JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. : ” Assailing the judgment dated 26.12.2007, passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 25/2007, titled as State of H.P. v. Jagdish Chand, whereby respondent-accused stands acquitted, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 8.12.2006 SI-Lal Singh (PW-5) along with HC-Sher Singh (PW-3), Constable Khem Singh (PW-4), Constable Ugam Singh and Lady Constable Meena Kumari (both not examined in court) had gone to village Jhana in connection with investigation of F.I.R. No. 169 of 2006. At about 4.30 p.m. they saw accused came from the opposite direction. Seeing the police party, he tried to flee away. On suspicion he was chased and was over powered. Initially accused was carrying a polythene envelope in his hand, which after seeing the police party, he concealed it in the pocket of his coat. Accused was searched and packet was taken out from the pocket from which charas in the shape of chapattis and balls was recovered. Same was weighed and found to be 1.750 kg. Constable Ugam Singh was asked to search for independent witnesses, but since none were available, SI-Lal Singh associated HC-Sher Singh (PW-3) and Const. Ugam Singh for carrying out the seizure operations. Two samples of 25 grams each were separated and sealed with five seals of seal impression-T. NCB form in triplicate was filled up on the spot. Ruka (Ext. PN) was sent through Constable Khem Singh (PW-4) for registration of the case. On the basis of ruka, Inspector-Sanjay Kumar Sharma (PW-2), SHO, Police Station Manali registered F.I.R. No. 307/2006 (Ext. PG), dated 8.12.2006, against the accused under the provisions of Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). With the completion of necessary investigation on the spot, SI-Lal Singh arrested the accused and thereafter deposited the contraband substance along with seized property with Inspector Sanjay Kumar (PW-2) who affixed his seal impression-M on the samples which were deposited with MHC-Pinki Devi (PW-1). She sent the sample for chemical analysis to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory at Chandigarh through constable Mohinder Pal (PW-8). Report (Ext. PJ) was obtained by the police. She sent the sample for chemical analysis to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory at Chandigarh through constable Mohinder Pal (PW-8). Report (Ext. PJ) was obtained by the police. With the completion of investigation, which revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined eight witnesses and statement of the accused under Section 313, Cr. P.C. was also recorded, in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. No evidence in defence was led by the accused. 5. Court below acquitted the accused for the reason that prosecution could not prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the present appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, we are of the considered view that in the instant case no ground for interference is made out. Court below has correctly and completely appreciated the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, as also other material placed on record. We find material illegalities which have been committed by the police while carrying out the search and seizure operations. Witnesses HC-Sher Singh (PW-3), Constable Khem Singh (PW-4) and SI-Lal Singh (PW-5) admit that recovery was effected from the person of the accused. It is not a case of chance recovery. Seeing the police party accused tried to flee away. He was appended and on suspicion searched. Now in the instant case SI-Lal Singh (PW-5) did not issue any notice in writing, as is mandatorily required under law, of informing the accused of his right of being searched by a Magistrate/Gazetted Officer/Police Officer. Recovery has been effected from the inner pocket of the coat worn by the accused. As such it is not a case of irregularity but an illegality. 7. Be that as it may, we do not find the genesis of the prosecution story of the police being present in the village to have been proved on record, beyond the shadow of doubt. According to HC-Sher Singh (PW-3) and SI-Lal Singh (PW-5) they had gone to village Jhana in connection with investigation of F.I.R. No. 169 of 2006. 7. Be that as it may, we do not find the genesis of the prosecution story of the police being present in the village to have been proved on record, beyond the shadow of doubt. According to HC-Sher Singh (PW-3) and SI-Lal Singh (PW-5) they had gone to village Jhana in connection with investigation of F.I.R. No. 169 of 2006. Now in the instant case there is nothing on record to corroborate the oral testimony of the witnesses. There is no document indicating their ' Rawaangi' /movement from the police station to Jhana. Also version of PW-5 that they had gone there in the vehicle of the complainant of the said F.I.R. does not inspire confidence. The said complainant has not been examined and why would police curry favour of a private party for visiting the spot of crime for investigation has not been explained. It is not that no vehicle was otherwise available at the police station or the police post from where they left for investigation. HC-Sher Singh (PW-3) states that the said vehicle was taxi, whereas according to SI-Lal Singh (PW-5) vehicle belonging to the complainant was being driven by the chowkidar, who also has not been examined in Court. As such, there is contradiction, which is fatal to the prosecution case. 8. Further, none of the witnesses have deposed from whom they brought the weights and the scale for weighing the contraband substance. It is not that Investigating Officer was carrying the kit with himself. Also how did police know that the contraband substance was charas. Till and so long report of the chemical analyst came on record, such fact could not have been confirmed. 9. Further in the instant case, case property has not been produced before the Magistrate concerned. Inspector Sanjay Sharma (PW-2) moved an application under Section 52-A of the Act for destruction of the case property. Now whether the case property, pursuant to certificate (Ext.PU) issued by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Manali, Distt. Kullu, H.P. was destroyed or not has not come on record. Inspector Sanjay Sharma (PW-2) moved an application under Section 52-A of the Act for destruction of the case property. Now whether the case property, pursuant to certificate (Ext.PU) issued by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Manali, Distt. Kullu, H.P. was destroyed or not has not come on record. We find the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab and another, (2008) 16 SCC 417 : (AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 852) not to have been complied with in the present case as none has come forward to prove that the officer empowered under Section 53 of the Act, prepared any inventory of the contraband substance containing details relating to description, mode of packing, marks, numbers or such other identifying particulars of the narcotic substance. In fact, Magistrate concerned had directed that case property be retained. Then why was it not produced. 10. We further find the version of PW-5 of having asked Constable Ugam Singh to search for independent witnesses not to be inspiring in confidence at all. Constable Ugam Sing has not been examined in Court and it has come on record that in village Jhana there are about 300 families and in village Barnot which is also close by there are about 60 families. Also why is it that PW-5 did not associate the driver of the vehicle, in which they had travelled, for carrying out the search and seizure operations. 11. Also none of the spot witnesses state that the contraband substance recovered in the shape of balls and chapattis was mixed and made homogeneous before samples of 25 grams each were drawn. 12. Also we find that on material points there are further contradictions in the testimonies of spot witnesses rendering their testimonies to be absolutely shaky and uninspiring in confidence. According to Constable Khem Singh (PW-4) he was present along with the police party on the spot but however he does not state anything with regard to the accused being apprehended or searched by the police party. He also does not state anything with regard to recovery. According to HC-Sher Singh (PW-3) accused was apprehended just after he had covered a distance of 2 4 paces, whereas according to SI-Lal Singh (PW-5) accused was apprehended and overpowered after he had covered a distance of half a kilometer. He also does not state anything with regard to recovery. According to HC-Sher Singh (PW-3) accused was apprehended just after he had covered a distance of 2 4 paces, whereas according to SI-Lal Singh (PW-5) accused was apprehended and overpowered after he had covered a distance of half a kilometer. Version of PW-5 that proceedings were completed on the spot in a temporary shed located in the jungle, stands belied from the spot map (Ext. PO) where no shed is depicted. Further according to PW-3, police party went to Manali from Nagar via left bank of the river whereas according to PW-5 they went to Manali via right bank. All these make the prosecution story to be absolutely doubtful if not false. 13. Having perused the testimony of prosecution witnesses on record, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, to the effect that accused was found in conscious and exclusive possession of 1.750 kg. of charas, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable material on record. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the Court below are not borne out from record, perverse, illegal, erroneous or arisen out of incomplete appreciation of the prosecution evidence. 14. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94 : ( AIR 2010 SC 566 ), since it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice, no interference is warranted in the instant case. For all the aforesaid reasons, present appeal, devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Records of the Court below be immediately sent back. Appeal dismissed.