JUDGMENT : SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. Assailing the judgment dated 13.6.2008, passed by the learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. in N.D.P.S. Case No. 11 of 2005, titled as State of H.P. v. Anoop Singh, (Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment) whereby respondent-accused stands acquitted, 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 16.3.2005 HC Jag Pal (PW11) alongwith H.C. Prakash Chand (PW1), H.C. Shyam Lal (PW3) and other police officials were present in village Majari when he received secret information that accused Anup Singh had illegally stored opium and poppy husk in his cowshed in village Majari. Due to paucity of time, no prior warrant could be procured but however memo (Ex. PW 4A) was immediately sent to the office of Dy.S.P. Bilaspur, HC Jag Pal (PW11) associated independent witnesses Kuldeep Singh (PW2) and Karnail Singh (PW7) and after issuing consent memo (Ex.PW1A) which was served upon the accused, he searched the premises of the accused from where poppy husk was recovered. Constable Jagat Pal brought the weighing scale from the shop of Balwant Singh (PW 6) resident of village Majari. Poppy husk was weighed and found to be 6 kg. and 700 grams. Two samples of 100 grams each were drawn in separate pieces of cloth and sealed with seal Impression-J. N.C.B. form in triplicate was filled up on the spot. Ruka (Ex. PW10A) was sent through Constable-Shyam Lal (PW 3) on the basis of which F.I.R No. 36/2005 (Ex. PW10B), dated 16.3.2005 was registered at Police Station Kot Kehloor, against the accused under the provisions of Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). With the completion of necessary investigation on the spot, HC-Jag Pal (PW 11) handed over the seized property to Inspector Puran Chand (PW10) who affixed his seal Impression-R on the samples and deposited the same with HC-Mansa Ram (PW 8) officiating MHC, who in turn sent the sealed sample for chemical analysis to the C.T.L. at Kandaghat through HHC Amar Nath (PW 9). Report of chemical analyst (Ex. PW 10G) was taken on record. With the completion of investigation, which revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 2. Report of chemical analyst (Ex. PW 10G) was taken on record. With the completion of investigation, which revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 2. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. In order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined eleven 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. 4. Court below acquitted the accused for the reason that prosecution could not prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the present appeal. 5. 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, more so, when we find version of police officials namely H.C. Prakash Chand (PW1), HC-Shyam Lal (PW3) and HC-Jag Pal (PW11) to be uninspiring in confidence and also belied by the version of independent witnesses Kuldeep Singh (PW 2), Karnail Singh (PW 7) and Balwant Singh (PW 6). Court below has correctly and completely appreciated the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, as also other material placed on record. 6. Prosecution has not been able to prove that cowshed from where the contraband substance was recovered was either exclusively owned or possessed by accused Anoop Singh. PW11 admits that at the time when he carried out search and seizure operation, father and brother of the accused were present. He also admits them to be residing in the very same house. According to independent witness Karnail Singh (PW 7) premises are owned by Narbail Singh (father of the accused) who resides alongwith his sons. Version of Kuldeep Singh (PW2) is also to this effect. Also in answer to a Court query put to H.C. Shyam Lal (PW 3), it stands admitted that owner of the house and cowshed is not known. 7. According to PW 11 he received secret information, associated independent witnesses and carried out search and seizure operations on the spot. 8. Version of Kuldeep Singh (PW2) is also to this effect. Also in answer to a Court query put to H.C. Shyam Lal (PW 3), it stands admitted that owner of the house and cowshed is not known. 7. According to PW 11 he received secret information, associated independent witnesses and carried out search and seizure operations on the spot. 8. Significantly Constable Jagat Pal who was asked to bring the scale and weights was not examined in the Court and Balwant Singh (PW 6) from whom they were allegedly brought, has not supported the case of prosecution at all. He was extensively cross-examined in which he denied handing over any scale or weights to the police officials for weighing the contraband substance. In this backdrop examination of Constable Jagat Pal was absolutely necessary. 9. 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 eye-witness 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. It is only when his interest in the success of the case is motivated by over-zealousness to an extent of his involving innocent people; in that event, no credibility can be attached to the statement of such witness. 10. 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. 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. 11. 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 @ Govinda Vs. State by Sriramapuram P.S. and Another, AIR 2012 SC 1292 ; Tika Rant v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007) 15 SCC 760 ; Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 7 SCC 625 and Aher Raja Khima Vs. The State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217 . 12. Apex Court in Tahir Vs. State (Delhi), , 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. 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." 13. We further find testimony of PW 11 to be absolutely shaky and uninspiring in confidence'. He does not remember the type of vehicle in which the police party visited village Majari. In our considered view his deposition is full of falsehood. He states that Constable Balbir Singh left the police party before search and seizure operations were carried out, which version sands materially belied from the documentary evidence Ex. PW 11C which bears the name and Signatures of Const. Balbir Singh, Now Const. Balbir Singh has not been examined in Court, why so, has not been explained. 14. Falsehood does not end here. He denies that cowshed was covered with the lintel which is proved on record by the unrebutted testimony of Karnail Singh (PW7). He states that no cattle were tethered in the cowshed but according to Kuldeep Singh (PW2)/Karnail Singh (PW 7), Narbail Singh ties his livestock there. 15. The contraband substance is poppy husk which is huge in volume. To whom the same was entrusted after carrying out the search and seizure operations has not been explained. How was the same carried to the place where it was kept in safe custody has also not been explained. 16. Further Investigating Officer states that samples were drawn and kept in the envelops which he was carrying with himself. Significantly that he was carrying the IO. Kit at the relevant time has not come on record. After all, it is not the case of prosecution that Kit was kept in a bag which was carried on the shoulder. Police had no reason to carry the IO. Kit as there was no prior intimation/information of any illicit trade of poppy husk at the time they left the police station. 17. We further find this witness to have disputed and denied the contents of Ruka (Ex. PW10A) with which he was confronted. Police had no reason to carry the IO. Kit as there was no prior intimation/information of any illicit trade of poppy husk at the time they left the police station. 17. We further find this witness to have disputed and denied the contents of Ruka (Ex. PW10A) with which he was confronted. He stated that portion A to A of Ruka, which reads as follows, is not correct. "From one green envelop and one pink envelop 100 grams poppy husk each was taken out as samples and packed in two separate white envelops and both these envelops were sealed with seal impression-J at three places each". He does not furnish any explanation for having wrongly recorded the same. 18. How police party reached village Majari is a fact which remains conclusively unsubstantiated or proved on record. PW11 does not remember the type of vehicle in which they reached Majari. According to PW 3 they travelled to village Majari in a private jeep whereas according to H.C. Prakash Chand (PW1) police party first boarded a truck to reach up to Bassi and then went on foot up to Majart. Contradictions are major, rendering the presence of police officials on the spot to be doubtful. 19. Genesis of the prosecution story, since inception, cannot be said to be proved on record. Further there is contradiction in the testimony of MHC. HC-Mansa Ram (PW8) and Inspector Puran Chand (PW10) with regard to deposit of the case property, allegedly recovered from the conscious possession of the accused. When recovery itself is doubtful, question of applicability of provisions of section 35 of the Act, does not arise. 20. 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 6 kg. and 700 grams of poppy husk, 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. prosecution evidence. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. 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. prosecution evidence. 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, 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 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.