Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Present appeal is filed against the judgment .

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court Kangra at Dharamsala in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2007 titled State of H.P. Vs. Pardeep Kumar.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE:

2. Brief facts of the case as alleged by prosecution are that on dated 24.9.2006 at about 6 PM when police officials Police Station Dharamshala were on patrolling duty at place Sukkar they intercepted scooter No. HPK-6101 driven by accused and after conducting search of scooter 432 capsules of spasmo proxyvon were found. It is alleged by prosecution that sample of capsules took and thereafter sample parcels and remaining bulk quantity were sealed in parcel. It is alleged by prosecution that rukka Ext PW8/E was sent to Police Station on the basis of which FIR Ext PW8/F was registered. It is alleged by prosecution that on the receipt of rukka rapat No.10 was also recorded. It is alleged by prosecution that site plan Ext PW12/D was prepared at the spot by Investigating Officer. It is alleged by prosecution that NCB form Ext PW12/B was prepared in triplicate. It is alleged by prosecution that sample was again resealed in police station by Incharge Police Station Dharamshala. It is alleged .

8. Point for determination in the present appeal is whether learned trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties and caused miscarriage of justice to the appellant as alleged in .

memorandum of grounds of appeal.

ORAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION:

9 PW1 Rajesh Sharma has stated that on dated 24.9.2006 he along with Kapil Dev were proceeding on scooter towards Kangra on Sukkar road. He has stated that police officials were standing on the road. He has stated that police officials stopped his scooter. He has stated that they were called by police officials. He has stated that some people were already present at the spot. He has stated that accused present in Court was also present at the spot. He has stated that they were told that something was recovered from accused. He has stated that they were directed to place their signatures and thereafter they left the spot. Witness was declared hostile. He has denied suggestion that scooter was plied by accused. He denied suggestion that accused tried to run away from the spot when he saw police officials. He denied suggestion that 18 strips of capsules of spasmo proxyvon were recovered. He denied suggestion that Drug Inspector Navneet Marwah was called by telephonically. He denied suggestion that police officials had demanded license from accused. He denied suggestion that two strips of .

suggestion that scooter was took into possession and accused was arrested. He denied suggestion that he resiled from his earlier statement in order to save the accused.

9.10. PW11 Navneet Marwaha has stated that since May 1995 he was working as Drug Inspector at Dharamshala.

He has stated that on dated 24.9.2006 he was called at Police Station Dharamshala and he reached there at about 6.45 PM.

He has stated that accused present in Court was also with police officials. He has stated that he shown some capsules of Spasmo proxyvon. He has stated that such drug could be purchased only from the chemist on the prescription of registered medical practitioner. He has stated that each capsules contained 100 mg of proxyvon. He has stated that capsules have not been shown to him in Court. He has denied suggestion that he was called to Police Station and all proceedings were took in Police Station. He has stated that he asked the accused from where he acquired the capsules but accused did not provide any information.

Testimony of PW1 Rajesh Sharma is fatal to prosecution.

10. It is the case of prosecution that 432 capsules of spasmo proxyvon recovered from exclusive possession of accused in the presence of PW1 Rajesh Sharma. PW1 has stated that scooter No. HP-6101 did not come from the side of Sukkar. PW1 Rajesh Sharma has stated in positive manner .

that accused did not try to run away from the spot when accused saw police officials. He has denied suggestion that 18 strips of capsules of Spasmo proxyvon recovered from accused. PW1 has stated in positive manner that Drug Inspector was not called at the spot. PW1 has stated in positive manner that sample parcels and other remaining bulk parcels were not sealed. We are of the opinion that above stated testimony of PW1 Rajesh Sharma is fatal to prosecution case.