Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 45 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Vajinder Pal

2013-01-08

DEEPAK GUPTA, KULDIP SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 31.5.2007 in Sessions Case No. 5 of 2005 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Una , whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’). 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 12.4.2004, around 4.30 p.m. when constable Ranjit Singh was present at a bridge known as Swan Pul in Santokhgarh village, he received secret information that accused was engaged in the sale of poppy husk. He was also informed that in case the accused is apprehended near Holli Pul in Santokhgarh village, huge quantity of contraband could be recovered. Constable Ranjit Singh came across a police party headed by ASI Darsha n Singh and informed him about the secret information received by him. The statement of Ranjit Singh was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and sent the same for registration of a case to Police Station, Una through constable Jaswinder Singh. The raiding party was formed and two independent witnesses namely Rajesh Kumar and Balbir Chand were associated with the raiding party which then proceeded towards guava orchard where the accused was found sitting beside a gunny bag. The gunny bag was searched and poppy husk was found. On weighment the poppy husk was found to be 19 kg. 500 grams. Two samples of 250 grams each were drawn and thereafter two samples and remaining bulk poppy husk were packed in three separate parcels and sealed with seal bearing impression “D”. The seal impression was taken on two pieces of clothes. The accused was arrested. Thereafter the case property as well as accused were produced before Station House Officer, Police Station, Una . The SHO resealed the case property i.e. three parcels, one poppy husk and two of the sample parcels with seal bearing impression ‘N’. The other codal formalities were completed. Thereafter one parcel was sent for chemical examiner. We need not go into other aspects of the matter since the main question raised by Mr. The SHO resealed the case property i.e. three parcels, one poppy husk and two of the sample parcels with seal bearing impression ‘N’. The other codal formalities were completed. Thereafter one parcel was sent for chemical examiner. We need not go into other aspects of the matter since the main question raised by Mr. Vinay Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent-accused is that substance found in the possession of the accused cannot be said to be poppy straw within the meaning of the ‘N.D.P.S. Act’ as the report of the Chemical Examiner is incomplete, which does not lead to the inference that what was recovered was opium poppy within the meaning of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused has drawn our attention to the definition of the term ‘poppy straw’ in Section 2(xviii), which reads as under: “(xviii) ”Poppy straw” means all parts (except the seeds) of the opium poppy after harvesting whether in their original form or cut, crushed or powdered and whether or not juice has been extracted therefrom.” 5. According to the decision of the Apex Court in Ajaib Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2000 CRI. L.J. 2270, the term ‘poppy husk’ falls within term ‘poppy straw’ as defined in the Act. Thus, what was recovered from the possession of the appellant can be said to be poppy straw within the meaning of the definition given above. However, the mere use of the word ‘poppy straw’ does not lead to the inference that it was the part of opium poppy within the meaning of the Act. The term ‘opium poppy’ as defined in Section 2(xvii) reads as under:- “(xvii) “Opium poppy” means – (a) the plant of the species Papaver somniferum L; and (b) the plant of any other species of Papaver from which opium or any phenanthrene alkaloid can be extracted and which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be opium poppy for the purposes of this Act.” 6. All these terms were duly interpreted by a Decision Bench of this Court in Rajiv Kumar alias Guglu Vs. State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 247. In that case, the Division Bench of this Court had even felt the necessity of summoning the Chemical Examiner and after referring to the statement of the Chemical Examiner and his report, the Division Bench had observed as under:- “8. State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 247. In that case, the Division Bench of this Court had even felt the necessity of summoning the Chemical Examiner and after referring to the statement of the Chemical Examiner and his report, the Division Bench had observed as under:- “8. From the definition of poppy straw, as reproduced hereinabove, it is clear that to understand the meaning of poppy straw, it is essential to refer to the meaning of opium poppy. Poppy straw, when read alongwith the definition of opium poppy, means (a) all parts (excepts seeds) of the plant of the species of papaver somniferum-L and all parts (excepts seeds) of the plant of any other species of papaver from which opium or any other phenanthrene alkaloid can be extracted and which the Central Government may by notification in the official gazette declare to the opium poppy for the purpose of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 9. In the present case, as is clear from the statement of the Chemical Examiner, recorded by us, the two tests conducted by him to ascertain whether the stuff contained meconic acid and morphine, do not indicate that the stuff examined consisted of the parts of either the plant of the species of papaver somniferum-L or a plant of any other species of papaver from which opium or any other phenanthrene alkaloid can be extracted and which the Central Government may have notified to be the opium poppy for the purposes of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. If it is so, the report of the Chemical Examiner, Ex.PW -10/L, that the stuff contains contents of poppy husk, which term is similar to the term “poppy straw” cannot be used as enough evidence to hold that the stuff recovered from the appellant, the sample of which was analyzed by the Chemical Examiner, was poppy straw.” 7. The Division Bench while coming to the aforesaid view has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot Versus State of Gujarat, (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 550. 8. The Division Bench while coming to the aforesaid view has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot Versus State of Gujarat, (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 550. 8. From a bare perusal of the definition of opium poppy and the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in Rajiv Kumar’s case supra, it is apparent that the prosecution must prove that the parts of the plant recovered belonged to the plant of the species of papaver somniferum-L or the plant of any other species of papaver from which opium or phenanthrene alkaloid can be extracted and which plant has been duly notified by the Central Government. 9. In the present case, the relevant portion of the Chemical Examiner reads as follows:- Qualitative Tests (a) Meconic Acid = Positive (b) Morphine = Positive 10. It is, therefore, clear that the Chemical Examiner only found that the tests for meconic acid and morphine were positive. The Chemical Examiner has not given any opinion as to whether the parts of the plant belonged to papaver somniferum-L or not. In this case, we are not inclined to call the expert and seek his opinion since the report is identical to the report in Rajiv Kumar’s case supra. There is no mention in the report of the Chemical Examiner as to whether he conducted any test to determine the species of the plant. As such, this report is not binding. 11. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the report submitted by the Chemical Examiner does not prove that the contents of the sample tested were that of poppy husk within the meaning of the Act and the accused was not liable to be convicted. Once we have held that the report of the Chemical Examiner was not sufficient to prove that the contents were not of poppy husk, we are not inclined to refer to the other pleas raised. 12. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds are discharged.