1 ( 2025:HHC:41154 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No. 105 of 2025 Date of decision: 2 nd December ,2025 State of HP ...Appellant Versus Rakesh Kumar …Respondent. Corum Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ( 2025:HHC:41154 ) For the Appellant: Mr. I.N. Mehta, Senior Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) This appeal has been preferred by the State against respondent for enhancement of sentence as respondent has been convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short NDPS Act) for possessing the small quantity of charas, whereas challan against him was presented for having been found in possession of 1.020 Kg. charas i.e. commercial quantity of charas. 2 Learned Senior Additional Advocate General referring judgment dated 20.12.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 2023 titled State of HP vs. Shaul Borov affirmed by Apex Court in SLP Diary 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 ( 2025:HHC:41154 ) No. 50995 of 2024 & IA No. 257015 of 2024 titled State of HP vs. Shaul Borov vide order dated 14.11.2024 has submitted that in present matter, appeal against acquittal is only maintainable. 3 In present case, challan was presented against the respondent for having been found in possession of commercial quantity of 1.020 Kgs. of charas and charge was framed under Section 20 of NDPS Act. 4 Keeping in view the quantity alleged to have been recovered as per chargesheet, charge against the respondent has to be considered as having been framed under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, whereas the accused has been convicted and sentenced under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act. Therefore, in the light of above referred judgment/order, respondent has to be considered to have been acquitted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. It has been submitted that State has also preferred Cr. Appeal No. 573 of 2024 against the acquittal of respondent under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act. In view of above discussion, particularly in the light of judgment, referred supra, present appeal is dismissed being not maintainable. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. (Romesh Verma), Judge. 2nd December, 2025 (MS)