JUDGMENT R.B.Misra, Judge: The present criminal appeals have preferred against the common judgment dated 20.11.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 37 of 2008, thereby convicting both the accused to go undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1.00 lacs each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each for the commission of offence punishable under Section 20 (c ) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( inshort ‘NDPS Act;) in reference to FIR No. 7/08 dated 10.1.2008, P.S. Tissa, District Chamba. 2. Facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal are that a Maruti car bearing No. PB-10BA-3881, driven by convict-appellant No.2, namely Prehlad, in which convict-appellant Arvind Singh was occupying a front seat, was stopped on 10.1.2008 at about 1.30 PM. Driver of the car, after seeing the police party, got down from the car and managed to run away. Convict Arvind Singh, occupant of front seat of the said car, was apprehended on the spot. On search of the car, two polythene packets were recovered from the said car, which were allegedly found kept in it under the feet of convict-appellant Arvind Singh. On search of the polythene envelops, ‘Charas’ in the shape of balls and sticks were found. Constable Tilak Raj was allegedly deputed to bring the weights and scale. Thereafter, recovered ‘charas’ on weighment, was allegedly found to be 5 KGs. Out of the recovered ‘charas’ two samples of 25 grams each were allegedly drawn and sealed with seal ‘D’ and remaining ‘charas’ was sealed with same seal ‘D’. ‘NCB Form’ was filled in on the spot and rukka was sent to police station and in that reference, FIR was lodged against the convicts-appellants. Site plan was prepared. The said vehicle along with documents was taken into possession. During investigation, convict-appellant Arvind Singh disclosed that convict-appellant Prehlad was driving the said car and he managed to run away from the spot. Thereafter, convict-appellant Prehlad was also arrested. One part of the sample was sent to FSL, Junga for chemical examination and after completion of entire formalities, challan against the convict-appellants was submitted to the court for the aforesaid offence. 3. Thereafter, convict-appellant Prehlad was also arrested. One part of the sample was sent to FSL, Junga for chemical examination and after completion of entire formalities, challan against the convict-appellants was submitted to the court for the aforesaid offence. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 12 prosecution witnesses, whereas, through their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. accused/respondents denied the same. 4. SPO Bheekam Singh (PW-1) had witnessed the recovery of contraband good on 10.1.2008 at about 1.30 PM. He has stated that while the police party headed by HC Deepak Kumar was present at Badoh in connection with traffic checking. A maruti car was stopped by the police party and the contraband good was recovered from the car, which on weighment was found to contained 5 Kgs of ‘charas’. He further stated that two samples were drawn from the recovered ‘charas, which were sealed with seal ‘D’. Constable Tilak Raj (PW-2) has supported the testimony of PW-1 and has also supported the prosecution case. Yog Raj (PW-3), an independent witness, however, has not supported the prosecution case though he has admitted that the said car was present at the check post, however PW-3 has admitted his signatures on seizure memo Ex PW-1/C, vide which, car, along with documents was taken in possession by the police. Vias Dev (PW-7), though said to be an independent witness, running a Karyana shop at Badoh, provided weights and scale to the police, however, had not supported the prosecution case. As such, he was declared hostile. MHC Madan Lal (PW-4) has stated that ASI Sadanand had handed over case property to him for depositing the same in the Malkhana. PW-4 has also stated that on 24.7.08, case property was sent to District Malkhaha vide RC No.56/08. Constable Virender Singh (PW-5) had delivered the samples in the laboratory i.e. FSL, Junga on 14.1.2008 after obtaining receipt thereof. HC Jogidner Singh (PW-6) is a witness to reseal Memo Ext PW-6/B. (PW-6) has further stated that HC Deepak Kumar handed over case property along with documents to ASI Sadanand vide inventory Ex PW-6/A, over which PW-6 has put his signatures. HC Jogidner Singh (PW-6) is a witness to reseal Memo Ext PW-6/B. (PW-6) has further stated that HC Deepak Kumar handed over case property along with documents to ASI Sadanand vide inventory Ex PW-6/A, over which PW-6 has put his signatures. Constable Om Parkash (PW-8) had received rukka Ex PW-8/A on 10.1.2008 and has also stated that on 11.1.2008 special report was also handed over to him, which he presented before the SP, who after perusal returned that to him for being kept in the record. PW-8 has proved the copy of special report as Ext PW-8/B. ASI Sadanand (PW-9) has recorded FIR Ext PW-9/A and has also stated that case property on being produced by HC Deepak Kumar was resealed by him with seal ‘A’ and thereafter he deposited the case property with MHC. Sample seal was separately taken him, He has provided sample seal as Ext PW-9/B. PW-9 has also prepared reseal memo Ext PW-6/B and special report Ext PW-8/B and sent it to the SP Office, Chamba. PW-9 has also proved NCB form Ext PW-9/C. ASI Man Chand (PW-10) has stated that after receipt of the report of FSL, Junga Ext PW-10/A and after completion of investigation, handed over the case file to SHO for preparation of the challan. HC Deepak Kumar (PW-11), investigating officer has supported the prosecution case by saying that the recovered ‘charas’ was mixed up and two samples of 25 grams each were drawn which were parceled and sealed with seal ‘D’ and the balance ‘charas’ was also sealed with seal ‘D’. Tilak Raj was deputed to bring the weights and scale and the recovered ‘charas’ on weighment was found to be 5 KGs. The sample seal Ext PW-1/B was taken and seizure memo Ext PW-1/A was prepared. He has further stated that he filled in NCB form Ext PW-9/C and prepared a rukka Ext PW-11/A and prepared site plan Ext PW-11/B. 5. In these circumstances, prosecution has claimed that the prosecution has successfully proved guilt of the convict-appellants for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 20 of NDPS Act. 6. Mr. Balbir Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of convict-appellant Arvind Singh has mainly argued that ‘NCB Form’ was not filled on the spot and two witnesses, (PW-3) Yog Ral and (PW-7) Vias Dev have not supported the prosecution case, as such, prosecution case become doubtful. 6. Mr. Balbir Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of convict-appellant Arvind Singh has mainly argued that ‘NCB Form’ was not filled on the spot and two witnesses, (PW-3) Yog Ral and (PW-7) Vias Dev have not supported the prosecution case, as such, prosecution case become doubtful. He has further stated that NCB form was not deposited in Malkhana and the sample taken at the spot was 25 grams each, whereas in reference to chemical examiner report, weight of sample was reduced which gives suspicion to the prosecution case. Link evidence is missing, as such, it cannot be said that the same sample which was recovered from the spot was sent to the chemical examiner and the Chemical Examiner has given his opinion in respect of the same sample which was recovered on the spot on the fateful day. 7. Mr. Balbir Singh Chauhan, learned Advocate had placed reliance on the judgments i.e. State of H.P. Vs. Ramesh Chand latest HLJ 2011 (HP) 724 and Manjeet Singh Vs. State of HP 2005 (3) Shim. L.C 107. In our considered view, facts of the referred cases by learned counsel for the convict-appellant are different and distinguishable and verdict of the said referred judgments are not applicable in the present case. 7. In the light of submissions made on behalf of leaned counsel for the convict-appellant, we scrutinize the prosecution witnesses and materials on record and we notice that though convict-appellant Prahlad was not apprehended on the spot, however, he was apprehended subsequently in view of disclosure of his name during investigation of the convict-appellant Arvind and accordingly, convict-appellant Arvind who was apprehended on the spot and after being apprehended, Prehlad in whose name the said cart in question said to be involved in the incident, was identified by HC Deepak Kumar. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-11 had also identified the accused Prehlad who was said to have escaped from the spot and was subsequently identified by these witnesses, more so, when the RC of the said vehicle was in the name of accused Prehlad. The packets of ‘charas’ was found kept under the feet of convict Arvind who was occupying front seat in vehicle in question. Nothing has been brought by accused Prehlad that the packet of contraband good recovered was exclusively belonging to convict Arvind only. The packets of ‘charas’ was found kept under the feet of convict Arvind who was occupying front seat in vehicle in question. Nothing has been brought by accused Prehlad that the packet of contraband good recovered was exclusively belonging to convict Arvind only. As such, Prehlad could be said to have knowledge about the polythene packet in which contraband good was kept and recovery of contraband good in question could be said to have been derived from the conscious and exclusive possession of both the accused. No doubt, independent witnesses Yog Raj (PW-3) and Vias Devi (PW-7) have not supported the prosecution case, however, prosecution case cannot be disbelieved mainly on this count alone that PW-1,2 & 11 have deposed that two polythene packets containing ‘charas’ was recovered from the conscious possession of both the accused while both were in the car in question. There is no material on record that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-11 were inimical to the accused persons and would falsely implicate them, when the testimony of these official witnesses are inspiring confidence, as such, recovery cannot be doubtful. 8. On perusal of Ext PW-9/C, i.e. ‘NCB Form’, nothing is revealed that the same has not been filled on the spot. As such, submission of learned counsel for the convict-appellant is also devoid of force. 9. We notice that PW-11 HC Deepak Kumar, had specifically stated that parcels containing sample and balance remaining ‘charas’ were sealed on the spot with seal ‘D’ and ‘NCB Form’ was filled in on the spot and the sample seal was drawn separately and the seal after use was given to PW Bheekam. PW11 has further stated that all the three parcels along with documents were handed over to ASI Sadanand (PW-9), who consequently deposed that he handed over the parcels and documents to MHC Madan Lal (PW-4), who on examination, has stated that samples, duly sealed with seal ‘D’ and resealed with seal ‘A’ along with documents were given to him, which he deposited in the Malkhanna and had sent one part of the sample to FSL, Junga through constable Virender vide RC No. 77/08, copy of which is also placed on record. Virender Kumar (PW-5) has deposed about delivery of samples and documents in the laboratory. Virender Kumar (PW-5) has deposed about delivery of samples and documents in the laboratory. Ext PW 10/A is the report of the laboratory which shows that the sample examined in the laboratory was of ‘charas’ Report Ext PW-10/A also revealed that the sample deposited in laboratory was sealed with seal ‘D’ and resealed with seal ‘A’ and the seals were intact and were tallied with the seal impression sent to the laboratory and on the firm NCR-1. Point No.7 of Ext PW-10/A has very categorically described that one sealed parcel bearing with three seals of ‘D’ were resealed with three seals of ‘A’. The seals were intact and tallied with seal impression sent by the SHO to the form NCR-1. As such, it cannot be said that the link evidence is missing and evidence on record is not sufficient to prove that the sample which was examined in the chemical laboratory was not the same which was separated from the recovered ‘charas’. We also observe that in view of the statement of HC Deepak Kumar (PW-11) that ‘charas’ of both the polythene recovered on the fateful day was mixed up and thereafter two samples of 25 grams each were drawn, therefore, it cannot be said that only sample was drawn from one polythene packet, out of two packets recovered from the spot, containing contraband goods namely ‘charas’. We also notice that the sample which was sent to the laboratory was containing 25 grams of ‘charas’ but the sample which was examined in the laboratory was found 15.478 grams and, therefore, it cannot be said that the sample examined in the laboratory was not the same which was drawn from the recovered ‘charas’. A difference of weight of sample found in the laboratory shall not make the prosecution case doubtful. Assertions of convict-appellant will not vitiate the prosecution case as the sample sealed and recovery on the spot was of 50 grams comprising of two samples of 25 grams each, however, on weighing the exhibit of the sample on electronic balance, the weight was found 15.478 gms, is not indicative of the fact that report was not in respect of that sample which was recovered and in respect of that sample, chemical examiner has give report, more so, when chemical examiner report is reliable and conclusive. 10. 10. In our considered view, 5 Kgs of ‘charas’ on the relevant date has been recovered from the conscious possession of the convict-appellant and the samples were duly drawn and sealed and were sent for chemical examination and report of chemical examiner reveals that contraband was of ‘charas’ 11. On analysis of the prosecution witnesses and material on record, learned Special Judge (FTC), Chamba has rightly arrived at finding that the prosecution has successfully been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In our considered view, there is no scope of interference in the judgment and findings arrived at by learned Special Judge (FCT), Chamba in respect of both the convicts. As such, in the facts and circumstances, convicting both the accused to go undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1.00 lacs each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each for the commission of offence punishable under Section 20 (c) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is reasonable. Both the criminal appeals are emanating from the incident and are attributable to the same FIR, as such, criminal appeals being devoid of merits, are accordingly dismissed.