JUDGMENT Per Deepak Gupta, J 1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 6.12.2003, delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba in Sessions Case No. 30 of 2003, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The prosecution story briefly stated is that on 11.1.2003, PW-13 ASI Ranjeet Singh, who at the relevant time was working with C.I.A. staff at Chamba along with PW-6 HC Tilak Raj, PW-3 Surinder Kumar, PW-4 Rajesh Kumar and PW-9 Suresh Kumar was on patrolling duty at Sarda Nallah. At about 5.05 p.m. a vehicle No. HP-48-3474 came from the side of village Panela towards Chamba. The vehicle was stopped by the police officials. This vehicle was being driven by PW-2 Ashok Kumar. PW-1 Vivek Dutta, who was owner of the maize being carried on the vehicle, was also present in the vehicle. While the police officials were talking to these two persons, they saw one person coming on foot from the side of village Panela. This person, on seeing the police officials, started walking back towards Panela. He was carrying a black coloured polythene bag in his right hand. The behaviour of this person aroused the suspicion of the police officials, who chased and apprehended him. When the police officials felt the material in the polythene bag, from its touch, they suspected that it might be charas. On enquiry, the said person disclosed his name to be Rasalu Ram s/o Shri Durdhoyan i.e. the accused. An option was given to him by the police that he had a legal right to be searched either by a police officer or gazetted officer or Magistrate. The accused agreed to be searched by the police official and the search was carried out. On opening the polythene bag, it was found to contain charas. Thereafter, weights and scale were arranged by sending PW-9 C. Suresh Kumar to the shop of PW-5 Yog Raj. On weighment, the charas was found to weigh 1 Kg 100 gms. Out of this, two samples of 25 gms each were drawn and sealed in two empty Four Square Cigarette boxes. Thereafter, these two samples as well as the remaining bulk charas were sealed in three separate parcels and sealed with seal bearing impression “T”. On weighment, the charas was found to weigh 1 Kg 100 gms. Out of this, two samples of 25 gms each were drawn and sealed in two empty Four Square Cigarette boxes. Thereafter, these two samples as well as the remaining bulk charas were sealed in three separate parcels and sealed with seal bearing impression “T”. The seal was allegedly handed over to PW-1 Vivek Dutta. Other codal formalities were completed at the spot. Ruqua was prepared and sent to the police station through PW-4 C. Rajesh Kumar and one copy of the same was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Chamba through PW-3 C. Surinder Kumar and on the basis of this, FIR No. 15/2003 dated 11.1.2003 was registered. 3. Thereafter, the investigation was carried by ASI Kuldip Singh. The case property was produced before PW-8 Inspector Balbir Singh Patial who resealed the same with his seal “P”. The accused was arrested and the case property as well as the accused was handed over to the SHO. One sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Kandaghat, who vide his report Ext. P-L opined that the exhibit contained contents of charas and also came to the conclusion that the resin content was 26.14%. On this basis the accused was charged with having committed the offence aforesaid. He denied the entire prosecution story. After trial, he was acquitted. Hence, this appeal by the State. 4. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act have not been complied with. On merits, there is no discussion. The Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Pawan Kumar Latest HLJ 2004(SC) 1247 has clearly held that the provisions of Section 50 of the Act are not applicable in the case of search of a bag. Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the accused relies upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge in Cr. Appeal No. 127 of 2006, titled Baljeet Sharma vs. State of H.P. decided on 28.3.2007 and contends that since the recovery was made from an envelope it would be deemed to be a personal search. 5. At the outset, we may state that the recovery is not made from an envelope and probably there is a mistake in the translation done by the learned trial Court. 5. At the outset, we may state that the recovery is not made from an envelope and probably there is a mistake in the translation done by the learned trial Court. The word “lifafa” means both a carry bag as well as an envelope. In the present case the amount of charas is 1 Kg 100 gms and obviously it could be carried in a polythene bag and not in envelope. This would not be the result of personal search and we do not think that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel is applicable in the present case. 6. Coming to the merits of the case, we find that PW-13 Ranjeet Singh has clearly supported the prosecution case. His story is in line with what is stated hereinabove. According to him, after the accused was apprehended and given an option of giving his personal search as well as the search of the bag, he prepared a memo Ext. PA, which was signed not only by the accused but also by the independent witnesses PW-1 Vivek Dutta and PW-2 Ashok Kumar. When charas was found in the bag he sent PW-9 Suresh Kumar to arrange for weights and scale and on weighment the charas was found to weigh 1 Kg 100 gms. Two samples of 25 grams each were drawn. Thereafter the two samples as well as remaining bulk charas were sealed in three separate parcels and the seal was handed over to PW-1 Vivek Dutta. He then prepared the recovery memo Ext. PC which was also signed by the witnesses and PW-6 HC Tilak Raj and the accused put his thumb impression on the same. He then sent the ruqua Ext. PF for registration of the case through PW-4 C. Rajesh Kumar and the copy of the same Ext. PH to the Superintendent of Police, Chamba. The accused was informed about the grounds of his arrest and he prayed that his son-in-law should be informed about his arrest. In this behalf memo Ext. PD was prepared. Before searching the accused, this witness gave his search vide memo Ext. PE and all the memos Ext. PB to Ext. PE contain the signatures of PW-1 Vivek Dutta. The I.O. completed the other formalities at the spot and filled in the NCB form Ext. PL. He stated that he had filled in columns No.1 to 8 of the form. Before searching the accused, this witness gave his search vide memo Ext. PE and all the memos Ext. PB to Ext. PE contain the signatures of PW-1 Vivek Dutta. The I.O. completed the other formalities at the spot and filled in the NCB form Ext. PL. He stated that he had filled in columns No.1 to 8 of the form. He also stated that he recorded the statements of some witnesses and later the case was investigated by ASI Kuldip Singh. A suggestion was put to him, which he admitted, that he conducted the investigation on the spot. Most of the cross-examination is directed in suggesting that PW-6 HC Tilak Raj was not present at the spot. The remaining cross-examination is directed to the non compliance of Section 50 of the Act. There is virtually no cross-examination on the sealing aspect of the matter. 7. The version of this witness is fully corroborated by PW6 HC Tilak Raj. There is virtually no contradiction between the two statements. Great emphasis has been laid on the fact that the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution story. The law is now well settled that in cases where the independent witnesses do not support the prosecution and turn hostile the Court can place reliance on the statements of the official witnesses unless there are inconsistencies in the statements of official witnesses or there is any suspicion that the accused may have been falsely implicated in the matter. 8. The two independent witnesses of the recovery PW-1 Vivek Dutta and PW-2 Ashok Kumar turned hostile. They admitted that their vehicle was stopped near village Panela. According to PW-1 Vivek Dutta thereafter the police officials asked him to drop them at Police Station Chamba where they were taken to an office and informed that the police had recovered charas from a person. PW-1 stated that he signed a few documents. He also stated that Rasalu Ram accused was the person sitting in the office of the police at Chamba. The witness was declared hostile and cross-examined. He denied the prosecution story that the accused was apprehended near Sarda Nallah. He denied that the seal impression had been handed over to him. He also denied that any sample was taken in his presence. He, however, admitted his signatures on Ext. The witness was declared hostile and cross-examined. He denied the prosecution story that the accused was apprehended near Sarda Nallah. He denied that the seal impression had been handed over to him. He also denied that any sample was taken in his presence. He, however, admitted his signatures on Ext. PA, which is the consent memo thumb marked by the accused where he consented to be searched by the police. This witness also admitted his signatures on Ext. PB, which is the specimen of the seal impression. The witness also admitted his signatures on Ext. PC which is the recovery memo of the charas weighing 1 Kg 100 gms. The witness denied that the accused was informed that he was to be arrested but admitted his signatures on the memo Ext. PD whereby such information was given to the accused. The witness also admitted his signatures on memo Ext. PE which is the search memo of PW-13 Ranjeet Kumar. The explanation given by this witness is that he signed the documents at the instance of the police as he has to ply the vehicle on the road. He then stated that he was running a spare part shop and maintaining the accounts of his shop himself. According to him these documents were got signed from him by the police at his shop the next day. His version is that he did not go through the contents of the documents before signing the same but could give no reason why he signed the same without reading them. He also admitted that he had not disclosed the truth earlier to any person. 9. Similar is the statement of PW-2 Ashok Kumar. He also admitted his signatures on all the documents. He also could not assign any reason why he signed these documents without reading the contents thereof. He admitted that the accused was in lockup for at least 8 months due to his signing such documents. He also stated that he normally does not sign the documents blindly, but according to him he signed these documents under the fear of the police but could give no reason why he was scared of the police. This witness went on to the extent of saying that he could not recognize the person and thus he refused to identify the accused in Court. 10. This witness went on to the extent of saying that he could not recognize the person and thus he refused to identify the accused in Court. 10. PW-5 Yog Raj also turned hostile and stated that the police officials had not taken any weights and scale from his shop. 11. After scrutinizing the entire evidence very carefully, we are of the considered view that the story of the official witnesses appears to be true and there are no inconsistencies in the statements of the official witnesses. No suggestion has been put to the official witnesses that they had any past enmity with the accused so that they would be interested in falsely implicating him in such a serious case. No reason has been assigned why the police would plat a huge amount of charas measuring 1 Kg 100 gms. 12. In view of above discussion, we are of the considered view that the police has been able to prove beyond doubt that the recovery was made from the accused in the manner stated above. Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate, also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Sunil Kumar vs. State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2004(HP (DB) 1196 and states that the stuff which was seized cannot be said to be charas. We are of the considered view that the judgment in Sunil Kumar’s case has no applicability to the present case. In Sunil Kumar’s case the percentage of resin had not been specifically mentioned in any of the report. In the present case not only the microscopic examination has been done but the expert has opined that the exhibit contains contents of charas and the resin content is 26.14%. This would be the amount of charas. Therefore, following the judgment in Daulat Ram vs. State of H.P., 2007(2) Shm. L.C. 82, the amount of cannabis charas which is the offending material works out to 287.54 gms. 13. We accordingly, set aside the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 6.12.2003 and convict the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act. Bail bonds are cancelled and the accused be produced before us for being heard on the quantum of sentence on 9.1.2013. The Registry is directed to take follow up action.