R. S. GARG, J. ( 1 ) BY this appeal under Section 378 (1) and 378 (3) of Cr. P. C. , the appellant/state being aggrieved by the acquittal of respondent for the offences punishable under Section 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; has preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case are that on 23-9-1994 Station House In-charge of Police Station, Tejgarh while on patrol received an information that present respondent was dealing illicit Garya. The said Thanedar with the witnesses went to the spot, made a raid and recovered a sling bag from the accused and found that the bag contain 2 Kg. Ganja. The accused was arrested on the spo; was brought to the police station; the first information report was registered; the matter was informed to the higher authorities and thereafter the seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, which according to its report informed the police agency that the seized article was Garya. After completing the investigation, the police agency filed the challan against the accused. As the accused denied commission of the offence, the learned trial Court proceeded with the trial. After healing the parties, the trial Court found that the prosecution witnesses could not be relied upon firstly because there were material contradictions and omissions in their statements, the statements of the police witnesses were not supported by the independent witnesses, the statement, of the persons who were sitting on the platform with the accused were not recorded nor they were examined as witnesses and lastly because the prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act. The appeal has been filed basically on the ground that the Court below was not justified in acquitting the accused because from the prosecution evidence, the offence is made out. ( 3 ) SHRI Verma, learned counsel for the State submits that from the statements of P. W. 2 M. L. Verma and P. W. 3 Naresh Prasad, it is proved beyond shadow of doubt that the accused was in exclusive possession of illicit Ganja; the same was recovered from his possession and even if the independent witness P. W. 1 Ghanshyam did not support the prosecution, the same was not going to affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. I have heard the learned counsel. I have heard the learned counsel. ( 4 ) FROM the statement of P. W. 1 Ghanshyam, it appears that the sling bag containing Garya was lying on a platform, near which certain persons including the accused were sitting. On a query made by P. W. 2 each of the person including the accused denied ownership over it. The witness further says that the sling bag and Garya were seized on the spot. As he did not support the prosecution case and its material particulars he was declared hostile. ( 5 ) P. W. 2 M. L. Verma, Station House In-charge of Police Station Tejgarh has stated that he received an information that a bearded man was selling Ganja near the platform of Shankar temple. After receiving the information, he went to the spot, at that time Head Constable Naresh Prasad was also with him. According to him, certain persons were sitting on the platform and the Jhola was near Ganesh. He further stated that he asked the accused about the contents of the said sling bag and thereafter states that he took possession of the sling bag and found that it contained Ganja. According to him, he was informed by said Ganesh that the sling bag contained Ganja in it. Ex. P/i is the Panchnama prepared on the spot. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he did not take the statements of the persons whowere sitting on the platform nor did he examine a single person sitting. Regarding compliance of Section 50, he submitted that he asked the accused to exercise his option, but he was forced to admit that this material fact does not find place in Ex. P/i, the Panchnama prepared on the spot. Not even a single document has been produced on record to show or suggest that accused was given an opportunity to exercise his option. It would be material to note here that if the said sling bag was on the person of the accused, then the accused was entitled to exercise his option under Section 50 of the Act, but if the said sling bag was lying on the platform, then P. W. 2 was obliged to make enquiry from each man sitting on; the platform as to whether the said sling bag belonged to body or not and whether belonged to the accused Ganesh Prasad. Non-examination of the persons who were available on the spot would certainly give a dent to the prosecution case. At this stage, this will also have to be seen that Section 50 of the Act was not complied with. ( 6 ) P. W. 3 Naresh Prasad states that after receiving the information the witness, P. W. 2 and S. D. O. Police went to the spot. This very statement is contrary to records. According to P. W. 2 m. L. Verma S. D. O. (Police) did not accompany them. He further states that accused Ganesh was sitting with a sling bag and was preparing Garya in his palms. This statement is not corroborated by the statement of P. W. 2. It does not appear from the statement of this witness also that option was given to the accused under Section 50 of the Act or the accused was found in exclusive possession of the said sling bag. Apart from these two witnesses, that is P. W. 2 Verma and P. W. 3 Naresh Prasad, we have no other evidence on record. Undisputedly number of the independent witnesses were available, but the prosecution in its wisdom did not propose to examine even a single witness. Non-examination of the independent witnesses either under Section 161, Cr. P. C. or before the Court would again give a dent to the prosecution case. ( 7 ) THE Court below after appreciating the evidence in its wisdom has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed in proving the case beyond shadow of doubt. In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court has jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence and record the findings afresh, but that can be done in a case where the findings recorded by the trial Court are palpably wrong, perverse or are contrary to records. In the present case, I am unable to hold that the findings recorded by the trial Court are wrong, are contrary to records or are perverse. The view taken by the learned trial Court appears to be reasonable. Possibility of another view would not provide a ground for convicting the accused. In any case, I have concurred with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. The view taken by the learned trial Court appears to be reasonable. Possibility of another view would not provide a ground for convicting the accused. In any case, I have concurred with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. As I have concurred with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, I find no reason to interfere in the matter or upset the acquittal recorded by the trial Court. ( 8 ) THE appeal deserves to and is accordingly dismissed. The accused is said to be on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. Appeal dismissed. .