JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. 1. Appellant-convict Virender Singh, hereinafter referred to as the accused, has assailed judgment dated 29.3.2012, passed by Special Judge-II, Kinnaur at Rampur, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial (RBT) No.58-AR/3 of 2011, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Virender & others, whereby he stands convicted for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 (ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of twelve years and pay fine of Rs.1,50,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 2.2.2011, HC Kartar Singh (PW-11), alongwith Constable Chand Mishra (PW-10), Constable Tikkam Ram (PW-8) and another police official, was present near village Badhel, in connection with general patrol duty. At about 10 a.m., accused alongwith co-accused persons, namely Ishwar Gautam, Sunder Singh and Bal Kishan, was found sitting on the road side. On seeing the police party, all the accused persons got perplexed. Since no reply was forthcoming from the accused persons, with regard to their presence on the spot, police officials suspected them of carrying contraband substance in a bag, which was on the lap of accused Virender. Constable Chand Mishra (PW-10) could not find any independent witness and as such HC Kartar Singh (PW- 11), by associating Constable Tikkam Singh (PW-8) and Constable Chand Mishra (PW-10), searched the bag, from which contraband substance (Charas), wrapped in four packets with a cello tape, was recovered. The same was weighed and found to be 10 kgs 200 grams. The bulk parcel was sealed with seal impression ‘T’. NCB form (Ex. PW-5/B) was filled up in triplicate. Ruka (Ex.PW-8/C) was drawn by the Investigating Officer and sent through Constable Tikkam Singh (PW-8) to Police Station, Brow, on the basis of which FIR No.8, dated 2.2.2011 (Ex.PW-8/D), under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, was registered. Case file was brought back and handed over to PW-11 on the spot. With the completion of necessary formalities on the spot, accused were arrested and arrest memo (Ex. PW-10/C) communicated to them. Thereafter, PW-11 entrusted the case property to ASI Jagat Singh (PW-9) at Police Station, Brow, who resealed the same with seal impression ‘A’ and deposited the same with MHC Chet Ram (PW-5). With the completion of necessary formalities on the spot, accused were arrested and arrest memo (Ex. PW-10/C) communicated to them. Thereafter, PW-11 entrusted the case property to ASI Jagat Singh (PW-9) at Police Station, Brow, who resealed the same with seal impression ‘A’ and deposited the same with MHC Chet Ram (PW-5). Necessary entries (Ex. PW-5/A) in the Malkhana Register were recorded. Special Report (Ex. PW-1/B) was prepared and sent to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Kullu, which was delivered by PW-8 in the office concerned. The entire bulk parcel (charas) was sent for chemical analysis, through HHC Santosh Kumar (PW-6), who obtained receipt (Ex. PW- 5/C) thereof. Also record pertaining to the calls made by the co-accused was taken on record. Report (PW-7/A) of the Chemical Analyst was taken on record by SI Bhoop Singh (PW-7). Investigation revealed complicity of the accused and co-accused in the alleged crime. Hence, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused Virender and co-accused Ishwar Gautam, Sunder Singh & Bal Krishan, were charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses and statements of the accused, under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were also recorded, in which present accused Virender Singh took the following defence: “The alleged telephone numbers is not in my name. I have no concern or acquaintance with said Pune Ram and other co-accused Surinder and Balkrishan. I and Ishwer Gautam were taken out of vehicle No.HP01K-1862 at Nirmand. We were taken to PS, Braw and all documents were prepared in the PS itself. Before that Pune Ram was apprehended alongwith a motorcycle at Jaon and said Pune Ram has fled away.” He also examined two witnesses in his defence. 5. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and the material on record, trial Court convicted the present accused-appellant Virender of an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20(ii)(C) of the Act and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal by the accused. 6. Co-accused Ishwar Gautam, Sunder Singh and Bal Krishan stand acquitted of the charged offence. Mr. 5. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and the material on record, trial Court convicted the present accused-appellant Virender of an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20(ii)(C) of the Act and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal by the accused. 6. Co-accused Ishwar Gautam, Sunder Singh and Bal Krishan stand acquitted of the charged offence. Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, learned Additional Advocate General, has clarified that no appeal stands filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal of these accused persons. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 8. Mr. Sunil Awasthi, learned counsel for the accused has argued that (i) in the present case police officials allegedly present on the spot were familiar with the topography of the area; hence, they could have conveniently brought and associated independent witnesses during the search and seizure operations. Failure to do so only renders the prosecution story to be doubtful. In fact what is argued is that non-association of private/ independent witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case. (ii) There are material contradictions and improbabilities in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, rendering the prosecution case to be doubtful, warranting interference with the judgment of conviction passed by the Court below. 9. First, we shall examine the question as to whether defence set up by the accused stands probablized or not. In this regard, we have carefully gone through the testimonies of Hanumant Rai (DW-1) and Gulab Singh (DW- 2). 10. Testimony of Hanumant Rai (DW-1) is of no help to the present accused. He is an official of BSNL. He has not deposed anything in favour of the accused. 11. Gulab Singh (DW-2), in his examination-in-chief, states that on 2.2.2011, accused Ishwar Gautam and Virender boarded his taxi at Jaun to go for Rampur. When they reached Chilla Nala, police stopped his vehicle and after making the accused alight from the vehicle, took them away in a Maruti Van. To our mind, his testimony does not inspire confidence at all. Allegedly, he was driving a taxi owned by Devi Singh, who has not been examined in Court. He has not produced the Log Book or RC of the vehicle. There is nothing on record to establish that he was gainfully employed as a taxi driver by Devi Singh to drive the said vehicle. Allegedly, he was driving a taxi owned by Devi Singh, who has not been examined in Court. He has not produced the Log Book or RC of the vehicle. There is nothing on record to establish that he was gainfully employed as a taxi driver by Devi Singh to drive the said vehicle. He also does not produce the receipt of the fare allegedly received by him. He does not remember the number of the Van in which police took away the accused. Except for his otherwise uninspiring testimony, there is nothing on record, which would prima facie prove, much less establish, even remotely, the defence set up by the accused. Significantly, he did not report the matter to any one. Incident took place one year prior to his deposition in Court, yet he did not make any grievance to anyone against the illegal action of police officials. Also, it is not his case that accused persons were otherwise known to him from before, yet he has come to the Court to depose in favour of the accused. That apart, he does not remember the name of any other occupant of the vehicle. It is difficult to comprehend a situation where a taxi driver would remember names of only two occupants. Totally unknown from before and not the names of other passengers. Hence, we do not find testimony of this witness to be believable, reliable or trustworthy. 12. It is a settled proposition of law that sole testimony of police official, which if otherwise is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other witnesses or admissible evidence, cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a police official and may be interested in the success of the case. It cannot be stated as a rule that a police officer can or cannot be a sole eyewitness in a criminal case. It will always depend upon the facts of a given case. If the testimony of such a witness is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and if required duly corroborated by other witnesses or admissible evidences, then the statement of such witness cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a police officer and may have some interest in success of the case. If the testimony of such a witness is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and if required duly corroborated by other witnesses or admissible evidences, then the statement of such witness cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a police officer and may have some interest in success of the case. It is only when his interest in the success of the case is motivated by overzealousness to an extent of his involving innocent people; in that event, no credibility can be attached to the statement of such witness. 13. It is not the law that Police witnesses should not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The presumption applies as much in favour of a police officer as any other person. There is also no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of a police officer even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. Rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. If such a presumption is raised against the police officers without exception, it will be an attitude which could neither do credit to the magistracy nor good to the public, it can only bring down the prestige of police administration. 14. Wherever, evidence of a police officer, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and absence of some independent witness of the locality does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of the police officers merely because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. Such reliable and trustworthy statement can form the basis of conviction. [See: Govindaraju alias Govinda v. State by Srirampuram Police Station and another, (2012) 4 SCC 722 ; Tika Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 15 SCC 760; Girja Prasad v. State of M.P., (2007) 7 SCC 625 ); and Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956]. 15. Apex Court in Tahir v. State (Delhi), (1996) 3 SCC 338 , dealing with a similar question, held as under:- "6. 15. Apex Court in Tahir v. State (Delhi), (1996) 3 SCC 338 , dealing with a similar question, held as under:- "6. In our opinion no infirmity attaches to the testimony of the police officials, merely because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. The Rule of Prudence, however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of their evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case." 16. In view of the aforesaid statement of law, we shall now examine the testimony of police officials present on the spot. In the present case, undisputedly there are no independent witnesses. 17. HC Kartar Singh (PW-11) categorically states that on 2.2.2011, he alongwith Constable Tikkam Singh (PW- 8) and Constable Chand Mishra (PW-10), was present at village Badhel, in connection with general patrol duty. At about 10 a.m., he saw four persons, who on seeing the police party got scared. He made enquiries, which were not replied satisfactorily. One amongst them, holding a bag on his lap. On suspicion that they may be possessing some contraband substance, Constable Chand Mishra (PW-10) was sent to search for independent witnesses, but returned after some time as none were available. As such, he joined PW-10 and PW-8 as witnesses. After making enquiries about the names and addresses of the accused, he opened and searched the bag, which was on the lap of accused Virender, from which four packets wrapped with cello tape and one Nylon bag containing charas were recovered. On weighment, the same was found to be 10 kgs 200 grams. The same was sealed and taken into possession vide Memo (Ex. PW-8/B). NCB form (Ex. PW-5/B) was prepared. Seal ‘T’ with which case property was sealed was handed over to PW-8. He sent PW-8 alongwith Ruka (Ex. On weighment, the same was found to be 10 kgs 200 grams. The same was sealed and taken into possession vide Memo (Ex. PW-8/B). NCB form (Ex. PW-5/B) was prepared. Seal ‘T’ with which case property was sealed was handed over to PW-8. He sent PW-8 alongwith Ruka (Ex. PW-8/C) for registration of the FIR, who brought back the case file to the spot, after registration of the FIR. Accused were arrested, vide memos (Ex. PW-10/A to Ex. PW-10/D). He prepared Special Report (Ex. PW-1/B), which was sent to the Office of Additional Superintendent of Police, Kullu. Thereafter, he handed over the case property to ASI Jagat Singh, who after putting his seal of impression ‘A’ deposited the same in the Malkhana. 18. We find the version of this witness to have been absolutely corroborated by Constable Tikkam Singh (PW-8) and Constable Chand Mishra (PW-10). All these witnesses have withstood the test of cross-examination and veracity of their statements cannot be said to be impaired in any manner. We find the witnesses to be reliable and trustworthy and their testimonies to be fully inspiring in confidence. There are neither any material contradictions nor any exaggerations, improvements or embellishments, casting any doubt about the truthfulness of their deposition. 19. We also find that ASI Jagat Singh (PW-9) has corroborated the version of resealing the seized property with his seal impression ‘A’ and having deposited the same with HC Chet Ram (PW-5). We find testimonies of PW-9 and PW-5 to be absolutely inspiring in confidence. 20. PW-5 has clarified that property was sent for chemical analysis through HHC Santosh Kumar (PW-6), who has proved on record the Road Certificate as also the fact that so long as the property remained in his possession, he did not tamper with the same. Not much significance is attached to his version that sample seal with which the property was resealed was not deposited with him as it finds mention in document (Ex. PW-5/A). This is not a contradiction shaking the foundation of prosecution case. 21. From the report (Ex.PW-7/A) of the Chemical Analyst, so received by SHO Bhup Singh (PW-7), it is evident that no samples were drawn by the police party. In fact entire seized contraband substance was sent for chemical analysis, which was found to be charas. PW-5/A). This is not a contradiction shaking the foundation of prosecution case. 21. From the report (Ex.PW-7/A) of the Chemical Analyst, so received by SHO Bhup Singh (PW-7), it is evident that no samples were drawn by the police party. In fact entire seized contraband substance was sent for chemical analysis, which was found to be charas. Discrepancy in the weight of the contraband substance from the time of weighment and the time of its analysis cannot be said to be substantial at all. According to the police, the seized contraband substance weighed 10 kgs 200 grams, whereas as per the report of the Chemical Analyst, the quantity was 10 kgs 100 grams. 22. Testimony of HC Kartar Singh (PW-11) that he had sent Chand Mishra (PW-10) to search for independent witnesses stands corroborated by Constable Tikkam Singh (PW-8). We find version of PW-10 that he returned after ten minutes, as he could not find any independent witness, to have been absolutely corroborated by PW-8. He states that he had gone towards Jagat Khana to search for the witnesses. Though he states that he was aware about the nearest habitation, but explains that till such time he searched for independent witnesses, none were available and as such he returned. As such, we do not find non-association of independent witnesses by the police party to be fatal in the instant case. 23. Police party carried out the search and seizure operations on the spot; sealed the case property; took it to the police station; and deposited the same with the competent authority empowered to receive the same. All this was done in accordance with law. Hence, on the question of search and seizure operations, we do not find testimony of the prosecution witnesses, in any manner, to be uninspiring in confidence or shaking their veracity, making the prosecution story to be doubtful. 24. Contradiction, with regard to number of packets recovered from the bag, being four as is so deposed by PW- 11 or one as is so deposed by PW-8 & PW-10, is absolutely insignificant. Prosecution case is with regard to recovery of contraband substance from the bag and not parcels, which were kept separately outside the bag. The contradiction, in any case, is not major and some leeway has to be granted to the witnesses, with regard to lapse of memory on account of passage of time. 25. Prosecution case is with regard to recovery of contraband substance from the bag and not parcels, which were kept separately outside the bag. The contradiction, in any case, is not major and some leeway has to be granted to the witnesses, with regard to lapse of memory on account of passage of time. 25. Learned counsel further points out that there is contradiction with regard to visibility of Khad and the distance of village Badhel. According to PW-10, village Badhel was at a distance of 3 kms, whereas according to PW-11, the same was at a distance of 1 km; and according to PW-10 Kasholi Khad was situated at a distance of 500 metres but the same was not visible from the spot. These contradictions, in our considered view, are minor and not a fact in issue or a relevant fact for that matter. Presence of police officials on the spot stands adequately established. 26. It is further argued that prosecution failed to establish how the police party got the weighing scales on the spot. We find that PW-11, who was heading the police party, has categorically deposed that he had weighed the contraband substance with his personal scales (TVS brand), which he had purchased from Bhuntar. Be that as it may, this is not a relevant fact. For it is not a case where police had drawn samples, which were sent for analysis. In the instance case, entire bulk parcel was sent for analysis, which was weighed and found to be 10 kgs 100 grams. Weighment is for determining the quantity for the purpose of sentencing. 27. Special Report (Ex. PW-1/B) sent to the superior Officers stands established by HC Harbans Kumar (PW-1). 28. Hence, in our considered view, prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence, not only ocular but also corroborative in the shape of recovery of weapon of offence. 29. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence placed on record by the parties. There is no illegality, irregularity, perversity in correct and/or in complete appreciation of the material so placed on record by the parties. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence placed on record by the parties. There is no illegality, irregularity, perversity in correct and/or in complete appreciation of the material so placed on record by the parties. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.