State of H.P. vs Gian Chand

Surjit Singh, J.—State has appealed against the judgment, dated 25.4.1997, of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur, whereby respondent Gian Chand, who was tried for offence, u/s 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for allegedly possessing poppy straw, has been acquitted.

Case of the prosecution is that on 9.5.1995, on telephonic report of PW-1 Ranjit Singh, police went to Teergarhi Gurudwara and searched the person of respondent. In the course of search of his baggage, poppy straw, which weighed 3.500 kgs, was recovered. Out of the recovered stuff, two samples, each weighing 100 grams, were separated. The samples and the bulk stuff were made into three separate parcels. One of the sample parcels was sent to Chemical Examiner, who, vide report Ext. PN, opined that the sample was of poppy straw, because it contained meconic acid and morphine to the extent of 0.5%.

Respondent was challaned. Trial Court charged him with an offence, u/s 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. On his pleading not guilty, he was tried and finally acquitted. Reasons given by the trial Court are that the evidence of the prosecution is full of contradictions and the contradictions are with respect to material particulars.

We have heard learned Assistant Advocate General. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.

A Division Bench of this Court in Rajiv Kumar alias Guglu v. State of H.P. Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 247, has held that to fall within the definition of poppy straw, the stuff has to pass the statutory test of being parts of the plant of the species of papaver somniferum-L or a plant of any other species of papaver from which opium or any other phenathrene alkaloid can be extracted and which the Central Government may have, by a Notification in the official gazette, declared to be opium poppy for the purpose of the Act.

In the present case, report of Chemical Examiner, Ext. PN, does not say that the stuff consisted of the parts of any of the aforesaid plants. A Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment has held that where the report does not indicate that the alleged poppy straw consisted of part of any of the aforesaid plants, it cannot be said to be poppy straw. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed, because the report Ext. PN of the Chemical Examiner does not indicate that the recovered stuff was poppy straw.