JUDGMENT 1. The State challenges acquittal of the respondent of the offence under section 20 of the NDPS Act. 2. Case of the prosecution is that a police party headed by ASI Mohinder Singh PW2 was present at Bus Stand, Panipat. Accused appeared there and was apprehended on suspicion. He was informed that he was to be searched and he had the option to get the search conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. He desired search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. The police party came at GT Road in front of the bus stand alongwith the accused, where DSP Rattan SinghPW1 arrived and in his presence, search was conducted, on which 2 kgs. and 300 gms. of Charas was recovered from his possession. After taking sample, the residue was separately sealed. Report of the Chemical examiner was received and after completion of investigation, the accused was sent up for trial. 3. The prosecution examined Rattan Singh DSP as PW1, ASI Mohinder Singh as PW2, Jai Bhagwan MMHC as PW3, Ram Kumar as PW4 and Surinder Singh SI as PW5. The prosecution also tendered documents - affidavit of Dalbir Singh Ex.PY and report of FSL Madhuban Ex.PZ. 4. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and examined Constable Suresh Kumar as DW1. 5. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court held that the case of the prosecution was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Affidavit of Constable Dalbir Singh Ex.PY was filed but he was not produced before the court for cross examination and, thus, link evidence was missing. There was also contradiction about the seals put on the samples. PW4 Ram Kumar was examined as independent witness who did not support the case of the prosecution. There were contradictory versions about the manner of recovery and the weights used, which created doubt about the recovery having been effected. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the State and perused the reasons given by the trial court for acquittal of the respondent. 7. At best, two views may be possible about reliability of the recovery but the view taken by the trial court is also a possible view and cannot be held to be perverse. This being the position, no interference is called for with the acquittal of the respondent. 8. 7. At best, two views may be possible about reliability of the recovery but the view taken by the trial court is also a possible view and cannot be held to be perverse. This being the position, no interference is called for with the acquittal of the respondent. 8. Scope of appeal against acquittal has been gone into by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter-alia, in Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 1833, wherein it was observed:- “21. The principle to be followed by appellate courts considering an appeal against an order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the order is clearly unreasonable it is a compelling reason for interference (see Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973 2 SCC 793: AIR 1973 SC 2622: (1973 Cri LJ 1783)). The principle was elucidated in Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 9 SCC 225: 1996 AIR SCW 2438: AIR 1996 SC 2035 (1996 Cri LJ 2867): “While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then and then only reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions.” In view of above, the appeal is dismissed. —————————