Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P vs Laxmi on 3 January, 2024
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No. 2825 of 2023
.
Date of decision: 03.01.2024.
State of H.P. ...Applicant.
Versus
Laxmi ...Respondent
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
of
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the applicant
rt : Mr. I. N. Mehta, Sr. Additional
Advocate General, with Ms. Sharmila
Patial, Mr. Navlesh Verma, Addl. A.Gs
and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Deputy Advocate
General.
For the respondent : Nemo.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral)
The contents of the application are duly
supported by the affidavit sworn by the Principal Secretary
(Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. We are
satisfied that the reasons for delay in filing the petition for
leave to appeal are bonafide. Accordingly, the application
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
is allowed for the reasons stated therein. Application is
disposed of.
.
2. Leave to appeal be registered.
Cr.M.P.(M) No. 34 of 2024.
3. By way of instant petition, leave has been sought
by the State of Himachal Pradesh to assail the judgment of
of
acquittal dated 04.03.2022, passed by learned Special
rt
Judge-III, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in Sessions Trial
No. 4ASJ-II/7 of 2017.
4. We have perused the record.
5. The respondent was booked for commission of
offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, "ND&PS
Act") vide FIR Ext. PW-5/A registered on 21.9.2016 at
Police Station, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. It was
alleged that the police officials of Special Investigation
Unit (SIU), Solan were on routine patrol duty. At about
5.00 P.M., HC Rajesh Kanwar, one of the members of
the patrol party, received a secret information that one
Nepali lady named Laxmi, who was running a tea stall
near Mehta Filling Station, Dolag was indulging in illicit
.
trade of Charas and in case her tea stall was searched
immediately, huge quantity of Charas could be
recovered. HC Rajesh Kanwar reduced into writing the
of
secret information and on recording satisfaction as
required under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, forwarded
rt
the same to Supervisory Officer, SIU, Solan through HC
Balbir Singh.
6. Thereafter, the independent witnesses namely
Ramesh Mehta and Sharda Shandil were associated. In
their presence, the search was conducted in the tea
shop of respondent and 142 grams of Charas and one
electronic weighing scale was recovered from tin box
kept behind the counter of the shop. The contraband
was seized. The "rukka" was prepared on the basis of
which, FIR Ext.PW-5/A was registered. The respondent
was formally arrested. The respondent alongwith seized
contraband and collected evidence was forwarded to
SHO, Police Station, Kandaghat, who conducted the re-
.
sealing proceedings and deposited the recovered
contraband alongwith the connecting evidence in the
Malkhana of the Police Station.
of
7. The entire bulk of Charas was sent to SFSL,
Junga for chemical analysis and as per the laboratory
rt
report, the substance was confirmed to be the sample of
Charas.
8. The challan was presented against the
respondent. After trial, the respondent has been
acquitted by learned trial Court by not finding the
prosecution evidence to be convincing, reliable and
cogent enough to meet the required standard of proof.
9. The record reveals that both the independent
witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution.
Though, in their cross-examination on behalf of the
Public Prosecutor, certain admissions were made by
them, nonetheless various discrepancies and
contradictions have emerged from depositions made by
.
both the independent witnesses. Learned trial Court
having taken notice of such discrepancies and
contradictions, has given the benefit to the respondent.
of
10. In addition, learned trial Court has also not
found the statements of police witnesses to be
rt
convincing. It has also been noticed by the learned trial
Court that the exclusive possession of the respondent
over the recovered contraband was not established as
the factum of another person working in the tea shop as
also the husband of respondent also being involved in
the business in the same shop had emerged on record.
Learned trial Court has also doubted the prosecution
witnesses as they had not been consistent with respect
to the identity of the tea shop allegedly being run by the
respondent.
11. After going through the record, we have found
the view taken by learned trial Court to be a possible
.
one. The findings recorded by learned trial Court to
doubt the prosecution story are borne from the material
on record.
of
12. The independent witnesses associated by the
Investigating Officer have made depositions which are
rt
contradictory and inconsistent with the prosecution
case. Both the independent witnesses have
substantially differed not only from the prosecution case
but from each other also. This is a valid reason for
doubting the prosecution story.
13. The prosecution has also relied upon one
document Ext. PW-1/C, i.e. a certificate issued by PW-
1 wherein the tea stall in question was said to have been
leased out by said witness to respondent and her
husband named Jeet Bahadur. While being cross-
examined, this witness had also stated that another
person was also working in the same tea shop. Thus,
exclusive domain of the respondent was not established
.
either over the shop or the tin box from which the
contraband was recovered. There is no corroborative
evidence to prove the charge against the respondent.
of
14. In Chandrappa and others vs. State of
Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415, State of Rajasthan vs.
rt
Kistoora Ram, 2022 SCC Online SC 984 and Ravi
Sharma vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and
another (2022) 8 SCC 536, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has provided a clear exposition as to scope of
interference in an appeal against acquittal. The same
has been held to be limited. As per the aforesaid
exposition, unless it is found that the view taken by the
trial Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible
for the Appellate Court to interfere with the findings of
acquittal. It has also been held that if two views are
possible, it is not permissible to set-aside an order of
acquittal merely because the Appellate Court finds the
way of conviction to be more probable.
.
15. As noticed above, the view taken by learned
trial Court is possible one and we have found no
material on the basis of which such view can be said to
of
be perverse.
16. Accordingly, we find no merit in the petition
rt
and leave to appeal is declined. The petition stands
disposed of.
17. Before parting, we place it on record that we
are not at all satisfied the way learned trial Court has
made reference to certain judgments passed by this
Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court. Noticeably, learned
trial Court has made reference only to the Head Notes
provided in the Journal reporting the judgments and
nowhere the facts or ratio of the judgments has been
stated or discussed. This, evidently is not the correct
way of citing or relying upon a judicial precedent. We,
therefore, direct the Registrar General of this Court to
circulate a copy of this judgment to all the Judicial
.
Officers in the State.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
of
(Satyen Vaidya)
3rd January, 2024 Judge
(GR)
rt
