JUDGMENT : Surinder Singh, J. (Oral) Respondent was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for allegedly keeping in possession 150 grams of charas and also under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh for 36 bottles of country liquor without permit. The acquittal has been challenged by the State in the present appeal. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. The entire gamut of the prosecution case as revealed by PW13, ASI Prem Raj is that the aforesaid alleged contraband was recovered from the dhara (temporary shed) of the accused. In cross-examination he stated that he was told by the witnesses (not named) that the dhara/shed in question was that of the accused. 4. The prosecution relies mainly on the statements of PW14, Rajiv Kumar and PW4, Changu Ram, the owner of the shed. Changu Ram, in cross-examination, stated that a Gorkha used to live in the dhara, who had been running a scrap shop. He left the shop within a month after the raid was conducted by the police. He has admitted that on the day when police had conducted raid, the Gorkha was in possession, doing scrap business and accused, Phool Chand, had come there later on, whereas PW14, Rajiv Thakur, in cross-examination stated that the police officer had told him that the shop in question was that of the accused. There is no other evidence showing or proving that the dhara/temporary shed in question was in the actual possession of the accused. 5. PW5, Jagdish Chand, Patwari, was also examined by the prosecution. He stated that he had no knowledge who had constructed the dhara in question and as per the revenue record, accused is neither the owner nor in possession of the said dhara. 6. Since, the prosecution evidence, in the instant case, is very shaky with respect to the actual possession of dhara, from where the alleged contraband is stated to have been recovered and there is nothing to connect the accused with the dhara. 6. Since, the prosecution evidence, in the instant case, is very shaky with respect to the actual possession of dhara, from where the alleged contraband is stated to have been recovered and there is nothing to connect the accused with the dhara. We also find that the report of the forensic laboratory is not in conformity with the judgment passed by this Court in Sunil v. State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) 207, so as to fall the alleged recovery within the meaning of charas, therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, while testing the case of the prosecution, we find inherent inconsistencies and improbabilities. 7. Therefore, the ground of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court are born out from the record, which requires no interference. Hence, the appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. The respondent is discharged of his bail bonds entered upon by him at any time during the proceedings of the case. Send down the records.