JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. - These appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 22.09.2008, passed by learned Special Judge, Chamba Division Chamba, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 58 of 2007, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Om Parkash & another, whereby both accused Om Parkash (appellant in Cr.Appeal No. 654 of 2008) and Mela Ram (appellant in Cr.Appeal No. 659 of 2008), stand convicted for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. The appeals were argued together by the same learned Senior counsel and since common question of law and facts are involved, are being disposed of together by a common judgment. 3. It is the case of prosecution that on 23.01.2007, Constables Virender Singh (PW.1), Mahinder Singh (PW.2), Ramesh Kumar (PW.8) and Head Constable Ashok Kumar (PW.10), amongst others, had set up a Nakka at zero point Jassourgarh, falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Tissa, District Chamba, H.P. At about 3.00 AM, one Jeep (Bolero) bearing No. HP-01C-3017 came from Nakrod side. The vehicle was stopped. Accused Mela Ram was on the wheel and owner Om Parkash was sitting alongside him. The vehicle was searched. Bonnet of the vehicle was opened by Constable Mahinder Singh (PW.2), where he found one bag (Ex.P-4). The same was opened. Yellow polythene envelope (Ex.P-5) was found inside this bag. Police opened this envelop and found charas like substance in the shape of sticks. While the police party was carrying out search, taking advantage of darkness both the accused fled away from the spot. PW.2 went to Bhanjraru bazar and got the weighing scales from Mustafa (PW.3). Contraband substance was weighed and found to be of 5 Kg. 500 grams. Two samples of 25 grams each, were drawn. Sample and the remaining bulk parcel were sealed with seal impression A. Rukka (Ex.PW.9/A) was prepared and sent to the Police Station through Constable Virender Singh (PW.1), on the basis of which, Inspector Hem Singh (PW.9) SHO Police Station, Tissa, registered FIR No. 8/07 dated 23.01.2007 (Ex.PW.1/C), under the provisions of Section 20 of NDPS Act. Sample and the remaining bulk parcel were sealed with seal impression A. Rukka (Ex.PW.9/A) was prepared and sent to the Police Station through Constable Virender Singh (PW.1), on the basis of which, Inspector Hem Singh (PW.9) SHO Police Station, Tissa, registered FIR No. 8/07 dated 23.01.2007 (Ex.PW.1/C), under the provisions of Section 20 of NDPS Act. Constable Virender Singh took the file back to the spot and handed it over to H.C. Ashok Kumar (PWE.10). Special report was sent to S.P. Chamba through constable Ramesh Kumar (PW.8). Police conducted the investigation on the spot by preparing seizure memo, site plan etc. Thereafter H.C.Ashok Kumar (PW. 10) handed over the investigation to Addl.SHO Swaru Ram (not examined), who took the samples, NCB form (Ex. PW.9/E) etc. to Police Station, Tissa and in the presence of L.C. Uma Kumari (PW.4), handed it over to Inspector/SHO Hem Singh (PW.9). The samples were resealed with seal impression S and deposited with MHC Charan Singh (PW.6). The sealed samples were sent by PW.6 through Constable Virender Singh (PW.1) for chemical analysis to FSL Junga. FSL report (Ex.PW.9/D) was received by the police, which revealed that the contraband substance was Charas. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented by PW.9 in the Court, for trial. 4. Both the accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the NDPS Act, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were also recorded, in which they took up a defence of false implication and innocence. No evidence was led in defence. 6. Attacking the findings and the judgment rendered by the trial Court, Mr.N.K.Thakur, learned Senior counsel argued that: (1) Prosecution has failed to prove and establish recovery of contraband substance from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused; (2) It is a case of false implication inasmuch as no efforts for search of the accused, who allegedly fled from the spot, were made by the police; (3) Had the contraband substance been placed in the bonnet of the vehicle, it would have melted and emanated smell. Hence the genesis of the prosecution case is false; (4) There is contradiction on record with regard to the person who handed over the contraband substance at Police Station. In the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.DA) reference is of Swaru Ram, but in Court it is deposed that the same was handed by Hem Singh (PW.9); (5) False case has been fastened upon the accused which is evident from the fact accused Om Parkash was lodged in a Jail at Jallandhar (Punjab) from where he was brought and produced before the Magistrate. 7. As to whether prosecution has been able to establish recovery of the contraband substance from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused, one may refer to the testimonies of spot witnesses namely Constables Virender Singh (PW.1), Mahinder Singh (PW.2), Ramesh Kumar (PW.8) and H.C. Ashok Kumar (PW.10). Now all these witnesses, in one voice, have deposed that they had set up a Nakka at zero point Jassourgarh. At about 3.00 AM, a vehicle (Bolero) Jeep bearing No. HP-01C-3017, coming from Nakrod side was stopped. The vehicle was being driven by Mela Ram and alongside him owner Om Parkash was also sitting. Both of them were directed to get down. While the vehicle was being searched, Constable Mahinder Singh opened the bonnet and found a bag hidden there. The same was opened from which an envelope of polythene, yellow in colour, was taken out. Inside this envelope, contraband substance, in the shape of sticks, was kept. Taking advantage of darkness, accused ran away from the spot. PW.10 has categorically deposed that police party was having torches with them. These witnesses further state that though they searched for the accused but they could not be found. Thereafter, Mahinder Singh was deputed to bring scales, which he brought from PW-3, who also has testified such fact. The contraband substance was weighed and found to be 5 Kg. 500 grams. Two samples of 25 grams each were separated and sealed with seal impression A. Bulk sample was also sealed separately. NCB form (Ex.PW.9/E) in triplicate was filled up. Rukka (Ex.PW.9/A) was prepared and sent to Police Station, Tissa, for registration of the case. 8. Having minutely examined the testimonies of these witnesses we find that there is no contradiction in their statements with regard to recovery of the contraband substance from the conscious and exclusive possession the accused. NCB form (Ex.PW.9/E) in triplicate was filled up. Rukka (Ex.PW.9/A) was prepared and sent to Police Station, Tissa, for registration of the case. 8. Having minutely examined the testimonies of these witnesses we find that there is no contradiction in their statements with regard to recovery of the contraband substance from the conscious and exclusive possession the accused. Also it could not be pointed out as to in what manner prosecution was not able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, such fact. 9. It cannot be said that police made no efforts to search the accused. In fact taking advantage of darkness, accused fled away from the spot. All the spot witnesses have identified the accused to be the very same persons, who were sitting inside the vehicle, one of whom was a driver and another owner. After the accused fled, police party did carry out search. In fact, it has come on record through the testimony of ASI Abhey Singh (PW.7), that accused Om Parkash was lodged in a Jail at Jallandhar and after obtaining search warrant he was formally arrested. Om Parkash was brought to Tissa on 13.05.2007 and produced before the Magistrate concerned and accused Mela Ram surrendered himself. No doubt accused Om Parkash was lodged in a Jail at Jallandhr, but then he does not disclose the date on which he was arrested and lodged there. The incident in question took place on 23.01.2007 and information that he was lodged at Jallandhar was received by the police only on 21.04.2007. Accused persons are local inhabitants and were familiar with the topography. One of whom was also arrested in relation to other offence. Submission that police could have opened fire with AK-47 Rifles, which they were carrying, does not apply to logic. Accused were not suspected terrorists or that weapons were recovered from their possession. Police only suspected the contraband substance to be charas. None of the prosecution witnesses has been examined as to why they did not open fire. Police could not have shot blindly. 10. Submission that contraband substance could not have been recovered from inside the bonnet of the vehicle as it would have melted and emanated smell is not borne out from the factual matrix and thus legally unsustainable. The vehicle was stopped. The contraband substance was packed in bundles. Police could not have shot blindly. 10. Submission that contraband substance could not have been recovered from inside the bonnet of the vehicle as it would have melted and emanated smell is not borne out from the factual matrix and thus legally unsustainable. The vehicle was stopped. The contraband substance was packed in bundles. It is not the case of prosecution or the accused that bundle was kept just alongside the engine of the vehicle. Packet of 5 Kg. 500 grams can be placed anywhere inside the bonnet. 11. One may notice that NCB form bears seals impressions S and A. HC-Hem Singh (PW.10) categorically states that he sealed the sample with seal A and L.C. Uma Kumari (PW.4) states that Hem Singh resealed it with seal S at the time when Swaru Ram handed it over to him. Hence prosecution has explained how seals A & S were affixed on the samples and the documents. There is no contradiction. Simply because in the statement (Ex.DA), there is no reference of seal S, that fact itself would not render the prosecution story to be false. In Ex.DA there is reference of Swaru Ram, but then both Hem Singh and Uma Kumari have clarified that Swaru Ram handed over the contraband substance to PW.9. Noticeably he was the SHO of the Police Station, who resealed the samples and handed it over to MHC for keeping it in safe custody. Thus, in our considered view, there is no contradiction whatsoever. 12. Prosecution has proved that special report was prepared and sent to S.P. Chamba. Report (Ex.PW.5/A) is on record to this effect. 13. In our considered view, prosecution has been able to prove to the hilt, beyond reasonable doubt, the fact that contraband substance was recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused. It was a case of chance recovery and no prior intimation was required to be sent. Recovery was not effected from the person of accused and as such, provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act do not apply. Papers showing ownership of the vehicle were taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo (Ex.PW.1/B). The accused has not come forward to furnish any explanation as to how his vehicle was present on the spot. 14. Papers showing ownership of the vehicle were taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo (Ex.PW.1/B). The accused has not come forward to furnish any explanation as to how his vehicle was present on the spot. 14. Hence viewing from all angles, guilt of the accused stands established by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment and the findings returned by the Court below, cannot be said to be perverse, illegal, erroneous warranting interference by this Court. 15. For all the above reasons, we find that findings of conviction and sentence returned by the trial Court are based on correct and complete appreciation of evidence. Thus, it cannot be said that conviction of the accused has resulted into miscarriage and travesty of justice; causing serious prejudice to the accused. 16. Hence for all the aforesaid reasons, both the appeals are dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is upheld. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Appeal disposed of.