2025:HHC:37733-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 237 of 2024 Date of decision: 10.11 . 2025 State of H.P. ...Petitioner. Versus Chetan Parkash. …Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner. Mr.Yashwardhan Chauhan, Senior Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent: Ms.Urvashi Rajta, Advocate, vice Mr.Sunil Kumar Banyal, Advocate. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) Leaned Senior Additional Advocate General has submitted that in present case challan against respondents was filed for recovery of 1.500 Kilograms charas, i.e. commercial quantity and, accordingly, charge framed against respondents under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ‘NDPS Act’) was deemed to have been framed under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 2025:HHC:37733-DB Cr. Appeal No. 237 of 2024 however, respondent No. 1 Chetan Prakash was convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act and respondent No.2 Hom Singh was acquitted and, thereafter present appeal has been preferred against respondent No. 1 only. 2. In the aforesaid facts, in view of judgment passed by learned Single Judge in Cr. Appeal No. 325 of 2023, titled as State of H.P. Vs. Shaul Borov, decided on 20.12.2023, affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP Diary No. 50995 of 2024 and I.A. No. 257015 of 2024, State of H.P. Vs. Shaul Borov, decided on 14.11.2024, respondent No.1 is deemed to have been acquitted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Therefore, it has been submitted that in the light of aforesaid judgment, State intends to file appeal against respondent No. 1 against his acquitted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. 3. In view of above, appeal is permitted to be dismissed as withdrawn with direction to the Registry to return certified copy of impugned judgment and order to the State after replacing the same with photocopies thereof to be supplied by the State, for placing the same on record of file within four days. 4. Needless to say that prayer for condonation of delay on behalf of State in appeal proposed to be filed shall be considered by the Court competent to hear the said appeal, keeping in view Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, in accordance with law. 3 2025:HHC:37733-DB Cr. Appeal No. 237 of 2024 The appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. (Romesh Verma), Judge. 10th November, 2025 (Keshav)