JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. On the request, asking and consent, the appeal is taken up for hearing. 2. Assailing the judgment dated 1.12.2012, passed by the learned Special Judge, Kullu, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. RBT 67/12 (36 of 2011), titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Lal Singh, whereby respondent-accused stands acquitted of the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), in relation to F.I.R. No. 110 of 2011, dated 28.5.2011, registered at Police Station Sadar, Kullu, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.5.2011, at about 8.05 a.m. at place Suma Chalon Forest near Suma Ropa, the police party apprehended the accused and recovered 300 grams of charas from his possession. The case property was sealed with seal impression-O. Case property was sent for chemical examination, which was deposited at FSL, Junga, on 30.5.2011. As per the Chemical Examiner’s report (Ext. PW-8/B) the contraband stuff was opined to be charas. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 4. 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. 5. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as nine 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. Accused has also examined one witness in defence. 6. After trial, the accused stands acquitted. Hence, the present appeal. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant/State and perused the record, we are of the considered view that in the instant case no ground for interference is made out. 8. Learned counsel has fairly pointed out that the report of Chemical Examiner (Ext. PW-8/B) is not in accordance with law and does not analyze the contraband in terms of the Act, as required for conviction. 9. The Chemical Examiner vide report (Ext. PW-8/B) has opined that chemical tests and chromatographic analysis indicated the presence of cannabinols including tetrahydrocannabinols. 8. Learned counsel has fairly pointed out that the report of Chemical Examiner (Ext. PW-8/B) is not in accordance with law and does not analyze the contraband in terms of the Act, as required for conviction. 9. The Chemical Examiner vide report (Ext. PW-8/B) has opined that chemical tests and chromatographic analysis indicated the presence of cannabinols including tetrahydrocannabinols. On microscopic examination cystolithic hair were found present and resin was found to be 40.08% 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 are only of cannabis plant; concentrated preparation and the resin known as hashish oil or liquor hashish. 10. This matter is no more res-integraand is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in Sunil Kumar vs. State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2010(HP) 207,wherein it has been held as under : “29. As noticed hereinabove, the only tests, which were conducted by the Experts, were to find out tetrahydrocannabinol or cystolithic hair. They found tetrahydrocannabinol but did not indicate in their reports the percentage thereof. While in the witness-box also, the Experts did not say what was the percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol in the samples. Specific category of a cannabis product, like Charas, Ganja, or mixture, as defined in Section 2 (iii) of the Act, or anything else, like Bhang etc., can also be determined, with reference to the percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol in the stuff. As noticed hereinabove, percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol varies from one product to other product of cannabis. 30. According to Parikh’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology in the case of Bhang it is 15 per cent, in the case of Ganja it is about 25 per cent and in the case of Charas it is between 25 and 40 percent. When the percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol in the sample stuff is not indicated in the report nor had any test been conducted to ascertain whether the stuff was Charas, that is to say resin, or some other preparation of cannabis, it cannot be said that the stuff was in fact Charas. As regards cystolithic hair, these being the fibre of cannabis plant, are bound to be present in all the products of cannabis. As regards cystolithic hair, these being the fibre of cannabis plant, are bound to be present in all the products of cannabis. It is quite likely that the samples were only of Bhang, i.e. the tried leaves of cannabis plant, which is also supposed to contain 15 per cent concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol. Possession of only the leaves or the seeds of cannabis plant is no offence, because it is only the Charas, Ganja or mixture as defined in Section 2 (iii) of the Act, which is an offence, under Section 20 of the Act. Leaves and seeds of cannabis plant are not included either in the definition of Charas or Ganja and are rather specifically excluded from the definition of Ganja, unless accompany the flowering and fruiting tops of the plant. 31. In view of the above stated position, we hold that Experts’ reports in none of these six cases prove that the stuff recovered from the appellants/accused was Charas. The possibility of the stuff recovered from them being only Bhang, i.e. the tried leaves of cannabis plant, possession of which is no offence, cannot be ruled out.” 11. Subsequently, in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 2007, titled Sher Singh vs. State of H.P. this Court held as under : “18. The sample, in the instant case has been examined on 18.2.2005. The chemical examiner had conducted two qualitative and quantitative tests, i.e., one was microscopic examination which discloses presence of cystholithic hair and on beams alkaline was found positive. It also contained resin to the extent of 31.89% w.w. and on the basis of this chemical examination, the examiner was of the opinion that the exhibit contained the content of charas, meaning thereby that the entire stuff was not charas but it had contents of charas. The prosecution was able to prove that it was charas. We shall have to fall back to the statutory definition of charas. 19. ‘Charas’ is one of the three form of cannabis (hemp), as defined in Section 2(iii) of the Act, which reads as follows : ““(a) “charas”, that 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.” 5. 19. ‘Charas’ is one of the three form of cannabis (hemp), as defined in Section 2(iii) of the Act, which reads as follows : ““(a) “charas”, that 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.” 5. According to the definition of “charas”, as given in Section 2(iii) (a) of the Act, the stuff to fall in the category of charas, should be resin of cannabis plant only or the concentrated preparation and resin known as hashish oil or liquid hashish. In other words, the definition does not include other parts, like flowering and fruiting tops, leaves or stem, of cannabis plant. 6. Flowering and fruiting tops of cannabis plant have been defined to meant ganja, per Section 2(iii) (b) of the Act and when seeds and leaves of the plant accompany such flowering or fruiting tops, they also form part of ganja. 7. When charas, i.e. resin and/or ganja, i.e. flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, mixed, with or without any neutral material, they fall in the category of Mixture of cannabis (hemp), as defined in Section 2(iii) (c) of the Act. 8. Being in possession of cannabis (hemp) is an offence, punishable under Section 20 of the Act. Punishment varies according to the quantity possessed. Quantities are defined as small and commercial in sections 2(viia) and 2(xxiiia), respectively. Small and commercial quantities of charas, ganja and mixture are different, per Table notified by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, vide notification No. S.O. 527 (E), dated 16th July, 1996, under clauses vii(a) and xxiii(a) of Section 2 of the Act. For charas and hashish, which are referred to as extracts and tinctures of cannabis plant in entry No. 23, small quantity is less than 100 grams and commercial quantity is above 1 kg. In respect of ganja, small quantity is less than 1000 grams and commercial quantity is more than 20 kgs, per entry 55.” 20. For charas and hashish, which are referred to as extracts and tinctures of cannabis plant in entry No. 23, small quantity is less than 100 grams and commercial quantity is above 1 kg. In respect of ganja, small quantity is less than 1000 grams and commercial quantity is more than 20 kgs, per entry 55.” 20. In the instant case from the stuff recovered, one of sample parcels was sent for examination to CTL Kandaghat, report whereof does not show the presence of characteristic cystholithic hair nor it has been mentioned whether the resin found in the said sample was that of cannabis plant so as to bring it within the definition of charas referred to above. It also does not depict the presence of cannoniboils/tetrahydrocannabinol. In other words the report of chemical examiner did not say any thing about the source of resin. Therefore, in our considered opinion, report of the analysis Ext. PW10/F is discrepant and does not conform to the definition of charas as such the conviction and sentence passed against the accused is liable to be set aside.” and again followed in Chamaru Ram vs. State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2012 (HP) 52. 12. In similar facts and circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 391 of 2002, titled as State of H.P. versus Subhash Sharma @ Bhasi, vide judgment dated 19.9.2011 has taken a view that the contraband recovered cannot be said to be charas for the reasons indicated in paragraphs No.15 & 16 of the aforesaid judgment. 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. 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.” 13. In view of the law settled in decisions (supra), in the present case also the stuff recovered from the accused cannot be said to be charas. As such, in our considered view, prosecution cannot be said to have brought home the guilt of the accused. This appeal, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, furnished by the respondent, are hereby discharged. Appeal stands disposed of, as also pending application(s), if any.