Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Hardev Singh and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Decided On : Feb-25-2013
Court : Himachal Pradesh
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Hardev Singh and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 15', (int) 1 => 'Section 154 Cr', (int) 2 => 'Section 15 of the Act', (int) 3 => 'the Motor Vehicles Act', (int) 4 => 'Section 313', (int) 5 => 'Section 15 of the Act', (int) 6 => 'Section 2(xviii' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Surinder Singh', (int) 1 => 'Constable Ghanshyam', (int) 2 => 'Bhambla', (int) 3 => 'Mandi', (int) 4 => 'Baldev Singh', (int) 5 => 'Jahu', (int) 6 => 'Constable Ghanshyam', (int) 7 => 'Surjit', (int) 8 => 'Hardev', (int) 9 => 'Constable Ghanshyam', (int) 10 => 'Constable Ghanshyam', (int) 11 => 'Husk', (int) 12 => 'Ghansyam Ext', (int) 13 => 'âH.', (int) 14 => 'Shri Surat Ram', (int) 15 => 'Baldev Singh', (int) 16 => 'Accused Baldev Singh', (int) 17 => 'Constable Ghanshyam', (int) 18 => 'Baldev Singh', (int) 19 => 'Husk', (int) 20 => 'Report Ext', (int) 21 => 'Gazette', (int) 22 => 'Rajiv Kumar', (int) 23 => 'LC168' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '2.', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '3', (int) 3 => 'maruti', (int) 4 => 'maruti', (int) 5 => 'maruti', (int) 6 => 'two', (int) 7 => 'one', (int) 8 => 'three', (int) 9 => '4.', (int) 10 => 'three', (int) 11 => '5.', (int) 12 => '6.', (int) 13 => '7.', (int) 14 => 'two', (int) 15 => '9', (int) 16 => '10', (int) 17 => '1', (int) 18 => '11', (int) 19 => '12' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1985', (int) 1 => 'one year', (int) 2 => 'Rs.10,000/-', (int) 3 => 'one month', (int) 4 => '2.2.2007', (int) 5 => 'the year 2002', (int) 6 => '5.7.2002', (int) 7 => '28/2002', (int) 8 => 'the same day', (int) 9 => '19.10.2006' ), 'QUANTITY' => array( (int) 0 => '1500 grams', (int) 1 => '1500 grams', (int) 2 => '100 grams', (int) 3 => '1500 grams' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Maruti Car', (int) 1 => 'HP-01-8485' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Police Station, Sarkaghat', (int) 1 => 'Kainchi Mod', (int) 2 => 'Police Station, Sarkaghat', (int) 3 => 'FIR Ext', (int) 4 => 'NCB', (int) 5 => 'Ext', (int) 6 => 'Ext', (int) 7 => 'PW-7', (int) 8 => 'Ext', (int) 9 => 'âMalkhana', (int) 10 => 'NCB', (int) 11 => 'FIR', (int) 12 => 'Constable Suresh', (int) 13 => 'CTL Kandaghat', (int) 14 => 'RC', (int) 15 => 'MHC PW-3', (int) 16 => 'Ext', (int) 17 => 'PO', (int) 18 => 'NCB', (int) 19 => 'the Chemical Examiner', (int) 20 => 'Court', (int) 21 => 'Court', (int) 22 => 'Court', (int) 23 => 'PO', (int) 24 => 'the Central Government', (int) 25 => 'the Central Government', (int) 26 => 'the Official Gazette', (int) 27 => 'the Central Government', (int) 28 => 'Ext', (int) 29 => 'Court' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'about 2.30 p.m.', (int) 1 => 'about ½ hour' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'PW-2', (int) 1 => 'SHO Ashish', (int) 2 => 'PW-2' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sharma', (int) 1 => 'Strawâ' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Official Gazette' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1115876', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Cr. Appeal No. 6 of 2007 ', 'appellant' => 'Hardev Singh and Another', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Hardev Singh and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2013-02-25', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'SURINDER SINGH', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Surinder Singh, J. (Oral)<p style="text-align: justify;"> Heard and gone through the record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in short the â<strong>Act</strong>â, for allegedly transporting 1500 grams of â<strong>poppy huskâ </strong>in Maruti Car No. PB-11 H-0427 and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in case of default of payment of fine, they were sentenced to further undergo imprisonment for one month.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The appeal was admitted for hearing on 10.1.2007. The sentence imposed on the appellants, hereinafter referred to as <strong>âthe accusedâ, </strong>was suspended vide order dated 2.2.2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. In short, the prosecution story can be stated thus. In the year 2002, PW-1 Head Constable Ghanshyam was posted in Police Station, Sarkaghat. On 5.7.2002 at Kainchi Mod (Bhambla) at about 2.30 p.m., the above stated white coloured maruti car came from Mandi side. It was signaled to spot, but however, driver Baldev Singh (absconding accused) did not stop and sped away the vehicle. In the meantime, a taxi jeep bearing No. HP-01-8485 came from Jahu side. It was being driven by PW-2 Manoj Kumar. PW-1 Head Constable Ghanshyam took lift in that vehicle and chased the maruti car which was intercepted at some distance. Co-accused Surjit was sitting besides the driver, whereas co-accused Hardev was on the rear seat.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) PW-1 Head Constable Ghanshyam aforesaid demanded the documents of the vehicle, but the driver failed to produce the same. Even, he was not having his driving licence. Thereafter, Head Constable Ghanshyam casually checked the vehicle and recovered a gunny bag lying in the dickey of the car, containing 1500 grams of <strong>âPoppy Husk</strong>. The car aforesaid was taken to Police Station, Sarkaghat. On the statement of Ghansyam Ext. PA recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC, a formal FIR Ext. PK was registered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) PW-8 SHO Ashish Sharma, conducted further search of the maruti car, but no other incriminating article was found therein. The alleged recovered contraband was weighed and two samples of 100 grams each were separated and sealed with seal impression âH. The remaining bulk was also sealed with the same seal . The NCB forms in triplicate, one of which is Ext. PJ, were filled in. The impressions of the seal were taken on a piece of cloth. The seal after use was handed over to PW-2 Manoj Kumar. The case property was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PB in the presence of PW-7, another Manoj Kumar, S/o Shri Surat Ram. The car aforesaid was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PC. All the three accused persons were arrested. Grounds of arrest were informed to each of them in writing.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) The case property was deposited in the <strong>âMalkhana </strong>for the safe custody and one of the samples so taken, was sent for its examination alongwith NCB forms, copies of seizure memo and FIR through PW-6 Constable Suresh Kuamar to CTL Kandaghat vide R.C. No. 28/2002 which were deposited on the same day and receipt was obtained on the RC which was further handed over on his return to MHC PW-3 Jaspal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) On analysis, the report Ext. PO on the reverse side of NCB form Ext. PJ, was issued and the Chemical Examiner was of the opinion that the exhibit contains the contents of â<strong>Poppy Huskâ </strong>on the basis of qualitative and quantative tests qua meconic acid and morphine which were found positive.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) The statements of the witnesses were recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. After completing investigation, the challan was presented in the Court for trial of the accused persons. All the three accused persons were granted bail by this Court. They were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act and also under the Motor Vehicles Act. The accused persons aforesaid pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses. The accused persons were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their case was of total denial. According to accused Baldev Singh (absconding accused), he had stopped the car on the signal given by the police officer and the documents of his vehicle were checked. It took about ½ hour, but denied the recovery of any contraband. The other accused persons also pleaded the same case. Thereafter, the case was fixed for defence evidence. Accused Baldev Singh had absconded. Despite various opportunities given by the learned trial Court, he was not traceable, as such, vide order dated 19.10.2006, he was declared proclaimed offender. At the end of the trial, the accused persons i.e. the appellants were held guilty and convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid, hence, the present appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. I have re-examined the evidence on record and found that though recovery of some article was affected by PW-1 Head Constable Ghanshyam from the vehicle, which was being driven by accused Baldev Singh and the other co-accused were traveling in the said vehicle, but before the accused persons could have held guilty for the offence charged, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that it was a contraband falling within the ambit of the Act aforesaid.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. The accused persons were charged for the offence under Section 15 of the Act for allegedly transporting 1500 grams of â<strong>Poppy Husk</strong>. Report Ext. PO reveals that two tests were conducted in the laboratory, one was for meconic acid and the other for morphine. Both were found positive. On these findings, the chemical examiner was of the opinion that the exhibit contained the contents of â<strong>Poppy Huskâ</strong></p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. <strong>âPoppy Huskâ </strong>has not been defined under the Act, whereas Section 2(xviii) of the Act defines â<strong>Poppy Strawâ </strong>which 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. As per Section (xvii) âOpium poppyâ 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 call be extracted and which the Central Government may, be notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be opium poppy for the purposes of this Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. To understand the meaning of âpoppy strawâ it is essential to refer to the meaning of âopium poppyâ and âpoppy strawâ, as stated above. When read with the definition, âopium poppyâ means (a) all parts (except seeds) of the plant of the species of papaver somniferm-L or a plant of any other species of papaver from which the opium or any other phenanthrene alkaloid can be extracted and which the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette has declared to be opium poppy for the purposes of this Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. In the instant case, only qualitative and quantative tests were undertaken and the chemical examiner on the basis of the presence of meconic acid and morphine opined the sample to be that of âpoppy huskâ. This does not indicate that the stuff examined consists of the parts of either of the plant of species of papaver from which opium or any phenanthrene alkaloid can be extracted and which the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, had declared it to be âopium poppyâ for the purposes of this Act. If it is so, report of the chemical examiner Ext. PO that the stuff contains the contents of âpoppy huskâ which term is similar to the term âpoppy strawâ cannot be used as enough evidence to hold that the stuff recovered from the accused persons which was analyzed by the chemical examiner was that of âpoppy strawâ, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in <strong>Rajiv Kumar @ Guglu </strong><strong>versus </strong><strong>State of H.P. 2008 (1) Shim.LC168</strong>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, I find that the prosecution had failed to prove the alleged recovery falling within the definition of either of â<strong>Opium Poppyâ </strong>or â<strong>Poppy Strawâ. </strong>Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence deserves and is accordingly set aside. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the accused persons stand acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. The bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of the case are hereby discharged. The fine amount, if any deposited, be refunded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Send down the records.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Himachal Pradesh', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1115876' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Hardev Singh and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 15', (int) 1 => 'Section 154 Cr', (int) 2 => 'Section 15 of the Act', (int) 3 => 'the Motor Vehicles Act', (int) 4 => 'Section 313', (int) 5 => 'Section 15 of the Act', (int) 6 => 'Section 2(xviii' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Surinder Singh', (int) 1 => 'Constable Ghanshyam', (int) 2 => 'Bhambla', (int) 3 => 'Mandi', (int) 4 => 'Baldev Singh', (int) 5 => 'Jahu', (int) 6 => 'Constable Ghanshyam', (int) 7 => 'Surjit', (int) 8 => 'Hardev', (int) 9 => 'Constable Ghanshyam', (int) 10 => 'Constable Ghanshyam', (int) 11 => 'Husk', (int) 12 => 'Ghansyam Ext', (int) 13 => 'âH.', (int) 14 => 'Shri Surat Ram', (int) 15 => 'Baldev Singh', (int) 16 => 'Accused Baldev Singh', (int) 17 => 'Constable Ghanshyam', (int) 18 => 'Baldev Singh', (int) 19 => 'Husk', (int) 20 => 'Report Ext', (int) 21 => 'Gazette', (int) 22 => 'Rajiv Kumar', (int) 23 => 'LC168' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '2.', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '3', (int) 3 => 'maruti', (int) 4 => 'maruti', (int) 5 => 'maruti', (int) 6 => 'two', (int) 7 => 'one', (int) 8 => 'three', (int) 9 => '4.', (int) 10 => 'three', (int) 11 => '5.', (int) 12 => '6.', (int) 13 => '7.', (int) 14 => 'two', (int) 15 => '9', (int) 16 => '10', (int) 17 => '1', (int) 18 => '11', (int) 19 => '12' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1985', (int) 1 => 'one year', (int) 2 => 'Rs.10,000/-', (int) 3 => 'one month', (int) 4 => '2.2.2007', (int) 5 => 'the year 2002', (int) 6 => '5.7.2002', (int) 7 => '28/2002', (int) 8 => 'the same day', (int) 9 => '19.10.2006' ), 'QUANTITY' => array( (int) 0 => '1500 grams', (int) 1 => '1500 grams', (int) 2 => '100 grams', (int) 3 => '1500 grams' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Maruti Car', (int) 1 => 'HP-01-8485' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Police Station, Sarkaghat', (int) 1 => 'Kainchi Mod', (int) 2 => 'Police Station, Sarkaghat', (int) 3 => 'FIR Ext', (int) 4 => 'NCB', (int) 5 => 'Ext', (int) 6 => 'Ext', (int) 7 => 'PW-7', (int) 8 => 'Ext', (int) 9 => 'âMalkhana', (int) 10 => 'NCB', (int) 11 => 'FIR', (int) 12 => 'Constable Suresh', (int) 13 => 'CTL Kandaghat', (int) 14 => 'RC', (int) 15 => 'MHC PW-3', (int) 16 => 'Ext', (int) 17 => 'PO', (int) 18 => 'NCB', (int) 19 => 'the Chemical Examiner', (int) 20 => 'Court', (int) 21 => 'Court', (int) 22 => 'Court', (int) 23 => 'PO', (int) 24 => 'the Central Government', (int) 25 => 'the Central Government', (int) 26 => 'the Official Gazette', (int) 27 => 'the Central Government', (int) 28 => 'Ext', (int) 29 => 'Court' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'about 2.30 p.m.', (int) 1 => 'about ½ hour' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'PW-2', (int) 1 => 'SHO Ashish', (int) 2 => 'PW-2' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sharma', (int) 1 => 'Strawâ' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Official Gazette' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1115876', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Cr. Appeal No. 6 of 2007 ', 'appellant' => 'Hardev Singh and Another', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Hardev Singh and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2013-02-25', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'SURINDER SINGH', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Surinder Singh, J. (Oral)<p style="text-align: justify;"> Heard and gone through the record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in short the â<strong>Act</strong>â, for allegedly transporting 1500 grams of â<strong>poppy huskâ </strong>in Maruti Car No. PB-11 H-0427 and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in case of default of payment of fine, they were sentenced to further undergo imprisonment for one month.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The appeal was admitted for hearing on 10.1.2007. The sentence imposed on the appellants, hereinafter referred to as <strong>âthe accusedâ, </strong>was suspended vide order dated 2.2.2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. In short, the prosecution story can be stated thus. In the year 2002, PW-1 Head Constable Ghanshyam was posted in Police Station, Sarkaghat. On 5.7.2002 at Kainchi Mod (Bhambla) at about 2.30 p.m., the above stated white coloured maruti car came from Mandi side. It was signaled to spot, but however, driver Baldev Singh (absconding accused) did not stop and sped away the vehicle. In the meantime, a taxi jeep bearing No. HP-01-8485 came from Jahu side. It was being driven by PW-2 Manoj Kumar. PW-1 Head Constable Ghanshyam took lift in that vehicle and chased the maruti car which was intercepted at some distance. Co-accused Surjit was sitting besides the driver, whereas co-accused Hardev was on the rear seat.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) PW-1 Head Constable Ghanshyam aforesaid demanded the documents of the vehicle, but the driver failed to produce the same. Even, he was not having his driving licence. Thereafter, Head Constable Ghanshyam casually checked the vehicle and recovered a gunny bag lying in the dickey of the car, containing 1500 grams of <strong>âPoppy Husk</strong>. The car aforesaid was taken to Police Station, Sarkaghat. On the statement of Ghansyam Ext. PA recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC, a formal FIR Ext. PK was registered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) PW-8 SHO Ashish Sharma, conducted further search of the maruti car, but no other incriminating article was found therein. The alleged recovered contraband was weighed and two samples of 100 grams each were separated and sealed with seal impression âH. The remaining bulk was also sealed with the same seal . The NCB forms in triplicate, one of which is Ext. PJ, were filled in. The impressions of the seal were taken on a piece of cloth. The seal after use was handed over to PW-2 Manoj Kumar. The case property was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PB in the presence of PW-7, another Manoj Kumar, S/o Shri Surat Ram. The car aforesaid was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PC. All the three accused persons were arrested. Grounds of arrest were informed to each of them in writing.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) The case property was deposited in the <strong>âMalkhana </strong>for the safe custody and one of the samples so taken, was sent for its examination alongwith NCB forms, copies of seizure memo and FIR through PW-6 Constable Suresh Kuamar to CTL Kandaghat vide R.C. No. 28/2002 which were deposited on the same day and receipt was obtained on the RC which was further handed over on his return to MHC PW-3 Jaspal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) On analysis, the report Ext. PO on the reverse side of NCB form Ext. PJ, was issued and the Chemical Examiner was of the opinion that the exhibit contains the contents of â<strong>Poppy Huskâ </strong>on the basis of qualitative and quantative tests qua meconic acid and morphine which were found positive.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) The statements of the witnesses were recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. After completing investigation, the challan was presented in the Court for trial of the accused persons. All the three accused persons were granted bail by this Court. They were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act and also under the Motor Vehicles Act. The accused persons aforesaid pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses. The accused persons were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their case was of total denial. According to accused Baldev Singh (absconding accused), he had stopped the car on the signal given by the police officer and the documents of his vehicle were checked. It took about ½ hour, but denied the recovery of any contraband. The other accused persons also pleaded the same case. Thereafter, the case was fixed for defence evidence. Accused Baldev Singh had absconded. Despite various opportunities given by the learned trial Court, he was not traceable, as such, vide order dated 19.10.2006, he was declared proclaimed offender. At the end of the trial, the accused persons i.e. the appellants were held guilty and convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid, hence, the present appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. I have re-examined the evidence on record and found that though recovery of some article was affected by PW-1 Head Constable Ghanshyam from the vehicle, which was being driven by accused Baldev Singh and the other co-accused were traveling in the said vehicle, but before the accused persons could have held guilty for the offence charged, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that it was a contraband falling within the ambit of the Act aforesaid.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. The accused persons were charged for the offence under Section 15 of the Act for allegedly transporting 1500 grams of â<strong>Poppy Husk</strong>. Report Ext. PO reveals that two tests were conducted in the laboratory, one was for meconic acid and the other for morphine. Both were found positive. On these findings, the chemical examiner was of the opinion that the exhibit contained the contents of â<strong>Poppy Huskâ</strong></p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. <strong>âPoppy Huskâ </strong>has not been defined under the Act, whereas Section 2(xviii) of the Act defines â<strong>Poppy Strawâ </strong>which 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. As per Section (xvii) âOpium poppyâ 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 call be extracted and which the Central Government may, be notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be opium poppy for the purposes of this Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. To understand the meaning of âpoppy strawâ it is essential to refer to the meaning of âopium poppyâ and âpoppy strawâ, as stated above. When read with the definition, âopium poppyâ means (a) all parts (except seeds) of the plant of the species of papaver somniferm-L or a plant of any other species of papaver from which the opium or any other phenanthrene alkaloid can be extracted and which the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette has declared to be opium poppy for the purposes of this Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. In the instant case, only qualitative and quantative tests were undertaken and the chemical examiner on the basis of the presence of meconic acid and morphine opined the sample to be that of âpoppy huskâ. This does not indicate that the stuff examined consists of the parts of either of the plant of species of papaver from which opium or any phenanthrene alkaloid can be extracted and which the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, had declared it to be âopium poppyâ for the purposes of this Act. If it is so, report of the chemical examiner Ext. PO that the stuff contains the contents of âpoppy huskâ which term is similar to the term âpoppy strawâ cannot be used as enough evidence to hold that the stuff recovered from the accused persons which was analyzed by the chemical examiner was that of âpoppy strawâ, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in <strong>Rajiv Kumar @ Guglu </strong><strong>versus </strong><strong>State of H.P. 2008 (1) Shim.LC168</strong>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, I find that the prosecution had failed to prove the alleged recovery falling within the definition of either of â<strong>Opium Poppyâ </strong>or â<strong>Poppy Strawâ. </strong>Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence deserves and is accordingly set aside. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the accused persons stand acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. The bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of the case are hereby discharged. The fine amount, if any deposited, be refunded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Send down the records.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Himachal Pradesh', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '1115876' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Hardev Singh and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 15', (int) 1 => 'Section 154 Cr', (int) 2 => 'Section 15 of the Act', (int) 3 => 'the Motor Vehicles Act', (int) 4 => 'Section 313', (int) 5 => 'Section 15 of the Act', (int) 6 => 'Section 2(xviii' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Surinder Singh', (int) 1 => 'Constable Ghanshyam', (int) 2 => 'Bhambla', (int) 3 => 'Mandi', (int) 4 => 'Baldev Singh', (int) 5 => 'Jahu', (int) 6 => 'Constable Ghanshyam', (int) 7 => 'Surjit', (int) 8 => 'Hardev', (int) 9 => 'Constable Ghanshyam', (int) 10 => 'Constable Ghanshyam', (int) 11 => 'Husk', (int) 12 => 'Ghansyam Ext', (int) 13 => 'âH.', (int) 14 => 'Shri Surat Ram', (int) 15 => 'Baldev Singh', (int) 16 => 'Accused Baldev Singh', (int) 17 => 'Constable Ghanshyam', (int) 18 => 'Baldev Singh', (int) 19 => 'Husk', (int) 20 => 'Report Ext', (int) 21 => 'Gazette', (int) 22 => 'Rajiv Kumar', (int) 23 => 'LC168' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '2.', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '3', (int) 3 => 'maruti', (int) 4 => 'maruti', (int) 5 => 'maruti', (int) 6 => 'two', (int) 7 => 'one', (int) 8 => 'three', (int) 9 => '4.', (int) 10 => 'three', (int) 11 => '5.', (int) 12 => '6.', (int) 13 => '7.', (int) 14 => 'two', (int) 15 => '9', (int) 16 => '10', (int) 17 => '1', (int) 18 => '11', (int) 19 => '12' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1985', (int) 1 => 'one year', (int) 2 => 'Rs.10,000/-', (int) 3 => 'one month', (int) 4 => '2.2.2007', (int) 5 => 'the year 2002', (int) 6 => '5.7.2002', (int) 7 => '28/2002', (int) 8 => 'the same day', (int) 9 => '19.10.2006' ), 'QUANTITY' => array( (int) 0 => '1500 grams', (int) 1 => '1500 grams', (int) 2 => '100 grams', (int) 3 => '1500 grams' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Maruti Car', (int) 1 => 'HP-01-8485' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Police Station, Sarkaghat', (int) 1 => 'Kainchi Mod', (int) 2 => 'Police Station, Sarkaghat', (int) 3 => 'FIR Ext', (int) 4 => 'NCB', (int) 5 => 'Ext', (int) 6 => 'Ext', (int) 7 => 'PW-7', (int) 8 => 'Ext', (int) 9 => 'âMalkhana', (int) 10 => 'NCB', (int) 11 => 'FIR', (int) 12 => 'Constable Suresh', (int) 13 => 'CTL Kandaghat', (int) 14 => 'RC', (int) 15 => 'MHC PW-3', (int) 16 => 'Ext', (int) 17 => 'PO', (int) 18 => 'NCB', (int) 19 => 'the Chemical Examiner', (int) 20 => 'Court', (int) 21 => 'Court', (int) 22 => 'Court', (int) 23 => 'PO', (int) 24 => 'the Central Government', (int) 25 => 'the Central Government', (int) 26 => 'the Official Gazette', (int) 27 => 'the Central Government', (int) 28 => 'Ext', (int) 29 => 'Court' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'about 2.30 p.m.', (int) 1 => 'about ½ hour' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'PW-2', (int) 1 => 'SHO Ashish', (int) 2 => 'PW-2' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sharma', (int) 1 => 'Strawâ' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Official Gazette' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1115876', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Cr. Appeal No. 6 of 2007 ', 'appellant' => 'Hardev Singh and Another', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Hardev Singh and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2013-02-25', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'SURINDER SINGH', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Surinder Singh, J. (Oral)<p style="text-align: justify;"> Heard and gone through the record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in short the â<strong>Act</strong>â, for allegedly transporting 1500 grams of â<strong>poppy huskâ </strong>in Maruti Car No. PB-11 H-0427 and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in case of default of payment of fine, they were sentenced to further undergo imprisonment for one month.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The appeal was admitted for hearing on 10.1.2007. The sentence imposed on the appellants, hereinafter referred to as <strong>âthe accusedâ, </strong>was suspended vide order dated 2.2.2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. In short, the prosecution story can be stated thus. In the year 2002, PW-1 Head Constable Ghanshyam was posted in Police Station, Sarkaghat. On 5.7.2002 at Kainchi Mod (Bhambla) at about 2.30 p.m., the above stated white coloured maruti car came from Mandi side. It was signaled to spot, but however, driver Baldev Singh (absconding accused) did not stop and sped away the vehicle. In the meantime, a taxi jeep bearing No. HP-01-8485 came from Jahu side. It was being driven by PW-2 Manoj Kumar. PW-1 Head Constable Ghanshyam took lift in that vehicle and chased the maruti car which was intercepted at some distance. Co-accused Surjit was sitting besides the driver, whereas co-accused Hardev was on the rear seat.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) PW-1 Head Constable Ghanshyam aforesaid demanded the documents of the vehicle, but the driver failed to produce the same. Even, he was not having his driving licence. Thereafter, Head Constable Ghanshyam casually checked the vehicle and recovered a gunny bag lying in the dickey of the car, containing 1500 grams of <strong>âPoppy Husk</strong>. The car aforesaid was taken to Police Station, Sarkaghat. On the statement of Ghansyam Ext. PA recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC, a formal FIR Ext. PK was registered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) PW-8 SHO Ashish Sharma, conducted further search of the maruti car, but no other incriminating article was found therein. The alleged recovered contraband was weighed and two samples of 100 grams each were separated and sealed with seal impression âH. The remaining bulk was also sealed with the same seal . The NCB forms in triplicate, one of which is Ext. PJ, were filled in. The impressions of the seal were taken on a piece of cloth. The seal after use was handed over to PW-2 Manoj Kumar. The case property was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PB in the presence of PW-7, another Manoj Kumar, S/o Shri Surat Ram. The car aforesaid was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PC. All the three accused persons were arrested. Grounds of arrest were informed to each of them in writing.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) The case property was deposited in the <strong>âMalkhana </strong>for the safe custody and one of the samples so taken, was sent for its examination alongwith NCB forms, copies of seizure memo and FIR through PW-6 Constable Suresh Kuamar to CTL Kandaghat vide R.C. No. 28/2002 which were deposited on the same day and receipt was obtained on the RC which was further handed over on his return to MHC PW-3 Jaspal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) On analysis, the report Ext. PO on the reverse side of NCB form Ext. PJ, was issued and the Chemical Examiner was of the opinion that the exhibit contains the contents of â<strong>Poppy Huskâ </strong>on the basis of qualitative and quantative tests qua meconic acid and morphine which were found positive.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) The statements of the witnesses were recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. After completing investigation, the challan was presented in the Court for trial of the accused persons. All the three accused persons were granted bail by this Court. They were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act and also under the Motor Vehicles Act. The accused persons aforesaid pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses. The accused persons were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their case was of total denial. According to accused Baldev Singh (absconding accused), he had stopped the car on the signal given by the police officer and the documents of his vehicle were checked. It took about ½ hour, but denied the recovery of any contraband. The other accused persons also pleaded the same case. Thereafter, the case was fixed for defence evidence. Accused Baldev Singh had absconded. Despite various opportunities given by the learned trial Court, he was not traceable, as such, vide order dated 19.10.2006, he was declared proclaimed offender. At the end of the trial, the accused persons i.e. the appellants were held guilty and convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid, hence, the present appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. I have re-examined the evidence on record and found that though recovery of some article was affected by PW-1 Head Constable Ghanshyam from the vehicle, which was being driven by accused Baldev Singh and the other co-accused were traveling in the said vehicle, but before the accused persons could have held guilty for the offence charged, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that it was a contraband falling within the ambit of the Act aforesaid.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. The accused persons were charged for the offence under Section 15 of the Act for allegedly transporting 1500 grams of â<strong>Poppy Husk</strong>. Report Ext. PO reveals that two tests were conducted in the laboratory, one was for meconic acid and the other for morphine. Both were found positive. On these findings, the chemical examiner was of the opinion that the exhibit contained the contents of â<strong>Poppy Huskâ</strong></p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. <strong>âPoppy Huskâ </strong>has not been defined under the Act, whereas Section 2(xviii) of the Act defines â<strong>Poppy Strawâ </strong>which 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. As per Section (xvii) âOpium poppyâ 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 call be extracted and which the Central Government may, be notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be opium poppy for the purposes of this Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. To understand the meaning of âpoppy strawâ it is essential to refer to the meaning of âopium poppyâ and âpoppy strawâ, as stated above. When read with the definition, âopium poppyâ means (a) all parts (except seeds) of the plant of the species of papaver somniferm-L or a plant of any other species of papaver from which the opium or any other phenanthrene alkaloid can be extracted and which the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette has declared to be opium poppy for the purposes of this Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. In the instant case, only qualitative and quantative tests were undertaken and the chemical examiner on the basis of the presence of meconic acid and morphine opined the sample to be that of âpoppy huskâ. This does not indicate that the stuff examined consists of the parts of either of the plant of species of papaver from which opium or any phenanthrene alkaloid can be extracted and which the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, had declared it to be âopium poppyâ for the purposes of this Act. If it is so, report of the chemical examiner Ext. PO that the stuff contains the contents of âpoppy huskâ which term is similar to the term âpoppy strawâ cannot be used as enough evidence to hold that the stuff recovered from the accused persons which was analyzed by the chemical examiner was that of âpoppy strawâ, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in <strong>Rajiv Kumar @ Guglu </strong><strong>versus </strong><strong>State of H.P. 2008 (1) Shim.LC168</strong>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, I find that the prosecution had failed to prove the alleged recovery falling within the definition of either of â<strong>Opium Poppyâ </strong>or â<strong>Poppy Strawâ. </strong>Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence deserves and is accordingly set aside. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the accused persons stand acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. The bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of the case are hereby discharged. The fine amount, if any deposited, be refunded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Send down the records.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Himachal Pradesh', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1115876' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Hardev Singh and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 15', (int) 1 => 'Section 154 Cr', (int) 2 => 'Section 15 of the Act', (int) 3 => 'the Motor Vehicles Act', (int) 4 => 'Section 313', (int) 5 => 'Section 15 of the Act', (int) 6 => 'Section 2(xviii' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'Surinder Singh', (int) 1 => 'Constable Ghanshyam', (int) 2 => 'Bhambla', (int) 3 => 'Mandi', (int) 4 => 'Baldev Singh', (int) 5 => 'Jahu', (int) 6 => 'Constable Ghanshyam', (int) 7 => 'Surjit', (int) 8 => 'Hardev', (int) 9 => 'Constable Ghanshyam', (int) 10 => 'Constable Ghanshyam', (int) 11 => 'Husk', (int) 12 => 'Ghansyam Ext', (int) 13 => 'âH.', (int) 14 => 'Shri Surat Ram', (int) 15 => 'Baldev Singh', (int) 16 => 'Accused Baldev Singh', (int) 17 => 'Constable Ghanshyam', (int) 18 => 'Baldev Singh', (int) 19 => 'Husk', (int) 20 => 'Report Ext', (int) 21 => 'Gazette', (int) 22 => 'Rajiv Kumar', (int) 23 => 'LC168' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '2.', (int) 1 => '2', (int) 2 => '3', (int) 3 => 'maruti', (int) 4 => 'maruti', (int) 5 => 'maruti', (int) 6 => 'two', (int) 7 => 'one', (int) 8 => 'three', (int) 9 => '4.', (int) 10 => 'three', (int) 11 => '5.', (int) 12 => '6.', (int) 13 => '7.', (int) 14 => 'two', (int) 15 => '9', (int) 16 => '10', (int) 17 => '1', (int) 18 => '11', (int) 19 => '12' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1985', (int) 1 => 'one year', (int) 2 => 'Rs.10,000/-', (int) 3 => 'one month', (int) 4 => '2.2.2007', (int) 5 => 'the year 2002', (int) 6 => '5.7.2002', (int) 7 => '28/2002', (int) 8 => 'the same day', (int) 9 => '19.10.2006' ), 'QUANTITY' => array( (int) 0 => '1500 grams', (int) 1 => '1500 grams', (int) 2 => '100 grams', (int) 3 => '1500 grams' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Maruti Car', (int) 1 => 'HP-01-8485' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Police Station, Sarkaghat', (int) 1 => 'Kainchi Mod', (int) 2 => 'Police Station, Sarkaghat', (int) 3 => 'FIR Ext', (int) 4 => 'NCB', (int) 5 => 'Ext', (int) 6 => 'Ext', (int) 7 => 'PW-7', (int) 8 => 'Ext', (int) 9 => 'âMalkhana', (int) 10 => 'NCB', (int) 11 => 'FIR', (int) 12 => 'Constable Suresh', (int) 13 => 'CTL Kandaghat', (int) 14 => 'RC', (int) 15 => 'MHC PW-3', (int) 16 => 'Ext', (int) 17 => 'PO', (int) 18 => 'NCB', (int) 19 => 'the Chemical Examiner', (int) 20 => 'Court', (int) 21 => 'Court', (int) 22 => 'Court', (int) 23 => 'PO', (int) 24 => 'the Central Government', (int) 25 => 'the Central Government', (int) 26 => 'the Official Gazette', (int) 27 => 'the Central Government', (int) 28 => 'Ext', (int) 29 => 'Court' ), 'TIME' => array( (int) 0 => 'about 2.30 p.m.', (int) 1 => 'about ½ hour' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'PW-2', (int) 1 => 'SHO Ashish', (int) 2 => 'PW-2' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sharma', (int) 1 => 'Strawâ' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the Official Gazette' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1115876', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Cr. Appeal No. 6 of 2007 ', 'appellant' => 'Hardev Singh and Another', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Hardev Singh and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Himachal Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2013-02-25', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'SURINDER SINGH', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Surinder Singh, J. (Oral)<p style="text-align: justify;"> Heard and gone through the record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in short the â<strong>Act</strong>â, for allegedly transporting 1500 grams of â<strong>poppy huskâ </strong>in Maruti Car No. PB-11 H-0427 and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in case of default of payment of fine, they were sentenced to further undergo imprisonment for one month.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The appeal was admitted for hearing on 10.1.2007. The sentence imposed on the appellants, hereinafter referred to as <strong>âthe accusedâ, </strong>was suspended vide order dated 2.2.2007.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. In short, the prosecution story can be stated thus. In the year 2002, PW-1 Head Constable Ghanshyam was posted in Police Station, Sarkaghat. On 5.7.2002 at Kainchi Mod (Bhambla) at about 2.30 p.m., the above stated white coloured maruti car came from Mandi side. It was signaled to spot, but however, driver Baldev Singh (absconding accused) did not stop and sped away the vehicle. In the meantime, a taxi jeep bearing No. HP-01-8485 came from Jahu side. It was being driven by PW-2 Manoj Kumar. PW-1 Head Constable Ghanshyam took lift in that vehicle and chased the maruti car which was intercepted at some distance. Co-accused Surjit was sitting besides the driver, whereas co-accused Hardev was on the rear seat.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (ii) PW-1 Head Constable Ghanshyam aforesaid demanded the documents of the vehicle, but the driver failed to produce the same. Even, he was not having his driving licence. Thereafter, Head Constable Ghanshyam casually checked the vehicle and recovered a gunny bag lying in the dickey of the car, containing 1500 grams of <strong>âPoppy Husk</strong>. The car aforesaid was taken to Police Station, Sarkaghat. On the statement of Ghansyam Ext. PA recorded under Section 154 Cr.PC, a formal FIR Ext. PK was registered.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iii) PW-8 SHO Ashish Sharma, conducted further search of the maruti car, but no other incriminating article was found therein. The alleged recovered contraband was weighed and two samples of 100 grams each were separated and sealed with seal impression âH. The remaining bulk was also sealed with the same seal . The NCB forms in triplicate, one of which is Ext. PJ, were filled in. The impressions of the seal were taken on a piece of cloth. The seal after use was handed over to PW-2 Manoj Kumar. The case property was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PB in the presence of PW-7, another Manoj Kumar, S/o Shri Surat Ram. The car aforesaid was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PC. All the three accused persons were arrested. Grounds of arrest were informed to each of them in writing.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (iv) The case property was deposited in the <strong>âMalkhana </strong>for the safe custody and one of the samples so taken, was sent for its examination alongwith NCB forms, copies of seizure memo and FIR through PW-6 Constable Suresh Kuamar to CTL Kandaghat vide R.C. No. 28/2002 which were deposited on the same day and receipt was obtained on the RC which was further handed over on his return to MHC PW-3 Jaspal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (v) On analysis, the report Ext. PO on the reverse side of NCB form Ext. PJ, was issued and the Chemical Examiner was of the opinion that the exhibit contains the contents of â<strong>Poppy Huskâ </strong>on the basis of qualitative and quantative tests qua meconic acid and morphine which were found positive.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (vi) The statements of the witnesses were recorded.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. After completing investigation, the challan was presented in the Court for trial of the accused persons. All the three accused persons were granted bail by this Court. They were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act and also under the Motor Vehicles Act. The accused persons aforesaid pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses. The accused persons were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their case was of total denial. According to accused Baldev Singh (absconding accused), he had stopped the car on the signal given by the police officer and the documents of his vehicle were checked. It took about ½ hour, but denied the recovery of any contraband. The other accused persons also pleaded the same case. Thereafter, the case was fixed for defence evidence. Accused Baldev Singh had absconded. Despite various opportunities given by the learned trial Court, he was not traceable, as such, vide order dated 19.10.2006, he was declared proclaimed offender. At the end of the trial, the accused persons i.e. the appellants were held guilty and convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid, hence, the present appeal.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. I have re-examined the evidence on record and found that though recovery of some article was affected by PW-1 Head Constable Ghanshyam from the vehicle, which was being driven by accused Baldev Singh and the other co-accused were traveling in the said vehicle, but before the accused persons could have held guilty for the offence charged, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that it was a contraband falling within the ambit of the Act aforesaid.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. The accused persons were charged for the offence under Section 15 of the Act for allegedly transporting 1500 grams of â<strong>Poppy Husk</strong>. Report Ext. PO reveals that two tests were conducted in the laboratory, one was for meconic acid and the other for morphine. Both were found positive. On these findings, the chemical examiner was of the opinion that the exhibit contained the contents of â<strong>Poppy Huskâ</strong></p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. <strong>âPoppy Huskâ </strong>has not been defined under the Act, whereas Section 2(xviii) of the Act defines â<strong>Poppy Strawâ </strong>which 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. As per Section (xvii) âOpium poppyâ 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 call be extracted and which the Central Government may, be notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be opium poppy for the purposes of this Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 9. To understand the meaning of âpoppy strawâ it is essential to refer to the meaning of âopium poppyâ and âpoppy strawâ, as stated above. When read with the definition, âopium poppyâ means (a) all parts (except seeds) of the plant of the species of papaver somniferm-L or a plant of any other species of papaver from which the opium or any other phenanthrene alkaloid can be extracted and which the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette has declared to be opium poppy for the purposes of this Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 10. In the instant case, only qualitative and quantative tests were undertaken and the chemical examiner on the basis of the presence of meconic acid and morphine opined the sample to be that of âpoppy huskâ. This does not indicate that the stuff examined consists of the parts of either of the plant of species of papaver from which opium or any phenanthrene alkaloid can be extracted and which the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, had declared it to be âopium poppyâ for the purposes of this Act. If it is so, report of the chemical examiner Ext. PO that the stuff contains the contents of âpoppy huskâ which term is similar to the term âpoppy strawâ cannot be used as enough evidence to hold that the stuff recovered from the accused persons which was analyzed by the chemical examiner was that of âpoppy strawâ, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in <strong>Rajiv Kumar @ Guglu </strong><strong>versus </strong><strong>State of H.P. 2008 (1) Shim.LC168</strong>.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 11. Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, I find that the prosecution had failed to prove the alleged recovery falling within the definition of either of â<strong>Opium Poppyâ </strong>or â<strong>Poppy Strawâ. </strong>Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence deserves and is accordingly set aside. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the accused persons stand acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. The bail bonds entered upon by them at any time during the proceedings of the case are hereby discharged. The fine amount, if any deposited, be refunded to them.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 12. Send down the records.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'State of Himachal Pradesh', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '1115876' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: Section 15, Section 154 Cr, Section 15 of the Act, the Motor Vehicles Act, Section 313, Section 15 of the Act, Section 2(xviii
PERSON: Surinder Singh, Constable Ghanshyam, Bhambla, Mandi, Baldev Singh, Jahu, Constable Ghanshyam, Surjit, Hardev, Constable Ghanshyam, Constable Ghanshyam, Husk, Ghansyam Ext, âH., Shri Surat Ram, Baldev Singh, Accused Baldev Singh, Constable Ghanshyam, Baldev Singh, Husk, Report Ext, Gazette, Rajiv Kumar, LC168
CARDINAL: 2., 2, 3, maruti, maruti, maruti, two, one, three, 4., three, 5., 6., 7., two, 9, 10, 1, 11, 12
DATE: 1985, one year, Rs.10,000/-, one month, 2.2.2007, the year 2002, 5.7.2002, 28/2002, the same day, 19.10.2006
QUANTITY: 1500 grams, 1500 grams, 100 grams, 1500 grams
PRODUCT: Maruti Car, HP-01-8485
ORG: Police Station, Sarkaghat, Kainchi Mod, Police Station, Sarkaghat, FIR Ext, NCB, Ext, Ext, PW-7, Ext, âMalkhana, NCB, FIR, Constable Suresh, CTL Kandaghat, RC, MHC PW-3, Ext, PO, NCB, the Chemical Examiner, Court, Court, Court, PO, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Official Gazette, the Central Government, Ext, Court
TIME: about 2.30 p.m., about ½ hour
NORP: PW-2, SHO Ashish, PW-2
GPE: Sharma, Strawâ
FAC: the Official Gazette