Judgment : SANJAY KAROL, J. - 1. The case has been heard today with the request and consent of the parties. Assailing the judgment dated 19.3.2013, passed by the learned Special Judge, Kullu, in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2011 (RBT No. 98 of 2012), titled as State vs. Hem Bhadur @ Hem Raj, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for six months, the accused has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 36-B of the NDPS Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24.2.2011, at about 9.00 a.m. at Cheer Mour near Sarsadi, the police party apprehended the accused and recovered two kilograms of charas from his possession. The recovered charas was sealed with seal impression-H and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW 6/B. The recovered Charas alongwith the NCB form and specimen seal were sent for chemical examination which were deposited at State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, H.P. on 26.2.2011. As per the Chemical Examiner's report (Ext. PA) the contraband stuff was opined to be charas. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he pleaded false implication. 4. After trial, the accused stands convicted of the charged offence, inter alia, on the ground that the prosecution was able to establish its case that the accused was carrying contraband substance i.e. charas which was two kilograms, and sentenced, as aforesaid. The Chemical Examiner vide report (Ext. 4. After trial, the accused stands convicted of the charged offence, inter alia, on the ground that the prosecution was able to establish its case that the accused was carrying contraband substance i.e. charas which was two kilograms, and sentenced, as aforesaid. The Chemical Examiner vide report (Ext. PA) has opined that chemical tests and chromatographic analysis indicated the presence of cannabinoids including tetrahydrocannabinol and on microscopic examination cystolithic hair were found present. Resin quantity was found to be 36.30% w/w. As such, the Chemical Examiner has opined that the contraband substance so recovered was charas. It does not specifically state that the contents of resin is only of cannabis plant; concentrated preparation and the resin known as hashish oil or liquor hashish. 5. In the instant case, in our considered view, interference is warranted, keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 391 of 2002, titled as State of H.P. vs. Subhash Sharma @ Bhasi, decided on 19.9.2011. The relevant paragraphs No.15 & 16 of which read as under:- "15. ......... The cystholithic hair is a fiber which could also be found in flowering tops of the cannabis plant, but the definition of charas does not include other parts like flowering and fruiting tops, leaves or stem. The definition of charas is given in Section 2 (iii) (a) of the Act. Charas, is, the separated resin, in whatever form, whether crude or purified, obtained from the cannabis plant and also includes concentrated preparation and resin known as hashish oil or liquid hashish. Since it does not make any mention whether this resin was of a cannabis plant. Therefore, in our opinion the report of analysis is discrepant. The Division Bench of this Court in which one of us (Surinder Singh, J) was also one of the Members Sunil Kumar versus State Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) 207 examined almost similar reports in a Bunch matters and taking note of the aforesaid definition of charas under the Act viz-a-viz the statement of the Experts recorded during the trial as well as before this Court, held that charas should be resin of cannabis plant only or the concentrated preparation and resin known as hashish oil or liquid hashish. Thus, in absence of the fact that it was also that of a cannabis plant, result of analysis cannot be said to have in conformity with the definition of charas. As such the accused persons were given the benefit of doubt and were accordingly acquitted. 16. In the instant case, as already stated above, firstly the sample so analyzed by the laboratory could not be connected with the recovered stuff and secondly report of the analysis is falling short of requisite parameters to be in conformity with the definition of charas. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the acquittal of the respondent cannot be interfered with. As such the appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed." 6. In view of the observations made by this Court in Subhash Sharma @ Bhasi's case (supra) and in view of the Chemical Examiner's report, we are of the considered view that the contraband substance so recovered in the present case cannot be said to be charas. As such, benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. Thus, on this short ground alone, the present appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charged offence. Fine amount, if deposited, be refunded to the accused. Accused be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Release warrants be prepared and issued accordingly. Appeal stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.