JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Assailing the judgment dated 12.12.2007, passed by learned Special Judge, Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2007, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Param Dev, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is the case of prosecution that on 18.03.2007, Head Constable Ram Lal (P.W. 8) along with other police officials, including HHC Tulsi Ram (P.W. 2), Constable Dev Raj (not examined) and Constable Surjit Kumar (P.W. 1), set up a Nakka at Parwara link road Kandah to Pandoh. At about 05.30 A.M. accused was seen coming towards Parwara link road walking in the light of torch. Seeing the police party, he got perplexed and tried to flee away. On suspicion police chased and apprehended him. Accused was carrying a black coloured bag (Ex. P-2) on his right shoulder, it was opened from which another bag, red in colour (Ex. P-3) was found. The same was opened and charas, in the shape of ball and sticks was recovered which upon weighment was found to be 2 kilograms. Two samples of 25 grams each were drawn. Samples were sealed with seal impression 'T', six in number and the remaining bulk parcel sealed with seal impression 'T', ten in number. NCB form (Ex. P.W. 8/A/A) in triplicate was filled in on the spot. Rukka (Ex. P.W. 8/A) was sent through Constable Surjit Kumar (P.W. 1) to Police Station, Gohar, where FIR No. 45/07 dated 19.03.2007 (Ex. P.W. 7/B) registered against the accused, under the provisions of Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act). With the file taken back to the spot, all necessary formalities were completed. Also accused was arrested. Head Constable Ram Lal (P.W. 8) deposited the seized and sealed property with Inspector Dabe Ram (P.W. 7). Special Report (Ex. P.W. 3/A) was sent to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mandi. At the Police Station, Dabe Ram (P.W. 7) resealed the case property by embossing his seal impression 'A'. Six seals of the same impression were embossed on the parcel containing samples and ten seals of same impression were embossed on the bulk parcel. Special Report (Ex. P.W. 3/A) was sent to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mandi. At the Police Station, Dabe Ram (P.W. 7) resealed the case property by embossing his seal impression 'A'. Six seals of the same impression were embossed on the parcel containing samples and ten seals of same impression were embossed on the bulk parcel. Sealed sample was sent for chemical analysis along with sample seals, NCB form and road certificate through HHC Pradeep Kumar (P.W. 4). Report of the Chemical Analyst (Ex. P.W. 8/D) obtained by the police, revealed the contraband substance to be charas. Investigation prima facie revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime hence Challan was presented in the Court for trial. 2. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the NDPS Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. In order to establish its case, in all, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he took up the following defence:- "I am innocent and a false case has been registered against me. In fact I was going to my house on 18.03.2007 and when I was going at Kandha at 8 P.M. two persons were going ahead to me and on seeing police party they fled and left one bag on the spot and later on, on suspicion I was caught by police and a false case was registered against me." The accused also examined one witness Hamir Singh (DW. 1) in his defence. 4. Appreciating the testimony of prosecution witnesses, Trial Court acquitted the accused. Hence the present appeal. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out in the present appeal. 6. Trial Court has disbelieved the testimony of spot witness, who carried out search and seizure operations. 7. Careful perusal of lengthy testimonies of Constable Surjit Kumar (P.W. 1), HHC Tulsi Ram (P.W. 2) and H.C. Ram Lal (P.W. 8), would only reveal material contradictions, rendering the prosecution story to be absolutely doubtful. Undisputedly no independent witnesses were associated by the police while carrying out search and seizure operations. 7. Careful perusal of lengthy testimonies of Constable Surjit Kumar (P.W. 1), HHC Tulsi Ram (P.W. 2) and H.C. Ram Lal (P.W. 8), would only reveal material contradictions, rendering the prosecution story to be absolutely doubtful. Undisputedly no independent witnesses were associated by the police while carrying out search and seizure operations. P.W. 8 in his cross-examination categorically admits that no efforts for joining independent witnesses, prior to sealing, were made by the police party. No explanation is forthcoming for not having done so. Be that as it may, we proceed to independently examine the testimonies of these witnesses. 8. According to P.W. 8, he along with other police officials, including P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 left the Police Station for patrol duty on Kandah to Pandoh road. On 19.03.2007, at about 12.00 AM they laid Nakka on the link road at Parwara. At about 5.30 AM they saw accused walking in the light of torch. Seeing the police party accused tried to flee away. On suspicion, he was apprehended at a distance of 10 meters. On suspicion bag which the accused was carrying was opened. Another bag, red in colour, was also opened from which charas in the shape of ball and sticks was recovered. Same was weighed and found to be of 1.5 kilogram. Two samples of 25 grams each were separated and sealed with seal impression 'T', six in number. Remaining parcel was sealed with the same seal impression bearing ten seals. NCB form (Ex. P.W. 8/A) was filled up. Sample of seal was handed over to Constable Surjit Kumar. Rukka (Ex. P.W. 8/A) was sent through Constable Surjit Kumar, on the basis of which FIR (Ex. P.W. 7/B) registered. Accused was arrested. Contraband substance was handed over to Inspector Dabe Ram (P.W. 7). We find that in cross-examination witness states that the place where accused was nabbed is Kelodhaar, which in fact is not the case of prosecution as Nakka was laid at Parwara. Thus, there is material contradiction with regard to the place of Nakka. Witness admits that he measured the contraband substance with the scales kept in the I.O. Kit, but then also admits that no such Kit was issued in his name. None of the police officials present on the spot were authorized to carry the Kit from the Police Station nor any Kit was issued in their name. Witness admits that he measured the contraband substance with the scales kept in the I.O. Kit, but then also admits that no such Kit was issued in his name. None of the police officials present on the spot were authorized to carry the Kit from the Police Station nor any Kit was issued in their name. This witness also admits that he had no prior intimation/information of trafficking of contraband substance, as such, his version that he was carrying a Kit does not inspire confidence at all. Witness further admits that at Kelodhaar there is a big bazaar, yet no efforts were made to associate any independent person/witness. This was despite admission made by P.W. 1 that in the morning hours, several persons had crossed the place where Nakka was set up. Hence non association of independent witnesses has rendered the prosecution story to be doubtful. 9. When testimony of H.C. Ram Lal (P.W. 8) is compared with P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, we find following contradictions emerging on record. According to P.W. 2, police party reached the place where Nakka was set up at 11.30 P.M. Whereas, according to P.W. 8 Nakka was laid at 12.00 A.M. Difference in time gap is minor. But what totally knocks down the prosecution case, belies the version of these witnesses, is the version narrated by P.W. 1, according to whom, police party reached the place of Nakka at about 5.30 AM according to P.W. 1, police party had checked many vehicles. Whereas, according to P.W. 8, no traffic checking was done by the police party nor any vehicle was challaned. 10. Further according to P.W. 8, information of arrest was furnished to the son of the accused on the spot. He was called by Constable Tulsi Ram (P.W. 2). P.W. 8 is categorical that he did not send any memo with the Constable for obtaining signatures of the son of the accused. But then this version stands materially contradicted and belied by Tulsi Ram, who categorically states that information of arrest of the accused was supplied to the son at the house of the accused. He does not specifically states that on his asking son of the accused had come with him to the spot. Further he states that he walked on foot to the house of the accused. He does not specifically states that on his asking son of the accused had come with him to the spot. Further he states that he walked on foot to the house of the accused. Also according to P.W. 8, accused was arrested at 11.00 A.M. which fact stands materially contradicted and belied by Tulsi Ram, according to whom, accused was arrested at 6.00/6.30 A.M. where after he had walked to the house of the accused with a written intimation. This witness materially denies that accused was arrested at 11.00 A.M. 11. Contradictions do not end here. According to Constable Surjit Kumar (P.W. 1), sample of charas was packed and sealed with seal impression 'A', six in number and bulk parcel was sealed with seal impression 'A', ten in number. Whereas, according to witnesses Constable Tulsi Ram (P.W. 2) and Head Constable Ram Lal (P.W. 8) impression of the seal was 'T' and not 'A'. It does not appear to be a typographical error for the reason that alphabet 'A' in the statement of P.W. 1 stands typed out at more than one place. Not only that, when parcel (Ex. P-1) was opened in the Court, seven seals were found, which is not the case of prosecution. Constable Surjit Kumar (P.W. 1) is witness to recovery. 12. It is a case of prosecution that personal search of accused was also carried out, but however, nothing else was recovered. Now P.W. 1 admits not to have issued any notice prior to carrying out such personal search. He is a law knowing person and ought to have issued notice prior to carrying out such search. Be that as it may, contradiction lies in the testimony of P.W. 1, according to whom, personal search of the accused was carried out after he was arrested, in the Police Station. Whereas, according to P.W. 8, the same was carried out on the spot. All this further renders the prosecution case to be doubtful. 13. We also find seal handed over to Constable Surjit Kumar (P.W. 1) not to have been produced in Court. 14. We also find that prosecution has not proved as to who had written the number of FIR on the NCB forms. Inspector Dabe Ram (P.W. 7) with whom NCB forms were deposited also does not remember such fact which also speaks volumes about the manner in which police carried out the investigation. 14. We also find that prosecution has not proved as to who had written the number of FIR on the NCB forms. Inspector Dabe Ram (P.W. 7) with whom NCB forms were deposited also does not remember such fact which also speaks volumes about the manner in which police carried out the investigation. 15. The improbabilities, contradictions, improvements and discrepancies render the testimony of the witnesses to be absolutely shaky and unreliable and the prosecution case to be doubtful if not false. 16. The Court below, in our considered view, has correctly and completely appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. It cannot be said that the judgment of the trial Court is perverse, illegal, erroneous or based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of material on record resulting into miscarriage of justice. 17. It is a settled principle of law that acquittal leads to presumption of innocence in favour of an accused. To dislodge the same, onus heavily lies upon the prosecution. Having considered the material on record, we are of the considered view that prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredient so as to constitute the charged offences. The accused person has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the lower appellate Court. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Md. Ankoos and Others Vs. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., (2010) 1 SCC 94 , since it cannot be said that trial Court 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, being devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Record of the trial Court be immediately sent back.