JUDGMENT PER M. R. Verma, JUDGE: - 1. Since both these appeals arise out of the same judgment dated 9.10.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, in Sessions trial No. 20 of 2001, therefore, both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of these appeals are as follows: The appellants/accused (hereafter referred to as the accused persons) were tried in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu on a charge under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereafter referred to as the Act). The case of the prosecution against the accused persons is that on 10.11.2000 sub Inspector Sanjay Kumar, S.H.O. Police Station, Banjar (pw-6) accompanied by A.S.I. Dorje Ram (pw-4), HC Naresh Chand and Constables Baldev, Uttam Singh and Chitter Singh was on patrol/Nakabandi duty at a place two kilometers ahead of Siundh towards Neuli. At about 4.10 a.m. they noticed the accused persons on the road coming towards them. On seeing the police, the accused turned back and started running but were apprehended by PW-6 and the accompanying police officials. Enquiries were then made from them about their names and addresses which they disclosed. In view of the time, place and conduct of the accused, police party suspected them of being in possession of contraband or psychotropic substance. Therefore, to conduct their search constable Baldev Singh was sent to call for some local witness but in vain. Therefore, PW-6 in the presence of Dorje Ram (PW-4) and HC Naresh Chand informed the accused persons one by one verbally as well as in writing that it was apprehended that they were carrying some contraband or psychotropic substance, therefore, their search was necessary. They were given option as to whether they would like to be searched before some Gazetted Officers or a Magistrate or by the police verbally as well as in writing agreed to give their search to the police party present on the spot vide Memoes Exts.PW-4/A, PW-4/B and PW-4/C. Therefore, PW-6 gave his search to all the accused one after the other vide Memoes Exts. PW-4/D, PW-4/F. Then search of the accused persons was conducted. First of all search of accused Naresh was conducted. From the pocket of raxine Jacket, which accused Naresh was wearing, a polythene packet containing one kilogram of Charas was recovered. PW-4/D, PW-4/F. Then search of the accused persons was conducted. First of all search of accused Naresh was conducted. From the pocket of raxine Jacket, which accused Naresh was wearing, a polythene packet containing one kilogram of Charas was recovered. Out of the recovered Charas three samples of 25 grams each were taken. The samples, so taken and the bulk Charas. were then separately packed and sealed with seal » T and NCB Form in Triplicate were filled in. Regarding recovery and seizure of the Charas Memo Ext. PW-4/G was prepared. Thereafter, person of Anil Kumar accused was searched. 700 Grams of Charas kept in a polythene packet under his Sweater was. recovered. Three samples of 25 Grams each were taken out of the recovered Charas. The samples, so taken and the bulk Charas, were made into separate packets and were sealed with Seal T and NCB Forms in Triplicate were filled in. The Memo regarding this recovery and seizure is Ext. PW-4/H. Lastly, personal search pf Nainu Ram accused was conducted. 500 Grams pf Charas in a polythene packet was recovered from the inner pocket of the Jacket, which the accused was wearing. Three samples of 25 Grams each were taken from the recovered Charas. The samples and the bulk Charas were thereafter sealed with Seal T and NCB Forms in Triplicate were filled in. The Memo Ext. PW-1/J was prepared about this recovery and seizure. After use Seal T used for sealing case property, was handed over to PW-4. The accused persons were then informed of the offences committed by them, punishment provided therefore and grounds of arrest vide memos Exts. PW-4/K, PW-4/L and PW-4/M. PW-6P prepared Ruka Ext. PW-6/A which was sent to Police Station. Banjar through Constable Uttam Singh (PW-5) on the basis of Ruka Ext. PW-6/A MHC Narain Singh (PW-3) registered F.I.R. Ext. PW-3/A at Police Station. Banjar, After registration of the case, case file was sent to the Investigating Officer through Constable Uttam Singh. Special report, copy whereof is Ext. PW-1/A, was sent to S.P. Office, Kullu through Constable Uttam Singh and was received by HC Sarswati (PW-1). The case property was deposited with MHC Narain Singh (PW-3) at Police Station, Banjar. On 12:12.2000, three sealed samples of the case property were sent to CTL Kandaghat for analysis through Constable Shyam Singh (PW-2). The samples were delivered at the Laboratory by PW-2. The case property was deposited with MHC Narain Singh (PW-3) at Police Station, Banjar. On 12:12.2000, three sealed samples of the case property were sent to CTL Kandaghat for analysis through Constable Shyam Singh (PW-2). The samples were delivered at the Laboratory by PW-2. The reports regarding chemical analysis of the samples are Exts. PW-6/D, PW-6/E and PW-6/F. All the samples were found to be Charas. Therefore, the Officer In charge of the Police Station, Banjar submitted a charge sheet against the accused persons who came to be tried on a charge under Section 20 of the Act by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu. 3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. wherein they denied the prosecution case as a whole and claimed to be innocent. Accused did not lead defence evidence 4. On consideration of the material on record, the learned Sessions Judge held all the accused persons guilty of the commission of an offence punishable under section 20 of the Act and accordingly sentenced each of the accused to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 5. Being aggrieved, accused Naresh Kumar and Anil Kumar have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 651 of 2001 and accused Nainu Ram preferred Criminal Appeal No. 642 of 2001 through the Superintendent of Jail. Mr. I.S. Balhara, Advocate, was appointed Legal Aid Counsel for accused Nainu Ram. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the accused persons and the learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondent/State and have also gone through the records. 7. It was contended by the learned counsel for the accused that the prosecution evidence, which consists of interested police officials, is highly untrustworthy, unnatural and unreliable. No. independent witness has been joined to witness the alleged search. Presence of the police officials on the spot is doubtful and the documents have been fabricated and overwritten to falsely implicate the accused persons in the case. No. independent witness has been joined to witness the alleged search. Presence of the police officials on the spot is doubtful and the documents have been fabricated and overwritten to falsely implicate the accused persons in the case. It was further contended that as per the prosecution itself not even a single penny was recovered from the accused persons at the time of their personal search which in itself is a circumstance rendering the prosecution case unbelievable for the reason that two of the accused persons belonging to Haryana could not be in Kullu District without any money, moreso, if they were interested in purchasing or transporting Charas. According to the learned counsel for the accused persons, this is an engineered case against the accused persons and they are liable to be acquitted. 8. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate General while supporting the impugned judgment has contended that the statement of the prosecution witnesses, though they are police officials, are confidence inspiring, reliable and trustworthy, therefore, by believing such evidence the accused persons have rightly been convicted and sentenced and the impugned judgment does call for any interference. 9. It may be pointed out at the very outset that there is no independent witness to support the prosecution version and the detection, searched seizure of Charas are sought to be proved by the evidence of the official witnesses, viz., the police officials ASI Dorje Ram (PW-4), constable Uttam Singh (PW-5) and SI Sanjay Kumar (PW-6). It is true that there is no rule of law that testimony of official witness should no be given any credence. On the contrary conviction can be based on trustworthy and confidence inspiring evidence of such witness. However, it is a rule of caution that evidence of such witnesses must be scrutinized strictly. If such evidence suffers from? Improbabilities and the version is shrouded by suspicious circumstances, it is unsafe to base conviction on such evidence. 10. It is case of the prosecution that the accused persons were apprehended by a police party consisting of SI Sanjay Kumar (PW-6), ASI Dorje Ram (PW-4). HC Naresh Chand, LHC Chitter Dev, Constable Baldev Singh and Constable Uttam Chand (PW-5). Improbabilities and the version is shrouded by suspicious circumstances, it is unsafe to base conviction on such evidence. 10. It is case of the prosecution that the accused persons were apprehended by a police party consisting of SI Sanjay Kumar (PW-6), ASI Dorje Ram (PW-4). HC Naresh Chand, LHC Chitter Dev, Constable Baldev Singh and Constable Uttam Chand (PW-5). However, as per Rapat Rojnamcha Ext.PW-3/E only SI Sanjay Kumar (PW-6), ASI Dorje Ram (PW-4) and Constable Uttam Singh left police Station Banjar on 9.11.2000 at 11a.m. towards the concerned area for petrol duty and Naka to trace out the contraband under the Act. There is no evidence as to How, when and where HC Naresh Chand and Constables Baldev and Chitter Dev joined the aforesaid police party. In the absence of such evidence the prosecution version about the presence of HC Naresh Chand and Constable Baldev on the spot cannot be believed. 11. The prosecution had cited said HC Naresh Kumar and Constable Baldev as its witnesses. However, despite being summoned as such, they were given up vide statement dated 25.6.2001 of the Public Prosecutor and were not examined. Therefore, from non-examination of these witnesses the legitimate inference which can be drawn is that had they been examined, they would not have supported the prosecution version. 12. There are yet other circumstances which create grave doubts about the correctness of the prosecution version. According to PW-4 and PW-5, the police party travelled from Police Station, Banjar to Larji in a private van. From Larji to Sainj, they travelled in another van. As per PW-5, no fare was paid to the van drivers. The names of the drivers of such vans and the numbers thereof are not known to the material witness. None of the drivers of the vans has been produced to prove that the police party in fact travelled from Banjar to the place of [occurrence at the material time. This circumstance also render the presence of the police party on the spot as suspicious. 13. In Ranbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2001(1)RCR (Criminal) 274), non production of the driver of the private jeep in which the police party was patrolling at the time of apprehension of the accused was treated as a circumstance adverse to the prosecution and accused was acquitted inter aila on this ground. 14. A look at the memos Exs. 13. In Ranbir Singh v. State of Haryana (2001(1)RCR (Criminal) 274), non production of the driver of the private jeep in which the police party was patrolling at the time of apprehension of the accused was treated as a circumstance adverse to the prosecution and accused was acquitted inter aila on this ground. 14. A look at the memos Exs. PW-4/H, PW-4/K, PW-4/L and PW-4/M reveals that the time of recovery of Charas and arrests of the » accused persons as initially given in those memos had been changed f by over writing. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming to explain \ as to why and under what circumstances those changes in the time were effected by way of over writing. 15. According to the prosecution, accused Nainu Ram was informed of the offence committed by him, the punishment provided therefore and the reasons for his arrest vide memo Ex. PW-4/M. As per the endorsement signed thereon by accused Nainu Ram, he wanted that information about his arrest be given to Shiv Ram. Tailor Master, Sainj. This document is signed by said Shiv Ram, acknowledge receipt of information that Nainu Ram happened to be present throughout the proceedings on the spot and left for Police Station along with ruqua admittedly at .6.15 A.M. had stated that he was not aware as to when memo Ex. PW-4/B was signed by said Shiv Ram. Had Shiv Ram come on the spot and signed this document on the spot, the fact should have been known to PW-5 Uttam Singh who was present on the spot till the completion of the proceedings on the spot. Similarly, PW-4 remained present on the spot till the police party left after completion of the proceedings on the spot. He Has stated that the red encircled acknowledgment of Shiv Ram was not made in his presence nor he is aware as to when Shiv Ram had made this endorsement. He has further stated that Shiv Ram did not come at the spot in his presence. Thus, the document Ex. PW-4/M, particularly the endorsement thereon purporting to have been signed by Shiv Ram, is also highly suspicious. Even his presence on the spot as claimed by PW-6 is doubtful, though a document is shown to have been signed by him on the spot. 16. Thus, the document Ex. PW-4/M, particularly the endorsement thereon purporting to have been signed by Shiv Ram, is also highly suspicious. Even his presence on the spot as claimed by PW-6 is doubtful, though a document is shown to have been signed by him on the spot. 16. According to the prosecution, the accused were apprehended in the wee hours on 10.11.2000, when they were seen by the police coming towards the place where the naka had been laid by the police party. Evidently, they were on way to some other place. One of them, namely, Nainu Ram, is a resident of Kullu, whereas accused Naresh Kumar Soni and Anil Kumar are residents of District Rewari in Haryana. On their personal search, as is the case of the prosecution, no money was recovered from them. It is unbelievable!, that a person or persons transporting contraband like charas would be doing so without a single penny on their person. Thus, the transporting of the charas by the accused without having any money with them is improbable. 17. The aforesaid circumstances lead to the conclusion that the investigation in the case has not been fair and the possibility of the accused having been falsely implicated in the case cannot be conveniently ruled out. The statements of the material witnesses are not reliable and confidence inspiring and the prosecution version is not free from doubt. 18. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the charge against the accused persons is not proved beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, the impugned convictions and sentences cannot be sustained. 19. As a result, both these appeals are allowed and the conviction of the sentence awarded to each of the accused persons are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges against them. 20. The accused persons are presently in jail undergoing the sentence of imprisonment awarded to them. They be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be detained under any other process of law. Fine, if recovered, be refunded t; "\e concerned accused. -