JUDGMENT P.S. Rana, J. Present appeal filed against the judgment and sentence passed by learned Special Judge Chamba in Sessions Trial No. 30 of 2008 titled State of H.P. Vs. Dharam Chand and another decided on 7.3.2009. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE : 2. Brief facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution are that on dated 12.4.2008 at Talot bridge both co-accused namely Dharam Chand and Himmat Parkash were found in actual and conscious possession of two bags containing 15 Kg charas. It is alleged by prosecution that co-accused Himmat Parkash was driving vehicle No. HP 44A-0243 and another co-accused Dharam Chand was travelling in the said vehicle. It is further alleged by prosecution that during the checking of the vehicle HC Deepak Kumar recovered bag Ext P2 from lap of co-accused Dharam Chand. It is further alleged by prosecution that second bag Ext P8 containing charas was recovered by police party which was tied with gear liver of the vehicle. It is further alleged by prosecution that after checking bags Ext P2 and Ext P8 fifteen Kgs charas found. It is further alleged by prosecution that 10 Kgs charas found in bag Ext P2. It is further alleged by prosecution that in bag Ext P8 five Kgs. charas found. It is further alleged by prosecution that two samples of 25 grams each were took out from bag Ext P8 and Ext.P2. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter charas was sealed with seal impression ‘D’. It is further alleged by prosecution that NCB form Ext PW9/C was filled up. It is further alleged by prosecution that specimen of seal impression was obtained upon piece of cloth. It is further alleged by prosecution that seizure memo Ext PW1/A was also prepared. It is further alleged by prosecution that seal after use was handed over to Constable Ajay Kumar. It is further alleged by prosecution that Rukka Ext PW10/A was sent by SP Tek Chand to Police Station Tissa in order to register FIR. It is further alleged by prosecution that spot map Ext.PW10/B was prepared. It is further alleged by prosecution that FIR Ext PW9/A recorded. It is further alleged by prosecution that Rukka Ext PW10/A was sent by SP Tek Chand to Police Station Tissa in order to register FIR. It is further alleged by prosecution that spot map Ext.PW10/B was prepared. It is further alleged by prosecution that FIR Ext PW9/A recorded. It is further alleged by prosecution that two big parcels Ext P1 and Ext P7 and four small parcels Ext P4, Ext P5, Ext P10 and Ext P13 containing samples of charas along with NCB form and specimen seal impression ‘D’ were handed over to ASI Mulakh Raj at Police Station Tissa. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter ASI Mulakh Raj re-sealed all six parcels with his own seal impression ‘M’ and also took specimen seal impression ‘M’ on the piece of cloth. It is further alleged by prosecution that memo Ext PW4/A about resealing of case property was prepared. It is further alleged by prosecution that on 14.4.2008 MHC Madan Lal sent two sealed parcels containing sample of charas to FSL Junga vide road certificate No.10/2008. It is further alleged by prosecution that as per chemical examiner report the sample was of charas. It is further alleged by prosecution that on 13.4.2008 Constable Ajay Kumar handed over special report Ext PW8/A to Constable Om Parkash, Assistant Reader to Superintendent of Police Chamba. 2.1 Learned Special Judge framed the charge against both the accused under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) on 18.2.2009. Both accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. The prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses in support of its case :- Sr.No. Name of Witness PW1 Tilak Raj PW2 Ajay Kumar PW3 Tek Chand PW4 Subhash Chand PW5 Madan Lal PW6 Ravinder Kumar PW7 R.P.Jaswal PW8 Om Parkash PW9 Mulkh Raj PW10 Deepak Kumar 3.1 Prosecution also produced following piece of documentary evidence in support of its case :- Sr.No. Description: Ex.PW.1/A. Recovery memo. Ex.PW.4/A. Reseal memo. Ex.PW.5/A. Abstract of Malkhana Register Ex.PW.5/B. Copy of R.C. Ex.PW.8/A. Copy of Rukka. Ex.PW.8/B. Special Report. Ex.PW.9/A. Copy of FIR. Ex.PW.9/B. Endorsement of Police. Ex.PW.9/C. NCB form. Ex.PW.10/A. Rukka. Ex.PW.10/B. Spot map. Ex.PX. FSL Report. Ex.DA, Ext.DB and Ext.DC. Statement s of Tilak Raj, Ajay Kumar and Om Parkash 4. Ex.PW.4/A. Reseal memo. Ex.PW.5/A. Abstract of Malkhana Register Ex.PW.5/B. Copy of R.C. Ex.PW.8/A. Copy of Rukka. Ex.PW.8/B. Special Report. Ex.PW.9/A. Copy of FIR. Ex.PW.9/B. Endorsement of Police. Ex.PW.9/C. NCB form. Ex.PW.10/A. Rukka. Ex.PW.10/B. Spot map. Ex.PX. FSL Report. Ex.DA, Ext.DB and Ext.DC. Statement s of Tilak Raj, Ajay Kumar and Om Parkash 4. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused persons did not examine any defence witness. Learned Special Judge Chamba convicted both the appellants under Section 20 of the ‘Act’ to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac). Learned Special Judge Chamba further directed that in default of payment of fine both the appellants would further undergo to rigorous imprisonment for two years. 5. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and sentence passed by learned Trial Court both the appellants have filed present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a prayer for acceptance of appeal sought. 6. We have heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and also perused the entire record carefully. 7. Question that arises for determination before us in this appeal is whether learned trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and whether learned trial Court had committed miscarriage of justice to the appellants. ORAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION : 8.1. PW1 Constable Tilak Raj has stated that on 12.4.2008 he along with HC Deepak Kumar, Constable Ajay Kumar, Constable Gian Chand, HHG Tej Singh, SPO Jamal Din, Bhikham Singh, Tek Chand, Sanjiv Kumar and SPO Ramesh Kumar were on patrol duty at Talot Bridge. He has stated that at about 5.30 AM one canter bearing registration No. HP 44A-0243 came from Tissa side which was intercepted for checking. He has stated that co-accused Himmat Parkash was driving said vehicle and co-accused Dharam Chand present in Court was sitting in the side of vehicle. He has stated that on checking the vehicle co-accused Dharam Chand found in possession of one bag in his lap. He has stated that on checking the bag it was found containing charas in the shape of sticks. He has stated that one another bag was also tied with gear liver of the vehicle containing 5 Kg charas. He has stated that on checking the vehicle co-accused Dharam Chand found in possession of one bag in his lap. He has stated that on checking the bag it was found containing charas in the shape of sticks. He has stated that one another bag was also tied with gear liver of the vehicle containing 5 Kg charas. He has stated that Constable Ajay Kumar brought weight and scale and recovered charas was weighed. He has stated that thereafter two samples of 25 grams each were obtained and thereafter four samples of charas were packed in four separate parcels which were sealed with seal impression ‘D’. He has stated that remaining charas recovered from two bags were packed and sealed in two separate parcels with seal impression ‘D’. He has stated that Investigating Officer filled NCB forms. He has stated that case property was took into possession vide seizure memo Ext PW1/A which was signed by him as well as by Constable Ajay Kumar. He has stated that Investigating Officer also signed Ext.PW1/A and copies of Ext PW1/A were also handed over to accused persons. He has stated that accused also signed recovery memo Ext.PW1/A. He has stated that bag Ext.P1 is the same bag containing charas and bag Ext P2 is the same bag which was recovered from lap of co-accused Dharam Chand. He has denied suggestion that both bags Ext P2 and Ext P8 were recovered from one Tej Singh. He denied suggestion that false case has been manipulated against accused persons. He has stated that he did not receive any prior information about transportation of charas. He denied suggestion that he was not present at the spot. He denied suggestion that vehicle was not stopped. He denied suggestion that charas was not recovered from accused persons. 8.2 PW2 Ajay Kumar has stated that he was posted as Constable since 2007 at Police Station Tissa. He has stated that on 12.4.2008 he along with HC Deepak Kumar, Constable Tilak Raj, HHG Gian Chand, HHG Tej Singh, SPO Jamaldeen, Bhikham Singh, Tek Chand, Sanjiv Kumar and Ramesh Kumar were on traffic checking duty at Talot Bridge. He has stated that at 5.30 AM Canter No. HP 44A-0243 came from Tissa side which was stopped for checking. He has stated that co-accused Himmat Parkash was driving the vehicle and co-accused Dharam Chand was also traveling in the said vehicle. He has stated that at 5.30 AM Canter No. HP 44A-0243 came from Tissa side which was stopped for checking. He has stated that co-accused Himmat Parkash was driving the vehicle and co-accused Dharam Chand was also traveling in the said vehicle. He has stated that co-accused Dharam Chand was in possession of bag upon his lap. He has stated that one bag was tied with gear liver of the vehicle. He has stated that both bags were checked and charas was found in both the bags in the shape of sticks and small balls. He has stated that balls were also in the shape of sticks. He has stated that thereafter he went to village Badoh and brought weight and scale from the shop of Bias Dev. He has stated that thereafter recovered charas was weighed. He has further stated that bag recovered from the possession of co-accused Dharam Chand contained 10 Kg charas whereas second bag recovered from vehicle contained 5 Kg charas. He has stated that HC Deepak Kumar separated two samples of 25 grams each out of the bags recovered from co-accused Dharam Chand. He has stated that four samples of 25 grams each were packed and sealed with seal impression ‘D’. He has further stated that three seals impressions were imposed on each parcel. He has further stated that remaining charas was put in respective bags and the bags were packed and sealed in two separate parcels. He has stated that NCB form was filled in and recovery memo Ext PW1/A was prepared which was signed by him as well as Constable Tilak Raj. He has stated that copies of seizure memo Ext PW1/A were handed over to accused persons. He has stated that bag Ext P2 was recovered from possession of co-accused Dharam Chand which was sealed in parcel Ext P1. He has stated that bag Ext P8 also contained charas. He has stated that thereafter he went to village Badoh in order to return weights and scales. He denied suggestion that vehicle was not checked at the spot. He denied suggestion that no charas was recovered from the vehicle. He denied suggestion that false case was fabricated against accused persons. 8.3 PW3 Tek Chand has stated that he is posted as SPO at P.S. Tissa since 2000. He denied suggestion that vehicle was not checked at the spot. He denied suggestion that no charas was recovered from the vehicle. He denied suggestion that false case was fabricated against accused persons. 8.3 PW3 Tek Chand has stated that he is posted as SPO at P.S. Tissa since 2000. He has stated that on dated 12.4.2008 he along with HC Deepak Kumar, C. Tilak Raj, C. Ajay Kumar, SPOs Jamaldeen, Ramesh Kumar, Bikham Singh, Sanjiv Kumar, HHG Gian Chand, and HHG Tej Singh were on traffic checking at Talot Bridge. He has stated that Canter No. 407 registration No. HP-44A-0243 was stopped for checking at 5.30 AM at Talot Bridge. He has further stated that co-accused Himmat Parkash was driving the said vehicle and co-accused Dharam Chand was also travelling in the vehicle. He has stated that during checking HC Deepak Kumar recovered one green and black colour bag Ext.P2 from lap of co-accused Dharam Chand which was found containing Charas. He has stated that second bag Ext.P8 was recovered from steering box of vehicle. He has stated that bag recovered from co-accused Dharam Chand was containing 10 Kg. of Charas whereas bag recovered from steering of vehicle containing 5 Kg of Charas. He has stated that two samples of 25 grams each took out from bag recovered from possession of co-accused Dharam Chand and two samples of 25 grams each were also took out from bag recovered from the gear liver of vehicle. He has stated that four samples were separately packed and recovery memo was also prepared. He has stated that after registration of FIR MHC of P.S. handed over the file to him. He has denied suggestion that vehicle of accused was not stopped for checking and also denied suggestion that no charas was recovered from the vehicle in his presence. 8.4 PW4 HHC Subhash Kumar has stated that he is posted as Constable in P.S. Tissa since November 2005. He has stated that on dated 12.4.2008 HC Deepak Kumar deposited two big parcels and four small parcels which were sealed with seal having impression ‘D’ before ASI/SHO Mulakh Raj. He has stated that HC Deepak Kumar also deposited NCB Form, specimen seal impression ‘D’ with ASI/SHO Mulakh Raj. He has further stated that ASI Mulakh Raj resealed all six parcels and memo Ext.PW4/A about resealing of case property was prepared. He has stated that HC Deepak Kumar also deposited NCB Form, specimen seal impression ‘D’ with ASI/SHO Mulakh Raj. He has further stated that ASI Mulakh Raj resealed all six parcels and memo Ext.PW4/A about resealing of case property was prepared. He has denied suggestion that case property was not deposited by HC Deepak Kumar with SHO. He has also denied suggestion that resealing process was not conducted in his presence. 8.5 PW5 Madan Lal has stated that he is posted as MHC P.S. Tissa since September 2007. He has stated that on dated 12.4.2008 ASI/SHO Mulakh Raj of P.S. Tissa deposited with him two sealed big parcels and four sealed small parcels containing samples and also deposited NCB form, seizure memo. He has stated that copy of road certificate Ext.PW5/B is correct as per the original record. He has stated that after depositing the case property with FSL Junga C. Ravinder Kumar deposited with him the receipt. He has stated that case property was entered in register Malkhana at Sr. No. 190. He has stated that case property remained intact in his custody. He has denied suggestion that case property was not deposited with him. He has also denied suggestion that he did not send the parcels to FSL Junga. 8.6 PW6 Ravinder Kumar has stated that on dated 14.4.2008 MHC Madan Lal handed over to him two parcels containing sample charas which were sealed with seal impressions ‘D’ and ‘M’, specimen seal impressions ‘D’ and ‘M’, NCB form and copy of FIR vide RC No. 10/2008. He has stated that he deposited the parcels in FSL Junga on dated 16.4.2008. He has stated that sample parcels Ext.P5 and Ext.P13 which were took into possession by him were deposited with FSL Junga. He has denied suggestion that case property was not handed over to him by MHC and also denied suggestion that he did not deposit the case property in the office of FSL Junga. 8.7 PW7 Inspector R.P. Jaswal has stated that he remained posted as SHO P.S. Tissa from November 2007 to October 2008 and has stated that case was investigated by HC Deepak Kumar and on completion of investigation and after receipt of report Ext.PX he prepared challan of case and presented the same in Court. 8.7 PW7 Inspector R.P. Jaswal has stated that he remained posted as SHO P.S. Tissa from November 2007 to October 2008 and has stated that case was investigated by HC Deepak Kumar and on completion of investigation and after receipt of report Ext.PX he prepared challan of case and presented the same in Court. 8.8 PW8 C. Om Parkash has stated that he is posted as Assistant Reader to S.P. Chamba and has stated that on dated 12.4.2008 C. Tilak Raj brought copy of Rukka to the office of S.P. Chamba. He has stated that he received the copy of Rukka and entered the same in the receipt register at Sr. No. 3145/VD/08 dated 12.4.2008. He has stated that thereafter he presented the copy of Rukka before the then S.P. Shri R.S. Negi who put his signatures on the same. He has stated that he tendered in evidence the copy of Rukka Ext.PW8/A. He has further stated that on dated 13.4.2008 C. Ajay Kumar brought Special Report to the office of S.P. Chamba who handed over the same to him. He has further stated that he made entry about special report in receipt register at Sr. No. 3155/VD/08 dated 13.4.2008. He has stated that he made statement to I.O. that special report was handed over to him by C. Ajay Kumar. He has stated that special report handed over to him on dated 13.4.2008 which is Ext.PW8/B and he tendered the same in evidence. He has denied suggestion that Rukka was not handed over to him and also denied suggestion that special report was also not handed over to him. 8.9 PW9 ASI Mulakh Raj has stated that he is posted as ASI in P.S. Tissa since January 2008. He has stated that on dated 12.4.2008 SPO Tek Chand brought Rukka Mark A which was sent by HC Deepak Kumar. He has stated that he handed over the Rukka to MHC Madan Lal with a direction to register FIR and further stated that MHC Madan Lal recorded FIR Ext.PW9/A which was signed by him. He has stated that on the same day HC Deepak Kumar handed over to him two big parcels sealed with seal impression ‘D’, four small parcels sealed with same seal impression ‘D’, NCB from, specimen seal impressions ‘D’. He has stated that on the same day HC Deepak Kumar handed over to him two big parcels sealed with seal impression ‘D’, four small parcels sealed with same seal impression ‘D’, NCB from, specimen seal impressions ‘D’. He has stated that he resealed all aforesaid six parcels with his own seal having impression ‘M’ and prepared memo Ext.PW4/A in presence of HHC Rashid Mohammad and HHC Subhash Chand. He has stated that thereafter he deposited the case property with MHC Madan Lal. He has denied suggestion that case property was not handed over to him and also denied suggestion that he did not reseal the case property. 8.10 PW10 HC Deepak Kumar has stated that he is posted as I.O. at P.S.Tissa since September 2007. He has stated that on dated 12.4.2008 he along with C. Ajay Kumar, Tilak Raj, HHG Gian Singh, HHG Tej Singh, SPOs Jamaldeen, Bhikham Singh, Tek Chand, Sanjiv Kumar and Ramesh Kumar were on naka duty at Talot near Badoh. He has stated that at 5.30 AM vehicle No. HP-44A-0243 Tata 409 was stopped for checking and co-accused Himmat Parkash was driving the said vehicle whereas co-accused Dharam Chand was also travelling in the said vehicle. He has stated that one bag was recovered from lap of co-accused Dharam Chand containing charas. He has stated that another bag was recovered which was tied with gear liver of the vehicle. He has stated that on checking it was found containing charas. He has stated that thereafter another bag was also found containing charas. He has stated that thereafter he directed HC Ajay Kumar to bring scale and weights for weighing the recovered charas and stated that he weighed charas. He has stated that 10 Kg of charas was found from the bag recovered from the lap of co-accused Dharam Chand and 5 Kg of charas was recovered from second bag tied with gear liver of the vehicle. He has stated that thereafter he separated two samples of 25 grams each out of the first bag containing 10 Kg charas and similarly he took two samples of 25 grams each out of the second bag containing 5 Kg. charas. He has stated that thereafter he separated two samples of 25 grams each out of the first bag containing 10 Kg charas and similarly he took two samples of 25 grams each out of the second bag containing 5 Kg. charas. He has also stated that thereafter he packed four samples in four empty packets in separate parcels with seal having impression ‘D’ and thereafter he prepared recovery memo Ext.PW1/A in presence of C. Tilak Raj and Ajay Kumar. He has stated that thereafter he prepared rukka Ext.PW10/A which was sent through SPO Tek Chand to Police Station. He has denied suggestion that no charas was recovered from possession of accused. He has also denied suggestion that false case has been fabricated against accused persons. He has denied suggestion that vehicle was not stopped for checking. (A) Recovery of 15 Kg. of charas proved beyond reasonable doubt by way of testimonies of oral witnesses 9. In present case recovery of 15 Kg. of charas from the exclusive and conscious possession of appellants Dharam Chand and Himmat Parkash is proved on record vide seizure memo Ext.PW1/A. PW1 C. Tilak Raj, PW2 Ajay Kumar, PW3 Tek Chand and PW10 HC Deepak Kumar have stated in positive cogent and reliable manner that vehicle bearing registration No. HP-44A-0243 was driven by co-accused Himmat Parkash and other co-accused Dharam Chand was also travelling in said vehicle. PW1 C. Tilak Raj, PW2 Ajay Kumar, PW3 Tek Chand and PW10 HC Deepak Kumar have stated in positive manner that one bag was kept upon the lap of co-accused Dharam Chand containing 10 Kg of charas and another bag was tied with gear liver of vehicle containing 5 Kg of charas. It is proved on record that vehicle was driven by co-accused Himmat Parkash. Testimonies of PW1 C. Tilak Raj, PW2 Ajay Kumar, PW3 Tek Chand and PW10 HC Deepak Kumar are trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of PW1 C. Tilak Raj, PW2 Ajay Kumar, PW3 Tek Chand and PW10 HC Deepak Kumar. There is no evidence on record that PW1 C. Tilak Raj, PW2 Ajay Kumar, PW3 Tek Chand and PW10 HC Deepak Kumar have hostile animus against appellants namely Himmat Parkash and Dharam Chand prior to recovery of charas from the exclusive and conscious possession of accused. (B) Recovery of 15 Kg. There is no evidence on record that PW1 C. Tilak Raj, PW2 Ajay Kumar, PW3 Tek Chand and PW10 HC Deepak Kumar have hostile animus against appellants namely Himmat Parkash and Dharam Chand prior to recovery of charas from the exclusive and conscious possession of accused. (B) Recovery of 15 Kg. of charas also proved by way of corroborative oral evidence beyond reasonable doubt :- 10. PW4 HHC Subhash Kumar has stated in positive manner that HC Deepak Kumar deposited two big parcels and four small parcels along with NCB Form and specimen seal impression ‘D’ with ASI/SHO Mulakh Raj who resealed all six parcels. PW5 Madan Lal another corroborative witness has also stated that parcels were deposited and entry was recorded in Malkhana register at Sr. No. 190. PW6 C. Ravinder Kumar has also stated that he deposited sample of charas, NCB form, copy of FIR vide RC No. 10/2008 in the office of Chemical Examiner. PW7 R.P. Jaswal has also stated in positive manner that he has prepared challan and presented it in Court. PW8 has also stated that special report was sent to office of S.P. PW9 ASI Mulakh Raj has specifically stated that two big sealed parcels and four small sealed parcels, NCB form and specimen seal impressions were produced before him and thereafter he resealed the same. Testimonies of corroborative witnesses namely PW4 HHC Subhash Kumar, PW5 HC Madan Lal. PW6 C. Ravinder Kumar, PW7 C. R.P. Jaswal, PW8 C. Om Parkash and PW9 ASI Mulakh Raj are trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of above said corroborative oral witnesses. There is no evidence on record that corroborative oral witnesses have hostile animus against the appellants at any point of time. (C) Case of prosecution corroborated by documentary documents beyond reasonable doubt 11. Seizure memo Ext.PW1/A, memo of resealing Ext.PW4/A, extract of Malkhana register Ext.PW5/A, road certificate Ext.PW5/B, special report Ext.PW8/B, FIR Ext.PW9/A, Rukka Ext.PW10/A, NCB Form Ext.PW9/C, site plan Ext.PW10/B, State Forensic Science Laboratory Ext.PX, seal impressions upon plain clothes Ext.P6, Ext.P11 and Ext.P12 are proved on record beyond reasonable doubt by prosecution. (D) State Forensic Science Laboratory Junga also proved the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt 12. Mr. (D) State Forensic Science Laboratory Junga also proved the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt 12. Mr. A.K. Vasuja, Chemical Examiner State Forensic Laboratyr Junga has specifically mentioned in his examination report Ext.PX that after various scientific tests such as Physical, Identification, Chemical and Chromatographic tests were carried out with exhibit under reference and the tests performed above indicated cannabinols including the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol in the sample. Chemical Examiner has further specifically mentioned that microscopic examination indicated the presence of cystolithic hair in the sample and charas is a resinous mass and resin is an active ingredient of Charas which on testing was found present and quantity of resin was found in the Laboratory of sample 27.88% W.W and 31.82 W.W. Chemical Examiner has further stated in his examination report Ext.PX that entire mass of exhibit is a sample of Charas. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that document Ext.PW5/A extract of register of Malkhana did not disclose that NCB form was deposited in the Malkhana and on this ground appeal be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that fact can be proved by way of oral evidence or by way of documentary evidence. In present case PW4 HHC Subhash Kumar has stated in his oral testimony in positive manner that NCB form and specimen seal impression were deposited. Testimony of PW4 Subhash Kumar is trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of Court. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that HHC Subhash Kumar has hostile animus against the appellants at any point of time. Hence it is held that by way of oral testimony of PW4 HHC Subhash Kumar it is proved on record that sample seal and NCB form were deposited in the Malkhana. 14. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that even as per document Ext.PW5/B i.e. road certificate it is not proved on record that NCB form was sent to FSL Junga and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. PW6 C. Ravinder Kumar has specifically stated when he appeared in witness box that he deposited NCB form. PW6 C. Ravinder Kumar has specifically stated when he appeared in witness box that he deposited NCB form. Hence it is proved by way of oral testimony of PW6 C. Ravinder Kumar that NCB form was sent to FSL Junga. The fact of sending the form to FSL Junga is proved by way of oral testimony of PW6 C. Ravinder Kumar beyond reasonable doubt. 15. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that as per prosecution story 25 grams each of samples were drawn but as per State Forensic Science Laboratory report Ext.PX the weight was found 24.531 gm and 26.875 grams and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that there is minor variation in the weights of samples sent for chemical examination and Court is also of the opinion that minor variation in weight of contraband is possible due to effect of climate change and it is held that same is not fatal to the prosecution. 16. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that NCB form carried the FIR number which itself suggests that it was not prepared at the spot but was prepared later on is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. PW10 HC Deepak Kumar has specifically stated in his oral testimony that he prepared NCB form at the spot. Testimony of PW10 HC Deepak Kumar is trustworthy reliable and inspires confidence of Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW10 HC Deepak Kumar. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that PW10 HC Deepak Kumar has hostile animus against the appellants at any point of time. Factum of preparation of NCB form at the spot is proved by way of oral testimony of prosecution witness. Even it is well settled law that in NCB form the Seizing Officer is under legal obligation to mention the crime number in order to connect NCB form with criminal case. Hence it is held that mentioning of criminal number in NCB form is not fatal to the prosecution. 17. Even it is well settled law that in NCB form the Seizing Officer is under legal obligation to mention the crime number in order to connect NCB form with criminal case. Hence it is held that mentioning of criminal number in NCB form is not fatal to the prosecution. 17. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that it was obligatory to prepare two NCB forms because alleged contraband was found in two separate bags is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that contraband was recovered when both appellants were travelling in a vehicle having registration No. HP-44A-0243 at 5.30 AM on dated 12.4.2008. The contraband was recovered in same transaction at the same time and it is held that it was not obligatory upon the seizing officer to prepare two NCB forms when the contraband was recovered at the same time, at the same place and in the same vehicle. 18. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that NCB form and sample seal were not deposited in the Malkhana register and there was chance of tampering with the alleged contraband and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. PW6 C. Ravinder Kumar has specifically stated that NCB form was deposited in the Malkhana register and even PW5 HC Madan Lal has stated that case property was deposited. The fact of depositing the NCB form and sample seal is proved by way of oral testimony of prosecution witness placed on record beyond reasonable doubt. 19. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that two samples were sent for analysis and exhibition of sample in Court became doubtful is also rejected for the reasons being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. There is positive evidence on record that four samples of charas were obtained by seizing officer at the spot out of which two were sent for chemical examination and two samples were kept for production in Court during trial of the case. It is proved on record that samples of charas were produced in Court during trial of the case as per testimonies of prosecution witnesses placed on record. 20. It is proved on record that samples of charas were produced in Court during trial of the case as per testimonies of prosecution witnesses placed on record. 20. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that non-joining of independent witness is fatal to the prosecution in present case is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons mentioned hereinafter. It is proved on record that 15 Kg. of contraband was recovered from exclusive and conscious possession of appellants at 5.30AM in the morning. It was chance recovery. It is well settled law that in chance recovery procuration of independent witness is not essential. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that contraband was recovered on the basis of prior information. Court is of the opinion that independent witnesses are essential when recovery is effected on the basis of prior information. Court is of the opinion that in chance recovery procuration of independent witness is not essential. 21. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that conviction could not be sustained on testimonies of police officials alone is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that conviction can be based on the testimony of police official if testimony of police official is trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of court. Even in present case testimonies of police officials are trustworthy reliable and inspire confidence of Court. (See (1996)3 SCC 338 titled Tahir vs. State (Delhi); See: (2012)4 SCC 722 titled Govindraju alias Govinda vs. State by Sriramapuram Police Station and another; See: (2007)15 SCC 760 titled Tika Ram vs. State of M.P.; See: (2007)7 SCC 625 Girja Prasad (dead) by LRs vs. State of M.P.) It was held in case reported in AIR 1973 SC 2883 titled Nathusingh vs. The State of M.P. that mere fact that witnesses examined in support of prosecution case were police witnesses is not enough to discard their evidence. It was further held that police official should not be treated as interested witness. (See AIR 1985 SC 1092 titled State of Gujarat vs. Raghunath Vamanrao Baxi) 22. It was further held that police official should not be treated as interested witness. (See AIR 1985 SC 1092 titled State of Gujarat vs. Raghunath Vamanrao Baxi) 22. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that there is material contradiction and improvements in prosecution case and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons mentioned hereinafter. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants did not point out any material contradiction which goes to the root of case. It is well settled that minor contradictions which do not go to the root of case are not material in criminal case. It was held in case reported in (2010)9 SCC 567 titled C. Muniappan and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu that if there are some omissions, contradictions and discrepancies the entire evidence cannot be disregarded. It was further held that an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of prosecution’s witness. It was held that minor discrepancies are bound to occur in statements of witnesses when testimony of witness is recorded after a gape of time. In present case it is proved on record that contraband was recovered from exclusive and conscious possession of appellants on dated 12.4.2008 and it is proved on record that testimony of prosecution witness was recorded on dated 29-12-2008, 30-12-2008 and 31-12-2008 after a gape of eight months. In present case it is proved on record that contraband was recovered from exclusive and conscious possession of appellants on dated 12.4.2008 and it is proved on record that testimony of prosecution witness was recorded on dated 29-12-2008, 30-12-2008 and 31-12-2008 after a gape of eight months. (See: AIR 1972 SC 2020 titled Sohrab and another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, See: AIR 1985 SC 48 titled State of U.P. vs. M.K. Anthony; See: AIR 1983 SC 753 titled Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State of Gujarat; See: AIR 2007 SC 2257 titled State of Rajasthan vs. Om Parkash; See: (2009)11 SCC 588 titled Prithu alias Prithi Chand and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh; (2009)9 SCC 626 titled State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Santosh Kumar and others; See: AIR 1988 SC 696 titled Appabhai and another vs. State of Gujarat; See: AIR 1999 SC 3544 titled Rammi alias Rameshwar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; See: (2000)1 SCC 247 titled State of H.P. vs. Lekh Raj and another; See: (2004)10 SCC 94 titled Laxman Singh vs. Poonam Singh and others; See: (2012)10 SCC Kuriya and another vs. State of Rajasthan) It is held that commercial business of charas is spoiling the youth of Nation and it is held that no one can be allowed to spoil the youth of Nation for personal commercial gain. 23. In view of above stated facts it is held that learned trial Court has properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record in present case. It is also held that learned trial Court did not commit any miscarriage of justice to appellants. No ground for interference is established on record in present case. Hence we affirm the judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court in present case and we dismiss the present appeal being devoid of any force. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.