case number. If several

articles are contained in a parcel, a detail of the articles is

required to be given on the label and in the store-room register.

Similarly, it is provided in Rule 27.18 that Weapons, articles

and property sent in connection with cases shall on receipt be

entered in register No. 1 and shall (excluding livestock) be

properly stored in the store-room of the head of the prosecuting

agency, or the police station. The case property when required

for production in court such articles shall, at headquarters, be

::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2022 20:04:49 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 19

taken out in the presence and under the personal order of an

officer of rank not less than prosecuting sub-inspector (now

APP/PP) and an entry made in the register of issue from and

return to the prosecuting agency’s store-room, which register

shall be maintained in Form 27.18(1). Property taken out of the

main store-room for production in court is required to be signed

for by the court orderly concerned in register No. 2 and the

prosecuting officer authorizing the removal shall initial this

entry. Such officer similarly, after personal check, is required to

initial the entry of return of the property to the main store-room

on the closing of the courts. It is further provided in this Rule

that every day, when the courts close, an officer of the

prosecuting branch of rank not less that of sub-inspector shall

personally see that the articles produced in court are returned

to the store-room, restored to their proper places in the shelves,

cup-boards or strong box and registered as required by sub-rule

(4) above. The opening of the storeroom in the morning and its

closing in the evening shall invariably be in the presence of the

police officials named in this rule. In case property is required

to be committed to the higher Court, then under Rule 27.19,

the parcel shall be sealed with the seal of the court and made

over to the head of the police prosecuting agency, who shall

produce it with unbroken seals before the superior court, or, if

::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2022 20:04:49 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 20

so ordered by competent authority, shall make it over to some

other officer authorized so to produce it.

27. In this case, there is nothing on record to suggest

that these Rules were followed while producing case property in

the Court and on returning the same. These Rules have been

framed to ensure that case property from its initial stage of

seizure till production in the Court remains safe/intact and is

restored to store room in the presence of senior police officer.

Property taken out of the main store-room for production in

court is required to be signed by the court orderly concerned in

register No. 2 and the prosecuting officer authorizing the

removal is required to initial this entry. Such officer shall

similarly, after personal check, initial the entry of return of the

property to the main store-room on the closing of the courts.

28. The prosecution has failed to prove case against the

accused under Section 20 of the Act.

29. In view of the discussion and analysis made herein

above, the appeal is allowed. Judgment dated 20.11.2015

rendered by learned Special Judge-II, Kangra at Dharamshala,

District Kangra (HP) in Session Case No. 15-D/VII/2014 is set

aside. Accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 20 of

the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He is

ordered to be released forthwith, if not required by the police in

any other case. Fine amount, if any, paid by the accused, be

::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2022 20:04:49 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 21

also refunded to him. Registry is directed to prepare and send

the release warrant of the accused to the Superintendent of Jail

concerted, forthwith.

(Rajiv Sharma)

Judge

(Sureshwar Thakur)

Judge

January 4, 2016

(vikrant)

::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2022 20:04:49 :::CIS