Judgment : A.M. Khanwilkar, J. - 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is against acquittal of respondent in respect of offence punishable under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, passed by the Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 06/07. The incident in question occurred on 12th January, 2006. During Nakabandi, the respondent was found to be driving Esteem vehicle No. DL5CA5056, when he was stopped, from Nehrukund side. At the relevant time, according to the prosecution case, PW1, HC Mohar Singh; PW2, ASI Surender Pathak and PW3, SI Rup Singh, were present. It is also the prosecution case that Constable Joginder Singh was directed to locate some independent witnesses by PW3, SI Rup Singh. 3. Notably, Constable Joginder Singh has not been examined by the prosecution to establish the fact that no independent witness was available at the scene of offence, at the relevant time, in whose presence the search and seizure operation could be carried out. Not only that, the trial Court on analyzing the evidence on record has found, as of fact, that there are material contradictions in the version given by the prosecution witnesses, who were themselves police officials, namely, PW1, PW2 and PW3. 4. It has been noticed that there was material contradiction in the version given by the three witnesses about scribing of consent memo, Ex. PA, and personal search memo, Ex. PB. Prosecution case is that the said memos were scribed by PW1, HC Mohar Singh. HC Mohar Singh, in his crossexamination, however, disowns that fact and has admitted that he is not aware as to who had scribed the said memos. Different version is given by PW2 and PW3, as a result of which the trial Court disbelieved the prosecution case in that behalf. As the prosecution has failed to substantiate the factum of personal search, it is fatal. That by itself demolishes the charge against the respondent. Even with regard to taking away of the Esteem Car to Police Station, material contradiction has been noticed in the evidence given by the three prosecution witnesses; PW1, PW2 and PW3. PW1, Mohar Singh, has stated that the Esteem vehicle of accused was driven to Police Station by C. Joginder Singh. As noted earlier, C. Joginder Singh has not been examined by the prosecution for reasons not forthcoming, though a material witness. PW1, Mohar Singh, has stated that the Esteem vehicle of accused was driven to Police Station by C. Joginder Singh. As noted earlier, C. Joginder Singh has not been examined by the prosecution for reasons not forthcoming, though a material witness. PW3, SI Rup Singh, states that the Esteem Car was brought to Police Station Manali by hiring private driver. That private driver has not been examined. A different story is given by PW2, ASI Surender Pathak. 5. Besides material contradictions on this vital aspect, the trial Court has also dealt with other matters, as a result of which, has acquitted the respondent, who is a foreign national. The finding of fact recorded by the trial Court, on perusal of the ocular evidence available on the record, is unexceptionable. In that case, merely because some other view may also be possible or that there is some infirmity in the observations made by the trial Court in the impugned judgment, cannot be the basis to lightly interfere with the order of acquittal. That cannot be the scope of this appeal. Hence, dismissed. 6. While dismissing this appeal, we, however, express our serious displeasure that even when the prosecution was relying on official witnesses to substantiate its case, could not succeed in brining home the guilt. The reason, why the witnesses have given different versions and not supported the prosecution case, in that sense, is a serious matter for the department. Those witnesses, being police officials, should be proceeded against departmentally, if so advised and that proceedings should be taken to its logical end. Nothing more is required to be said. Appeal dismissed on the above terms.