JUDGMENT SURINDER SINGH, J. Both these appeals are arising from the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, in Sessions Trial No.52 of 2010, decided on 2.4.2012/16.4.2012, whereby the appellants herein to be referred as ‘the accused persons’ were sentenced under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in short ‘the Act’ to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of !.40,000/- each with the default clause, for allegedly keeping in possession 404 grams of ‘Charas’ in the recovered stuff of 1 Kg. 500 grams. 2.The case unfolded by the prosecution and accepted by the learned trial Court is that on 27.5.2010, PW8 Head Constable Parshotam Ram was on patrolling duty and detection of crime. Around 4.00 PM, they were present at a place known as ‘Chiladhar’, they spotted both the accused persons coming from the side of village Jibhi. On seeing the police party both of them got perplexed and tried to escape. The police became suspicious that they might be possessing some contraband with them, as such nabbed them. Their identity was asked to which they revealed. (i) It is alleged that accused Sat Pal was carrying a red-coloured bag in his left hand printed with the words “Karwan”. (ii)HC Parshotam Ram aforesaid informed both the accused persons of their legal right either to be searched before the Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer. To this effect memo Ext.PW6/A was prepared. Both of them exercised their option to be searched by the police present at the spot. The Investigating Officer aforesaid (PW8) rendered himself to be searched by them, but no incriminating article was found with him, as such memo Ext.PW6/B was prepared.(iii)Thereafter PW8 HC Parshotam Ram conducted the search of the bag carried by accused Sat Pal and recovered two polythene packets, one of which was wrapped with newspaper and another in polythene, which were containing some stuff in the shape of sticks and balls. On its weight, it came out to be 1 kg. 500 grams.(iv)The recovered stuff Ext.P3 alongwith polythene Ext.P2 and newspaper were repacked in the same manner in which it was found and made into a parcel Ext.P1 and bag Ext.P.5 in parcel Ext.P4. Both the parcels were sealed with the seal of English letter producing the impression “H”. On its weight, it came out to be 1 kg. 500 grams.(iv)The recovered stuff Ext.P3 alongwith polythene Ext.P2 and newspaper were repacked in the same manner in which it was found and made into a parcel Ext.P1 and bag Ext.P.5 in parcel Ext.P4. Both the parcels were sealed with the seal of English letter producing the impression “H”. The case property was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW6/C.(v)HC Parshotam Ram aforesaid prepared the NCB forms in triplicate, one of which is Ext.PW4/D. The facsimile of the seal used at the spot was also taken on a separate piece of cloth Ext.PW6/D and also affixed on the NCB forms. The seal after its use was handed over to PW6 HHC Hem Raj.(vi)A Ruqa Ext.PW4/A was sent through PW6 HHC Hem Raj to the Police Station, Banjar for the registration of the case, which culminated into FIR Ext.PW4/B.(vii)The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan Ext.PW8/A of the place of the alleged recovery.(viii)Co-accused Ramesh Chand was alleged to be an abettor/conspirator being found in the company of the main accused.(ix)The accused-persons were arrested and grounds of arrest in writing were informed to them vide memo Ext.PW8/E.(x)Later on the same day, the case property was produced before PW4 ASI Yashwant Singh in the Police Station. He re-sealed it with the seal impression “A” at nine places and also filled in the relevant columns of NCB forms. Facsimile of seal “A” was also taken on a piece of cloth Ext.PW4/C. Thereafter entrusted the case property alongwith other documents to PW3 MHC Ramesh Chand for safe deposit in the Malkhana to which he entered in the relevant register, abstract whereof is Ext.PW3/A.(xi)The special report Ext.PW1/A was sent to the officer superior within stipulated time with respect to search and seizure.(xii)On 28.5.2010 the whole stuff alongwith NCB forms etc. was sent for analysis through PW7 HHC Bahadur Singh vide RC Ext.PW3/B to which he deposited in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga on 29.5.2010. He also obtained receipt on the RC, which wasdeposited, on return, by him with the MHC aforesaid.(xiii)Report of analysis is Ext.PW5/A. The stuff sent for analysis was tested positive for ‘Charas’ being extract of cannabis having 26.95% quantity of resin. 3.After concluding investigation, the challan was presented against the accused persons in the Court for their trial. He also obtained receipt on the RC, which wasdeposited, on return, by him with the MHC aforesaid.(xiii)Report of analysis is Ext.PW5/A. The stuff sent for analysis was tested positive for ‘Charas’ being extract of cannabis having 26.95% quantity of resin. 3.After concluding investigation, the challan was presented against the accused persons in the Court for their trial. Accused Sat Pal was charged sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act, whereas another accused Ramesh Chand for the offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii) (C) read with Section 29 of the Act for abetment and criminal conspiracy, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4.To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses. The accused persons were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both of them denied the circumstances which were found attendant upon them. They denied the recovery as alleged. However, they did not lead any evidence in defence. On consideration of the evidence led by prosecution, the learned trial Court finding substance in it convicted and sentenced the accused persons as aforesaid. Hence the present appeal. 5.Shri Anup Chitkara, learned Counsel for accused Sat Pal forcefully argued that the case of the prosecution is false and could not prove that the article so sealed remained intact till it was examined in the laboratory. Even its seizure was doubtful. The seal was never produced during the trial and the report of the chemical examiner is inadmissible in evidence. Further there are material contradictions and embellishments in the statements of the prosecution witnesses rendering the prosecution case doubtful. 6.Ms Divya Sood, learned Counsel for accused Ramesh Chand submitted that there is no iota of evidence on record to connect accused Ramesh Chand with the offence charged. Merely because the said accused was going alongwith the main accused, will not make him responsible for the alleged offence in the absence of any connecting evidence, more specifically when no offensive matter was recovered from him. 7.On the other hand, Shri P. M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General, while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence argued that the recovery stands proved from the possession of accused Sat Pal, link evidence is complete till its examination of the recovered stuff. 7.On the other hand, Shri P. M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General, while supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence argued that the recovery stands proved from the possession of accused Sat Pal, link evidence is complete till its examination of the recovered stuff. Production of the seal is not mandatory and there is overwhelming evidence that the samples were not tampered with in any manner and further that the minor contradictions here and there in the statements of the prosecution witnesses reinforce truth. He further submitted that accused Sat Pal stands fully connected with the aforesaid offence. Since another accused Ramesh Chand was accompanying him, on seeing the police he tried to escape, shows his culpable mind. Therefore, he was also rightly convicted and sentenced. 8.I have given my due consideration to the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully and cautiously scanned the evidence on record. 9.PW8 HC Parshotam Ram testified that on 27.5.2010, he alongwith PW6 HHC Hem Raj, was at ‘Chiladhar’, as aforesaid and this fact is entered in the daily diary Ext.PW2/A. He also stated that around 5.00 PM, they noticed the accused persons coming on opposite side, who on seeing the police-party became perplexed and tried to escape. They were apprehended by them about 10/15 steps ahead. Their names and addresses were ascertained. Accused Sat Pal was having a bag in his left hand, which was printed with words “Karwan”. Since he had suspicion about the possession of some contraband he thought it proper to search the accused persons, thus apprised of their legal right to be searched either before the Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer vide Ext.PW6/A and they opted to be searched by the police-party present on the spot. Thereafter he rendered himself to be searched by the accused, but nothing incriminating was found in his person and memo Ext.PW6/B to this effect was prepared. However, on the search of the bag carried by accused Sat Pal, he stated that two polythene packets were recovered, which were having 1 Kg. 500 grams of stuff in the shape of sticks and balls. On the basis of smell and burning he suspected it to be ‘Charas’. The whole parcel was made into one parcel Ext.P1sealed with nine seals. 500 grams of stuff in the shape of sticks and balls. On the basis of smell and burning he suspected it to be ‘Charas’. The whole parcel was made into one parcel Ext.P1sealed with nine seals. The sample seal was also drawn on a piece of cloth Ext.PW6/D and its facsimile was also taken on the NCB forms prepared on the spot one of which is Ext.PW4/D. He further stated that the seal after its use was handed over to PW6 HHC Hem Raj. The case property was taken into possession. He also produced the case property before PW4 ASI Yashwant Singh, who also testified the production of the case property alongwith the NCB forms and further stated that the said parcel was resealed by him with the seal impression “A” by affixing nine seals and the bag parcel was also resealed by him with the same seal. He further stated that the relevant columns of the NCB forms were filled in. He further stated having deposited the case property with PW3 MHC Ramesh Chand on the same day around 9.00 PM by ASI Yashwant Singh, which fact has been admitted by said MHC Ramesh Chand during the trial that he had received the case property which was sealed with nine seals of seal impressions “A” and “H”. Bag alongwith NCB forms, sample seals of “A” and “H” were also deposited by PW4 ASI Yashwant Singh to which he entered in the Malkhana register and the abstract of which is Ext.PW3/A. Immediately on the next day, i.e., 28.5.2010, the parcel was sent for its analysis through PW7 HHC Bahadur Singh for its examination vide reference letter Ext.PW3/C, which according to HHC Babadur Singh aforesaid was carried by him vide RC No.62 of 2010 for its deposit at FSC, Junga with NCB forms in triplicate, sample of seals and other relevant documents. Both these witnesses stated that so long as the case property remained in their possession it was never tampered with and it remained intact and PW8 HC Parshotam Ram had identified the case property during the trial to be the same recovered from the accused. 10.PW7 HHC Bahadur Singh in his cross-examination denied that the said property was not handed over to him by MHC Ramesh Chand aforesaid and also about its non-deposit in the laboratory. 10.PW7 HHC Bahadur Singh in his cross-examination denied that the said property was not handed over to him by MHC Ramesh Chand aforesaid and also about its non-deposit in the laboratory. 11.To shatter the statement of the Investigating Officer, he was subjected to a lengthy cross- examination by the accused, but he again testified about the possession of the bag with the offensive matter and its recovery from Sat Pal accused. He denied having carried out the entire proceedings in Police Station. He also denied that the said bag was found abandoned in bus-stand, Banjar, when the passengers were alighting from the bus and the accused persons were falsely implicated in the case. But no suggestion even remotely was drawn to this witness as to what malice police was having against them. 12.PW6 HHC Hem Raj was accompanying HC Parshotam Ram (PW8). He also made the similar statement and lent corroboration to his statement. He stated having taken Ruqa to the Police Station. During the trial he also identified the parcel Ext.P1, newspaper Ext.P2 and ‘Charas’ Ext.P3 recovered from the bag Ext.P5. 13. Further on scrutiny of the evidence, I also find that the parcel Ext.P.1 was delivered in the laboratory by PW7 HHC Bahadur Singh on 29.5.2010 and the description of the parcel is given in the examination report Ext.PW5/A. It contained nine seals of “H” and “A”, respectively which confirms to the statement of Investigating Officer and the resealing Officer and further the certificate reveals that the seals were found intact and tallied with the specimen seals sent by the forwarding authority. The seal impressions “H” was affixed on the parcel at the spot and resealing was done by PW4 ASI Yashwant Singh in Police Station and both seals were found intact and had tallied with the specimen seals, which were accompanying the parcel. Therefore, the tampering of the parcel aforesaid is completely ruled out. Further, the NCB forms which were accompanying the parcel for analysis were also having facsimile of both seals. Thus, there is no discrepancy qua identity of the parcel recovered from Sat Pal accused from his bag. 14. Further, on its scientific examination, the Chemical Analyst found the presence of cannabinols including the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol in the stuff examined by him which also indicated the presence of Cystolithic hair. Thus, there is no discrepancy qua identity of the parcel recovered from Sat Pal accused from his bag. 14. Further, on its scientific examination, the Chemical Analyst found the presence of cannabinols including the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol in the stuff examined by him which also indicated the presence of Cystolithic hair. The resin was also found present and the quantity of resin was 26.93% and in the opinion of chemical examiner, it was an extract of cannabis and sample of ‘Charas’. 15. The report aforesaid does not require any formal proof. It is per-se admissible as per provisions of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which makes the provision for accepting in evidence of such report as a whole with regard to the condition of the sample and the seals thereon and the manner of its receipt. Thus, in view of the aforesaid report, the contents of the ‘Charas’ which were found in the recovered stuff is 404 grams, which is separated resin, obtained from cannabis plant, fairly and squarely falls within the definition of charas as contained in Section 2(iii) of the Act. Therefore, I am not in agreement with the learned Counsel for accused Sat Pal that the recovery is not proved and further that the report is not linked with the recovery, thus cannot be accepted in view of the overwhelming evidence as discussed above. Hence no fault can be found in the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court qua accused Sat Pal and his appeal deserves dismissal which lacks merit. 16. In so far as accused Ramesh Chand is concerned, his case is quite distinguishable from Sat Pal accused. Admittedly at the relevant time he was accompanying main accused Sat Pal, but no recovery of any offensive matter was affected from him. Both the accused persons belong to same Tehsil Ani, but from the neighbouring villages. He did not explain his company with Sat Pal and his destination nor examined himself under Section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after seeking permission from the learned Special Judge so as to show his innocence. Had he offered himself to be a witness, his statement would have been relevant, but however, his association with the accused raises strong suspicious but it is a cardinal principle of law that suspicious however, strong it may, cannot take the place of proof. Had he offered himself to be a witness, his statement would have been relevant, but however, his association with the accused raises strong suspicious but it is a cardinal principle of law that suspicious however, strong it may, cannot take the place of proof. The prosecution is obliged to prove something more to establish his culpability. The only circumstance which weighs against him is that on seeing the police-party he alongwith main accused Sat Pal tried to escape and both were nabbed by the police. It is noticed by experience that generally in almost all the cases of such a nature the police projects the same theory of an attempt to escape and their nabbing on suspicion by police which at times is not correct. But, however, on the strength of this evidence also that no animus of Ramesh Chand accused with respect to the actual or constructive possession of contraband by Sat Pal co-accused can be attributed in absence of any other cogent and reliable evidence. 17.It is trite that to hold a person guilty, possession has to be conscious. Control over the goods is one of the tests to ascertain conscious possession so also the title. Once an article is found in possession of an accused it could be presumed that he was in conscious possession. Possession is a polymorphous term which carries different meaning in different context and circumstances and therefore it is difficult to lay down a completely logical and precise definition uniformly applicable to all situations with reference to all the statutes. Thus the distinction has to be drawn in the above factual background between main accused and Ramesh Chand co-accused who is alleged to be an abettor/conspirator. 18.In the circumstances, if a known person is accompanying the accused having in his possession any offensive matter unless it is established that it was left in the custody of such person over which he had absolute control or that there is any connecting evidence direct or indirect involving that person, would not make him guilty for the offence charged. Whereas, the learned trial Court held accused Ramesh Chand guilty with the aid of Section 29 of the Act only on the strength of evidence that he was found walking with the main accused. Whereas, the learned trial Court held accused Ramesh Chand guilty with the aid of Section 29 of the Act only on the strength of evidence that he was found walking with the main accused. Merely that he had tried to escape which aroused the suspicion of the police does not mean that he knew as to what Sat Pal main accused was carrying in his bag, the control of which was not with Ramesh Chand. Therefore, in my considered opinion, he deserves to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. 19.In result, Criminal Appeal No.204 of 2012 filed by Sat Pal is dismissed, being without merit whereas Criminal Appeal No.205 of 2012 by Ramesh Chand is hereby allowed. Consequently, accused Ramesh Chand is acquitted by giving him the benefit of reasonable doubt. Since he is undergoing the sentence, he be released forthwith in case not required in any other case. Registry of this Court is directed to send his release warrants to the jail concerned in conformity with this judgment. 20.Send down the record after compliance.