JUDGMENT R.B. Misra, Judge The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after the leave to appeal has been granted under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 3.10.2007, passed in Sessions Trial No.38/2007/2006 by Special Judge, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, acquitting the accused/ respondent for the offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short NDPS Act). 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 23.11.2005 at about 5.15 p.m., accused-respondent was apprehended and on search 700 grams of charas was recovered from the bag, which he was carrying. Two samples each weighing 25 grams were separated from bulk charas, out of which one sample was sent for chemical examination. After receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner and completion of investigation, accused-respondent was charged for the aforesaid offence. 3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses. Accused-respondent was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied the prosecution case. 4. Inter alia, on many other grounds, referred to, relied upon and considered by the learned Special Judge, Chamba, for acquitting the accused-respondent, two more important aspects are necessary to be considered, while deciding the present appeal preferred by the State. The two independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and that apparently there are contradictions in the statements of the official witnesses. Moreso, the most important aspect is that on perusal of the NCB form, it appears that the Chemical Examiner, on microscopic examination, found cystolithic hair present and beam’s alkaline test as positive. 5. In similar facts and circumstances, this Court (Division Bench) has taken a view vide judgment dated 19.9.2011, Cr. Appeal No. 391 of 2002 (State of H.P. Vs. Subhash Sharma @ Bhasi) that contraband recovered cannot be said to be charas for the reasons recorded in the said judgment. The relevant paragraphs No.15 & 16 of Subhash Sharma @ Bhasi’s case (supra) are extracted herein below:- “15. ……… The cystholithic hair is a fiber which could also be found in flowering tops of the cannabis plant, but the definition of charas does not include other parts like flowering and fruiting tops, leaves or stem. The definition of charas is given in Section 2 (iii) (a) of the Act. ……… The cystholithic hair is a fiber which could also be found in flowering tops of the cannabis plant, but the definition of charas does not include other parts like flowering and fruiting tops, leaves or stem. The definition of charas is given in Section 2 (iii) (a) of the Act. Charas, is, the separated resin, in whatever form, whether crude or purified, obtained from the cannabis plant and also includes concentrated preparation and resin known as hashish oil or liquid hashish. Since it does not make any mention whether this resin was of a cannabis plant. Therefore, in our opinion the report of analysis is discrepant. The Division Bench of this Court in which one of us (Surinder Singh, J) was also one of the Members Sunil Kumar versus State Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) 207 examined almost similar reports in a Bunch matters and taking note of the aforesaid definition of charas under the Act viz-a-viz the statement of the Experts recorded during the trial as well as before this Court, held that charas should be resin of cannabis plant only or the concentrated preparation and resin known as hashish oil or liquod hashish. Thus, in absence of the fact that it was also that of a cannabis plant, result of analysis cannot be said to have in conformity with the definition of charas. As such the accused persons were given the benefit of doubt and were accordingly acquitted. 16. In the instant case as already stated above, firstly the sample so analyzed by the laboratory could not be connected with the recovered stuff and secondly report of the analysis is falling short of requisite parameters to be in conformity with the definition of charas. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the acquittal of the respondent cannot be interfered with. As such the appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.” 6. In view of the aforesaid observations made, in Subhash Sharma @ Bhasi’s case (supra), in the present case also the contraband good recovered cannot be said to be charas, as such in our considered view, prosecution cannot be said to have brought home the guilt of the accused/ respondent. As such the Criminal Appeal, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, furnished by the respondent, are hereby discharged.