Judgment : Per Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.6.2007 and order of conviction dated 30.6.2007 rendered by the learned Special Judge (Presiding Officer) Fast Track Court Solan, H.P. in case No. 2 FTN/7 of 2006, whereby the accused/appellant, Rakesh Kumar alias Raka, who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The co-accused Bhopal Singh and Kundan Singh have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the ND& PS Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that during the intervening night of 27/28.10.2005, PW10 ASI Tapender Singh, Police Post Baddi along with PW9 HC Sohan Lal, HHC Jasbir Singh and PW6 Constable Dharam Vir had laid a ‘naka’ at Baddi Chowk. At about 3.40 A.M., on 28.10.2005, three persons came in a Maruti car bearing registration No.UA-01-4874. PW5 Gurdyal Singh was also associated in the naka party. The car was stopped. Driver of the Car disclosed his name as Bhopal Singh and person sitting on rear seat of the car disclosed his name as Kundan Singh. The person sitting on front seat of the car, by the side of the driver, disclosed his name as Rakesh Kumar. He was holding a blue coloured bag in his lap. On checking the bag carried by the accused Rakesh, two polythene packets containing charas were found. It was weighed to be 4 kgs. From the recovered charas, eight samples were drawn. The samples and remaining recovered charas were sealed separately with seal impression ‘A’ on the spot. Recovery memo to this effect was also prepared. Specimen seal impressions were taken separately and seal after use was handed over to independent witness PW5 Gurdyal. The accused persons were arrested. PW10 ASI Tapender Singh prepared ruqua. On the basis of ruqua, FIR No.182/05 was recorded against the accused persons. The car in question was found to be owned by one Rajender Singh Mehta. The samples were sent for chemical examination. These were opined to be charas. The accused persons were arrested. PW10 ASI Tapender Singh prepared ruqua. On the basis of ruqua, FIR No.182/05 was recorded against the accused persons. The car in question was found to be owned by one Rajender Singh Mehta. The samples were sent for chemical examination. These were opined to be charas. Thereafter, all the codal formalities were completed and the challan was put up against the accused persons in the Court. 3. The prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. The accused persons were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant, Rakesh Kumar and acquitted co-accused Bhopal Singh and Kundan Singh, as noticed hereinabove. Hence the appeal. 4. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent-State moved an application bearing Cr. M.P. No.895 of 2012 with a prayer to grant permission to send the entire bulk parcel of charas and second sample of charas for chemical examination and preparation of report by the Chemical Laboratory. The application was allowed by this Court on 9.10.2012. The entire bulk parcel of charas and second sample of charas seized at the relevant time were ordered to be sent for chemical examination to the concerned Chemical Laboratory through the Station House Officer, Police Station Barotiwala, District Solan, H.P.. Thereafter, the respondent-State moved an application bearing Cr.M.P. No.252/2013 for placing on record FSL reports and examination of official witnesses by way of additional evidence. This application was also allowed by this Court on 20.5.2013 and the witnesses were permitted to be examined as per list dated 9.4.2013. 5. Statements of AW1 Hakam Singh, AW2 Parkash Chand, AW3 Hari Krishan and AW4 Karam Deen were recorded by this Court on 19.6.2013. 6. AW1 Hakam Singh, has testified that he was posted as MHC in Police Station Barotiwala w.e.f 24.3.2009 to 13.2.2013. In case No.182 of 2005, the SHO was directed by the Court to get four second sample parcels along with remaining bulk to be analyzed in the Forensic Science Laboratory. On 18.12.2012 vide R.C. No. 61 of 2012, the case property was sent through H.C. Hari Krishan No.128 for its deposit in the Laboratory. The case property sent vide R.C. contained one bulk parcel and four samples. The case property was returned by the Laboratory on the ground that it did not contain sample of seals. On 18.12.2012 vide R.C. No. 61 of 2012, the case property was sent through H.C. Hari Krishan No.128 for its deposit in the Laboratory. The case property sent vide R.C. contained one bulk parcel and four samples. The case property was returned by the Laboratory on the ground that it did not contain sample of seals. In this regard, entry was made in the daily diary. Thereafter, the SHO applied for the sample for seals in the Court of Presiding Officer (Fast Track), Solan. After receipt of the sample of seals, the case property was re-sent to the Laboratory on 22.12.2012 vide R.C. No.66 of 2012, Ext. AW1/2 through H.C. Hari Krishan. It was deposited in the laboratory on the same day. As per receipt on reverse side of the RC, it was handed over to him on return by HC Hari Krishan. The bulk and the sample received from the Court were resent vide R.C. Ext.AW1/2 and were deposited in the Laboratory. The SHO applied for the sample of seals which were already sent with four samples for analysis earlier to CTL Kandaghat. The samples of seals were received by the SHO from the Laboratory and again on 29.12.2012 four samples along with sample seals were sent through constable Parkash Chand No.531 for its analysis which were deposited on the same day. R.C. to this effect is Ext. AW1/3. The case property was deposited in the malkhana. The abstract of malkhana register is Ext. AW1/4. The samples and the remaining bulk so long as it remained deposited in the malkhana, remained intact. The report of the analysis was also received on 9.1.2013. Reports are Ext. AW1/5 and Ext. AW1/6. 7. AW2, Constable Parkash Chand, has deposed that on 29.12.2012, MHC Hakam Singh had handed over four parcels along with police docket and sample seals for its deposit to the Laboratory vide RC No.69/2012, Ext. AW1/3. He deposited the case property in the FSL Junga on the same day and after getting its receipt, it was deposited back to the MHC on 30.12.2012. 8. AW3, Hari Krishan, has deposed that on 18.12.2012, Hakam Singh had handed over to him bulk parcel along with four parcels of sample vide RC No.61/2012, Ext.AW1/A to deposit it in FSL Junga, but it was not accepted on the ground that the bulk and four sample parcels were not accompanying with sample of seals. 8. AW3, Hari Krishan, has deposed that on 18.12.2012, Hakam Singh had handed over to him bulk parcel along with four parcels of sample vide RC No.61/2012, Ext.AW1/A to deposit it in FSL Junga, but it was not accepted on the ground that the bulk and four sample parcels were not accompanying with sample of seals. On 19.12.2012, he deposited the same back to the MHC. On 22.12.2012 vide RC No.66 of 2012 Ext.AW1/2, one bigger parcel along with sample parcel and police docket was taken by him and deposited on the same day in FSL Junga. The receipt was obtained on RC and was re-deposited with MHC on 23.12.2012. He deposited the case property in the Laboratory in the same position as it was handed over to him by the MHC. 9. AW4 Karam Deen has testified that in FIR No.182 of 2005, an order was received from this Court to get examined the case property from FSL Junga. On 18.12.2012, MHC had sent the case property through Head Constable Hari Krishan for analysis vide RC Ext. AW1/A, but the same was not accepted because the bigger parcel was not having sample of seals. It was brought back and thereafter, he moved an application to the Court of Presiding Officer (Fast Track), Solan to supply the sample of seals. Seal was “POFTC” Solan. Thereafter, on 22.12.2012 vide R.C. No.66 of 2012, Ext. AW1/2 the case property was sent by MHC through HC Hari Krishan. The case property consisted of bigger parcel of seals “POFTC”, which contained 3.800 gms of charas. The bigger parcel was also having same seal of “POFTC” Solan. MHC had handed over the case property in the same position as it remained deposited in the malkhana. Thereafter, he also moved an application to CTL Kandaghat for collecting the sample of seal. After collecting the sample seals “A” and “S” remaining four sample parcels along with aforesaid seal were sent through Constable Parkash Chand vide RC No.69 of 2012, Ext. AW1/3 and the case property was deposited in the laboratory on the same day. It was re-deposited with MHC on his return. 10. The evidence on behalf of the respondent-State was closed on 19.6.2013. The appellant was ordered to be present in the Court at 10.00 A.M. on 20.6.2013. Supplementary statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. AW1/3 and the case property was deposited in the laboratory on the same day. It was re-deposited with MHC on his return. 10. The evidence on behalf of the respondent-State was closed on 19.6.2013. The appellant was ordered to be present in the Court at 10.00 A.M. on 20.6.2013. Supplementary statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. The appellant did not lead any evidence, though he was permitted to do so. 11. Mr. Anoop Chitkara, learned Advocate, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the link evidence. He has also argued that the prosecution has failed to prove that the contraband was recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the appellant. According to him, Kundan Singh, one of the coaccused ran away from the spot, though overpowered. He was acquitted by the learned trial court and leave to appeal filed by the State of H.P. against him was rejected by this Court. 12. Mr. D.C. Pathik, Addl. Advocate General, supported the impugned judgment dated 30.6.2007and order of conviction dated 30.6.2007. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record minutely. 14. PW1 Naresh Kumar deposed that he was working as HHC at the Police Station Barotiwala. On 30.11.2005, PW7 MHC Inder Lal handed over to him four parcels, R.C. No.59/2005, copy of FIR, NCRB forms and specimen seal impressions ‘A’ and ‘S’. He deposited these parcels intact at CTL Kandaghat. According to him, till the parcels were with him, these were not tampered with. He obtained the receipt on R.C. and handed over the same to MHC. 15. PW2 Rajinder Singh Mehta, who was owner of car bearing registration No.UA-01-4878, deposed that he had employed Bhopal Singh as Driver. He proved on record certificate Ext.PW2/A. 16. PW3 SI Bhisham Thakur testified that he was posted as SHO, Police Station Barotiwala in the year 2005. On 28.10.2005, ruqua Ext.PW3/A along with case property, i.e. eight samples of 25 grams of charas sealed with seal impression ‘A’, three in number each along with bulk of charas containing 3.800 kgs with seal impression ‘A’ along with samples of seals was received at the Police Station through PW6 Constable Dharam Vir. On the basis of ruqua, he registered FIR Ext.PW3/B. Thereafter, MHC produced the case property before him for resealing. He resealed the same with seal impression ‘S’. On the basis of ruqua, he registered FIR Ext.PW3/B. Thereafter, MHC produced the case property before him for resealing. He resealed the same with seal impression ‘S’. After resealing the case property, he issued certificate, Ext.PW3/E in this regard. He handed over the case property to the MHC to be kept in the Malkhana. 17. PW4, HC Tejinder Singh had proved on record copy of roznamcha dated 28.10.2005 of DDR No.29, Ext. PW4/A. 18. PW5, Gurdyal Singh, deposed that he was having agency of Newspaper Dainik Tribune. He also used to collect newspaper from Baddi. According to him, on 28.10.2005, at about 3.45 A.M., when he had gone to collect the newspaper at Baddi, the police had put up naka near Baddi Chowk. At about 4.00 A.M., one vehicle bearing registration No.UA-01-4878 came from Nalagarh side. It was proceeding towards Nalagarh to Kalka. The vehicle was stopped by the policy party. Three persons, including driver were sitting in the said vehicle. The occupants of the car disclosed their names. He recognized the accused persons in the Court. According to him, Rakesh Kumar was carrying blue coloured bag in his lap. The police asked Rakesh Kumar to open the bag. On opening of the bag, two packets sealed with cello tape were recovered from the bag. The packets, which were sealed with cello tape, were opened and they were found to have contained charas in the shape of squares. Recovered charas weighed 4 kgs. Memo Ext. PW5/A was prepared. Out of the recovered charas, eight samples of 25 grams each were separated. The samples were sealed separately in a cloth parcel. The bulk of remaining charas was also sealed in a cloth parcel. Three seal impressions were affixed on bulk parcel. Similarly, sample parcels were also sealed with the same seal by affixing three seals on each sample parcel. Samples of seal were separately taken over cloth vide Ext. PW5/B. The seal after use was handed over to him vide memo Ext.PW5/C. The vehicle along with documents was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW5/D. 19. PW6, Constable Dharam Vir, was one of the members of the raiding party. According to him, during intervening night of 27/28.10.2005 at about 3.40 A.M. he along with ASI Tapender HC, Sohan Singh, HHC Jasbir Singh was present at Baddi Chowk. PW5/D. 19. PW6, Constable Dharam Vir, was one of the members of the raiding party. According to him, during intervening night of 27/28.10.2005 at about 3.40 A.M. he along with ASI Tapender HC, Sohan Singh, HHC Jasbir Singh was present at Baddi Chowk. A maruti car bearing registration No. UA-01-4878 came from Nalagarh side and was stopped by the police. The occupants of the car disclosed their names. The vehicle was checked. Rakesh Kumar, who was sitting on front seat by the side of driver, was carrying a blue coloured bag in his lap. He was asked to open the bag. On opening of the bag, two packets were recovered. Thereafter, ASI Tapender Singh asked him to bring scale and weights from nearby shop. He had gone to shop of Ajmer Singh. The charas was weighed and found to be 4 kgs.. Eight samples of 25 grams each were separated from the recovered charas. The samples and the bulk charas were separately sealed. He had handed over Ruqua, Ext.PW3/E along with case property to MHC at Police Station Barotiwala. The case property was sealed with seal impression ‘A’. He did not tamper with the seal. He denied the suggestion that he was not present on the spot. 20. PW7, HC Inder Pal deposed that he was posted as MHC in Police Station Barotiwala w.e.f. 2002 till January 2006. Dharam Vir had brought ruqua Ext.PW3/A along with case property i.e. nine parcels sealed with seal impression ‘A’. He recorded the FIR, Ext.PW3/B, which was signed by the then SHO. The case property along with NCB form was produced before the SHO. According to him, the parcels were resealed by the SHO with seal impression ‘S’ and thereafter the same were handed over to him for depositing in the Malkhana. After resealing, certificate, Ext.PW3/E to this effect was prepared. He made entry in the register regarding deposit of case property in the malkhana. On 29.10.2005, he handed over case property to ASI Tapender Singh for being produced in the Court of ACJM Nalagarh. On the same day, HHC Gurmail Singh again handed over the case property to him and he kept it in the malkhana. The seals were intact. He made entry in the register regarding deposit of case property in the malkhana. On 29.10.2005, he handed over case property to ASI Tapender Singh for being produced in the Court of ACJM Nalagarh. On the same day, HHC Gurmail Singh again handed over the case property to him and he kept it in the malkhana. The seals were intact. On 30.11.2005, four sample parcels, NCB form, sample of seal, copy of FIR and copy of recovery memo vide RC No.59/05 were handed over to Constable Naresh Kumar for being deposited in CTL Kandaghat for examination. After depositing the parcels, receipt was obtained on the R.C. and the same was handed over to him. He also proved on record copies of road certificate and malkhana register, Ext.PW7/A and Ext.PW7/B respectively. According to him, the case property remained with him untampered. 21. PW8, HC Yoginder Singh, deposed that on 29.10.2005 at 12.00 Noon HHC Devender Singh, Police Station Barotiwala produced special report to the then S.P. Gineshwar Singh, who perused the same and put his endorsement and signature. He proved special report, Ext.PW8/A. 22. PW9 HC Sohan Lal, deposed that he was one of the members of the raiding party. On 28.10.2005, at about 3.40 A.M., a Maruti Car bearing registration No. UA-01-4878 came from Nalagarh side. As soon as the car was got stopped, person sitting on the back seat of the car alighted from the car and ran away. He was overpowered. He disclosed his name as Kundan Singh. One independent witness Gurdyal Singh, who was present on the spot, was also associated in the raiding party. Bhopal Singh was driving the car and Rakesh Kumar was sitting in the front seat of the car. Rakesh Kumar was carrying a blue coloured bag in his lap. The bag was got opened and checked. Two polythene packets sealed with cello tape were recovered from the bag containing charas in the shape of squares, sticks and round balls. The contraband was weighed and found to be 4 kgs. Out of the recovered charas, eights samples, each of 25 grams were drawn and were put in separate parcels. The sample parcels were sealed with seal impression ‘A’. The samples of seal were taken on a cloth vide Ext.PW5/B. The seal after use was handed over to witness, Gurdyal Singh vide memo Ext.PW5/C. Recovery memo Ext.PW5/D was prepared. Out of the recovered charas, eights samples, each of 25 grams were drawn and were put in separate parcels. The sample parcels were sealed with seal impression ‘A’. The samples of seal were taken on a cloth vide Ext.PW5/B. The seal after use was handed over to witness, Gurdyal Singh vide memo Ext.PW5/C. Recovery memo Ext.PW5/D was prepared. The Investigating Officer prepared the ruqua and sent the same to the Police Station. 23. PW10, ASI Tapender Singh testified that on 28.10.2005 at about 3.40 A.M., he along with HHC Sohan Lal, HHC Jasbir Singh and Constable Dharam Vir was present at Baddi Chowk vide rapat Ext.PW4/A. In the meanwhile, a Maruti Car bearing registration No. UA-01-4878 came at the spot from Nalagarh side. Gurdyal Singh was also present on the spot. The car was stopped. A person alighted from the back seat of the car and fled away. He was overpowered by PW9 HC Sohan Lal. He disclosed his name as Kundan Singh. Rakesh Kumar, who was sitting in the front seat of the car, was carrying a blue coloured bag in his lap. The bag was checked in the presence of Gurdyal Singh and HC Sohan Lal vide memo Ext.PW3/A. Polythene packets containing charas in the shape of round, sticks and squares, were recovered from the bag. The charas was weighed. Eight samples of 25 grams each were drawn from the recovered charas and sealed with seal impression ‘A’ . The remaining charas was also put in the same polythene packets. All the three polythene packets containing charas were put in the blue coloured bag, which was sealed in a cloth parcel with seal impression ‘A’. Sample of seal Ext.PW5/B was also drawn and the seal after use was handed over to Gurdyal Singh vide memo Ext.PW5/C. He prepared ruqua Ext.PW3/A and sent the same along with case property to Police Station Barotiwala through Constable Dharam Vir. Thereafter, FIR, Ext.PW3/B was recorded. He also prepared spot map Ext.PW10/A. He also filled in NCB form Ext.PW10/B. Accused persons were informed regarding grounds of their arrest and information regarding their arrest was given to their relatives vide memos Ext.PW5/E, PW5/F andExt.PW5/G. On receipt of report of Chemical Examiner, CTL Kandaghat, Ext.PW10/C, he handed over file to SHO Bhisham Thakur for preparation of challan. 24. He also prepared spot map Ext.PW10/A. He also filled in NCB form Ext.PW10/B. Accused persons were informed regarding grounds of their arrest and information regarding their arrest was given to their relatives vide memos Ext.PW5/E, PW5/F andExt.PW5/G. On receipt of report of Chemical Examiner, CTL Kandaghat, Ext.PW10/C, he handed over file to SHO Bhisham Thakur for preparation of challan. 24. It is evident from the statements of AW1 Hakam Singh, AW2 Parkash Chand, AW3 Hari Krishan and AW4 Karam Deen that the bulk parcel of charas and samples were sent to FSL, Junga in accordance with law. Reports of the Chemical Examiner are Ext. AW1/5 and Ext. AW1/6. As per report, Ext. AW1/5, the exhibits in cloth parcels marked as A 1, A II, A III and A IV were extracts of cannabis and samples of charas. The quantity of purified resin as found in the exhibits stated as charas in cloth parcels marked as A 1, A II, A III and A IV was 29.26%, 29.01%, 30.09% and 31.19% w/w respectively. According to report Ext. AW1/6, the exhibit in cloth parcel marked as Ext. P1 was extract of cannabis and sample of charas and the quantity of purified resin was 37.15% w/w. According to Ext. AW1/5 and Ext. AW1/6, the seals were found intact and tallied with specimen seals. Thus, the recovered contraband as per reports, Ext.AW1/5, Ex. AW1/6 and Ext.PW10/C was found to be charas. 25. The case of the prosecution has been supported by independent witness PW5 Gurdyal Singh. He has stated the manner in which the vehicle was stopped and the appellant was scene carrying a blue coloured bag in his lap. According to him, the contraband was weighed to be 4 kgs. Out of recovered contraband, eight samples of 25 grams each were separately drawn. These were sealed with seal impression ‘A’. All the samples and remaining recovered charas were separately sealed. Statement of PW5 Gurdyal Singh has been duly corroborated by PW6 Constable Dharam Vir, PW9 HC Sohan Lal and PW10 ASI Tapender Singh. According to them also, when the vehicle was stopped, the appellant was carrying a blued coloured bag on his lap. It was opened in the presence of witnesses and charas was found to be 4 kgs. Eight samples of 25 gms each were separated from the recovered charas. The samples and the bulk charas were separately sealed. According to them also, when the vehicle was stopped, the appellant was carrying a blued coloured bag on his lap. It was opened in the presence of witnesses and charas was found to be 4 kgs. Eight samples of 25 gms each were separated from the recovered charas. The samples and the bulk charas were separately sealed. According to PW6, Constable Dharam Vir, he had taken ruqua along with case property to the police station, on the basis of which, FIR was registered. He had handed over the case property to PW7 HC Inder Lal, Police Station Barotiwala. According to PW7 HC Inder Pal, PW6 Constable Dharam Vir had brought ruqua and case property to the police station. The case property, which was sealed with seal impression ‘A’ was produced before the SHO. PW3 had resealed the same. He also issued a certificate to this effect, vide Ext.PW3/E. He had kept the case property in malkhana. According to him, he handed over the case property to ASI Tapender Singh on 29.10.2005 for being produced in the Court of ACJM Nalagarh and the same was returned to him on the same date by HHC Gurmail Singh. He kept the case property in the malkhana and the seals were intact. He had sent the sample parcels for chemical examination on 30.10.2005 through PW1 Constable Naresh Kumar. PW1 Constable Naresh Kumar obtained the receipt on R.C. and handed over the same to PW7 HC Inder Pal. He had categorically testified that till the case property remained with him, it was untampered. PW9 HC Sohan Lal was one of the members of the raiding party. According to him, when the car was stopped, one person tried to flee, though he was overpowered. He disclosed his name as Kundan Singh. He also testified that Gurdyal Singh PW5 was present on the spot. He also deposed the manner in which the contraband was found in the lap of the appellant and was seized. He also deposed the manner in which sampling work was undertaken. PW10 ASI Tapender Singh was heading the raiding party. He also deposed the manner in which one of the accused persons, Kundan Singh tried to run away from the spot and was overpowered by PW9 HC Sohan Lal. He had sent ruqua Ext.PW3/A along with case property to Police Station, Barotiwala. PW10 ASI Tapender Singh was heading the raiding party. He also deposed the manner in which one of the accused persons, Kundan Singh tried to run away from the spot and was overpowered by PW9 HC Sohan Lal. He had sent ruqua Ext.PW3/A along with case property to Police Station, Barotiwala. He had also filled in NCB form Ext.PW10/B. As per the Chemical Examiner report Ext.PW10/C, the samples were intact and the contraband was found to be charas. 26. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Anoop Chitkara, learned Advocate, that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant was found in exclusive and conscious possession of the charas. Merely that one co-accused, Kundan Singh had tried to run away from spot, though he was overpowered, will not affect the case of the prosecution in any manner. The different persons react differently while seeing the police. Kundan Singh has already been acquitted by the learned trial court. Merely that the learned trial court has acquitted Kundan Singh will not dilute the case against the appellant, who was found in exclusive and conscious possession of the charas. PW5 Gurdyal Singh, PW6 Constable Dharam Vir, PW9 HC Sohan Lal and PW10 ASI Tapender Singh have categorically deposed that they had seen a blue coloured bag in the lap of the appellant. The sampling and sealing process was completed as per the law. The samples were intact when deposited with CTL Kandaghat. Resealing had also been undertaken by PW3 SI Bhisham Thakur in accordance with law. He had also issued certificate, Ext.PW3/E to this effect. PW1 HHC Naresh Kumar had taken the parcels to CTL Kandaghat and these were not tampered with. PW7 HC Inder Pal deposed that he had deposited the case property in malkhana and it was not tampered with till it remained with him. 27. Mr. Anoop Chitkara, learned Advocate, has vehemently argued that the prosecution did not prove the link evidence. According to him, PW7 HC Inder Lal handed over the case property to PW10 ASI Tapender for being produced before the court of ACJM Nalagarh, but the same was handed over by HHC Gurmail Singh and not by PW10 ASI Tapender Singh to PW7 HC Inder Pal. Merely that PW10 ASI Tapender Singh has not handed over the case property back to PW7 HC Inder Lal will not affect the case of the prosecution. Merely that PW10 ASI Tapender Singh has not handed over the case property back to PW7 HC Inder Lal will not affect the case of the prosecution. PW7 HC Inder Lal has categorically deposed that the seals were intact. Since the seals were found intact thus, there was no possibility of case property being tampered with in any manner, as argued by Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate. Rather no suggestion has been put to ASI Tapender Singh to this effect while examining him as PW10. There was no necessity for the prosecution even to examine HHC Gurmail Singh, who had handed over the case property to PW7 HC Inder Lal. The case property was taken into possession in accordance with law and NCB form was also filled in as per the procedure. PW8 HC Yoginder Singh has specifically deposed that HHC Devender Singh, Police Station Barotiwala, handed over to him special report, Ext.PW8/A, which was duly signed and endorsed by the then Superintendent of Police, Gineshwar Singh. 28. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Chand and ors. vs. State of Haryana, 2013 Cri.L.J. 4058 have held that once possession of the contraband material with the accused was established, the accused had to establish how he came to be in possession of the same as it was within his special knowledge. “14. From the conjoint reading of the provisions of Sections 35 and 54 of the Act, it becomes clear that if the accused is found to be in possession of the contraband article, he is presumed to have committed the offence under the relevant provisions of the Act until the contrary is proved. According to Section 35 of the Act, the Court shall presume the existence of mental state for the commission of an offence and it is for the accused to prove otherwise. Thus, in view of the above, it is settled legal proposition that once possession of the contraband articles is established, the burden shifts on the accused to establish that he had no knowledge of the same. 15. Thus, in view of the above, it is settled legal proposition that once possession of the contraband articles is established, the burden shifts on the accused to establish that he had no knowledge of the same. 15. Additionally, it can also be held that once the possession of the contraband material with the accused is established, the accused has to establish how he came to be in possession of the same as it is within his special knowledge and therefore, the case falls within the ambit of the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1872’).” 29. Lastly, Mr. Anoop Chitkara, learned Advocate, has argued that the appellant is 43 years of age and a lenient view may be taken. We cannot take any lenient view the manner in which charas weighing 4 kgs was recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the appellant. The learned trial court has correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence and there is no reason for us to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of the learned trial court, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove. 30. Accordingly, in view of the discussions and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.