JUDGMENT P.S. Rana, J. Present appeal filed against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge Shimla in Sessions Trial No. 22-S/7 of 2007 titled State of H.P. Vs. Gurpreet Singh and another decided on 6.11.2007. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE : 2. Brief facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution are that on dated 6.6.2007 at Vikasnagar near Petrol Pump accused along with co-accused Surinder Kumar were found in physical exclusive and conscious possession of 275 grams opium and 2 Kg. 450 grams of charas in Maruti Van No. HP-01A-0394. It is further alleged that information under Section 42 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (Hereinafter referred to as the Act) Ext.PW4/A was sent to Dy.S.P. CID/Crime Branch Shimla. It is further alleged that independent witnesses namely Surinder Singh, Pardeep Kumar and Tilak Raj were associated in the raiding party. It is further alleged that both accused came in maruti van No. HP-01A-0394 from bus stop Vikasnagar towards petrol pump and vehicle was stopped. It is further alleged by prosecution that notice Ext.PW1/A was issued qua search of accused and after search 2 Kg.450 grams charas and 275 grams opium were recovered. It is further alleged that charas was found in shape of sticks and tikkies and scale was obtained from the shop of Rajesh Kumar. It is also alleged by prosecution that two samples of 50 grams each of charas and 20 grams each of opium were separated and sealed in separate parcels. It is also alleged by prosecution that seal after use was handed over to Tilak Raj vide memo Ext.PW1/E and sample of seal also obtained on a piece of cloth Ext.PW1/C and articles were took into possession vide memo Ext.PW1/D. It is further alleged by prosecution that both accused were informed about grounds of arrest and ruka Ext.PW5/A was sent on the basis of which FIR Ext.PW5/B was registered. It is further alleged by prosecution that Investigating Officer handed over the recovered charas and opium along with samples and NCB forms and sample seal to ASI Jasvir Singh in police station East Shimla who resealed the same with seal ‘A’ vide certificate Ext.PW8/A. It is further alleged that Investigating Officer prepared NCB form Ext.PW8/B on the spot and daily dairy register is Ext.PW8/C. It is further alleged by prosecution that Investigating Officer deposited the case property with MHC Shiv Kumar who sent it along with samples, NCB forms and sample seal to FSL Junga who issued reports Ext.PW11/E and Ext.PW11/F. It is further alleged by prosecution that Investigating Officer prepared site plan Ext.PW11/D and special report Ext.PW9/A was sent to superior officer. It is further alleged by prosecution that case property was entered in Malkhana register Ext.PW7/A which are Ext.P1 to Ext.P10 and road certificate is Ext.PW7/B. 2A. Learned Special Judge framed the charge against the accused under Sections 18 and 20 of the NDPS Act on 10.9.2007. The accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. The prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses in support of its case :- Sr.No. Name of Witness PW1 Surinder Singh PW2 Pradeep Kumar PW3 Tilak Raj PW4 HHC Jagdish Kumar PW5 HHC Kulwant Singh PW6 C. Govind Singh PW7 MHC Shiv Kumar PW8 ASI Jasbir Singh PW9 Dy.S.P. Swaran Singh PW10 C. Rajinder Kumar PW11 Inspector Ram Lal 4. Prosecution also produced following piece of documentary evidence in su pport of its case :- Sr.No. Description: Ex.PW1/A Consent memo Ex.PW1/B Memo regarding Jamatalashi of accused persons Ex.PW1/C Seal impressions Ex.PW1/D. Memo regarding search of vehicle and one bag Ex.PW1/E. Memo regarding handing over of sample seal Ex.PW1/F Memo regarding identification of contraband Ex.PW1/G to Ext.PW1/J Arrest information and memo regarding examination of accused persons. Ex.PW4/A Intimation report under Section 42(2) of NDPS Act Ex.PW5/A Ruka Ex.PW5 /B. Copy of FIR Ex.PW7/A Copy of Malkhana Register Ex.PW7/B Copy of RC Ex.PW8/A Certificate regarding resealing of contraband Ext.PW8/B Test Memo Ext.PW8/C Copy of entry in daily dairy register Ext.PW9/A Carbon copy of special report Ext.PW11/A to Ext.PW11/D Statements of independent witnesses namely Surinder Kumar, Pardeep Kumar and Tilak Raj Ext.PW11/E to Ext.PW11/F Reports of FSL Ext.DA Information regarding arrest. Ext.P1 to Ext.P10 Bag, Charas, opium, weighing scale, weights and five rupee coins. 5. Ext.P1 to Ext.P10 Bag, Charas, opium, weighing scale, weights and five rupee coins. 5. Statements of the accused were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused have stated that they are innocent and prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses. Accused did not lead any defence evidence. Learned Special Judge Shimla acquitted the respondents-accused by giving them the benefit of doubt. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Trial Court State filed present appeal under 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a prayer for acceptance of appeal sought. 7. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State-appellant and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent and also perused the entire record carefully. 8. 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 by acquitting the accused. ORAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION : 9.1. PW1 Surinder Singh has stated that he is working as Manager at Auto Care Petrol Pump for the last seven years. He has stated that he was not aware about facts of the case. He has further stated that he does not know the accused persons present in Court. He has denied suggestion that Gurpreet Walia is running a tea stall in a Khokha (Temporary shed) near the petrol pump. Voluntarily self stated that tea stall is run by Gorkha. He has denied suggestion that on dated 6.6.2007 at about 1.20 PM in presence of him, Pardeep Kumar and Tilak Raj one maruti van No. HP-01-0394 came which was stopped by police in which both accused persons were sitting. He has denied suggestion that police party had given their identity to accused and accused have also given their names. He has denied suggestion that on asking the police party both accused have given consent for search vide memo Ext.PW1/A. He has denied suggestion that police party had given search to both accused persons in his presence and memo Ext.PW1/B was prepared. He has denied suggestion that both accused persons have signed memo in his presence. He has denied suggestion that police officials found one bag in vehicle containing charas and opium. He has denied suggestion that both accused persons have signed memo in his presence. He has denied suggestion that police officials found one bag in vehicle containing charas and opium. He has denied suggestion that two samples of 50 grams each from charas and two samples of 20 grams each from opium were separated. He has denied suggestion that sample of seal impression was obtained on separate cloth and also on NCB form. He has stated that nothing was recovered in his presence. He has denied suggestion that he has deposed falsely in order to save accused persons. 9.2 PW2 Pardeep Kumar has stated that he is working on petrol pump along with PW1 Surinder Singh for the last five years. He has stated that about four months back police came to the petrol pump and obtained his signatures on number of papers and nothing was recovered from accused in his presence. Witness was declared hostile by prosecution. He has denied suggestion that vehicle was searched in his presence and bag containing 2 Kg. 450 grams charas and 275 grams of opium recovered. He has denied suggestion that from recovered charas and opium two samples of 20 grams each from opium and two samples of 50 grams each from charas were taken and sealed in separate parcel. He has denied suggestion that memo regarding identification of charas and opium Ext.PW1/F was prepared. He has denied suggestion that information regarding arrest given to accused vide memos Ext.PW1/G and Ext.PW1/H. He has denied suggestion that both accused signed all memos in his presence. He has denied suggestion that in order to save accused he was making false statement. He has denied suggestion that accused Gurpreet is running tea stall near petrol pump. He has denied suggestion that accused persons were known to him. 9.3 PW3 Tilak Raj has stated that about 2/3 months back he was proceeding to Vikasnagar at about noon time. He has stated that many people had gathered near petrol pump in Vikasnagar. He has stated that maruti van was parked and one bag was kept outside on the road. He has stated that along with police officials accused Gurpreet was also present and he has further stated that he did not see the other accused present there. The witness was declared hostile. He has stated that accused Gurpreet is having a tea stall near petrol pump. He has stated that along with police officials accused Gurpreet was also present and he has further stated that he did not see the other accused present there. The witness was declared hostile. He has stated that accused Gurpreet is having a tea stall near petrol pump. He has denied suggestion that police apprehended the vehicle bearing No. HP-01-0394. He has denied suggestion that PW1 Surinder and PW2 Pardeep were also present. He has denied suggestion that police had given option to accused for search. He has denied suggestion that on search of bag charas and opium were recovered. He has denied suggestion that 2 Kg. 450 grams charas and 275 grams opium found. He has denied suggestion that two samples of 50 grams each from charas and two samples of 20 grams from opium took out for sample purpose. He has denied suggestion that seal after use was handed over to him vide memo Ext.PW1/E. He has stated that no recovery was actually effected in his presence. He has denied suggestion that all memos were read over to him by police. He has denied suggestion that he was deposing falsely to help accused persons. 9.4 PW4 HHC Jagdish Kumar has stated that he is posted as HHC in CID Crime Branch since the year 2002. He has stated that on dated 6.6.2007 he remained associated with Inspector Ram Lal, ASI Rajinder Singh, HC Ram Singh, HHC Kulwant, C. Rajinder Kumar, C. Parma Nand along with driver Gurcharan Singh of vehicle No. HP-07-0321 at place Vikasnagar bus stand. He has further stated that at about 11.25 AM they received secret information regarding narcotic substances. He has stated that secret information was received that two persons Gurpreet Singh and Surinder Kumar were indulging in trade of sale of narcotics and information was written down by Inspector Ram Lal Bansal which is Ext.PW4/A and handed over to him which he further handed over to Dy.S.P. Crime Branch Swaran Singh at CID Head quarter at Shimla on the same day at about 11.35 AM. He has also stated that he appended his signatures on Ext.PW4/A and thereafter he took the receipt of same and handed over the same to Inspector Ram Lal Bansal at spot near petrol pump Vikasnagar. He has also stated that he appended his signatures on Ext.PW4/A and thereafter he took the receipt of same and handed over the same to Inspector Ram Lal Bansal at spot near petrol pump Vikasnagar. He has further stated that at about 1.25 PM from Vikasnagar side one Maruti van bearing No. HP-01A-0394 white coloured reached there which was stopped. He has stated that in the vehicle two persons were sitting and they disclosed their names Gurpreet Singh and Surinder Kumar. He has stated that at the spot there was a Khokha (Temporary shed) of Gurpreet Singh and Dy.S.P. and Inspector Ram Lal have given option to accused persons present in Court whether they wanted to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer or by the police officials. He has stated that accused persons opted to be searched by police officials and in this regard memo Ext.PW1/A was prepared. He has stated that after that they have given their search to accused persons and in this regard memo Ext.PW1/B was prepared. He has stated that at the spot there were three independent witnesses namely Surinder, Pardeep and Tilak. He has stated that vehicle was driven by accused Surinder and in front seat of vehicle Gurpreet co-accused was sitting. He has stated that in between both accused one bag was kept and on opening the bag charas in the shape of balls and sticks was wrapped in the polythene. He has stated that scale was brought from the shop of Rajesh Kumar and on weighment 2 Kg. 450 grams of charas and 270 grams of opium recovered. He has stated that thereafter two samples of 50 grams each took out from charas and two samples of 20 grams each took out from opium and sealed in parcels. He has stated that seal after use was handed over to PW Tilak Raj. He has stated that he took information Ext.PW4/A at 11.25 AM and came back after about 45 minutes. He has stated that option to be searched was given by Dy.S.P. to accused persons. He has stated that seal after use was handed over to witness Tilak Raj. He has denied suggestion that he did not take information Ext.PW4/A to Dy.S.P. He has denied suggestion that nothing was recovered from possession of accused. He has denied suggestion that Ext.PW4/A was prepared later on to comply with provisions of ND&PS Act. He has stated that seal after use was handed over to witness Tilak Raj. He has denied suggestion that he did not take information Ext.PW4/A to Dy.S.P. He has denied suggestion that nothing was recovered from possession of accused. He has denied suggestion that Ext.PW4/A was prepared later on to comply with provisions of ND&PS Act. 9.5 PW5 HHC Kulwant Singh has stated that he is posted as HHC in CID Crime Branch for the last 4/5 years and on dated 6.6.2007 he remained associated with CID Crime Branch officials including Inspector Ram Lal Bansal. He has stated that at about 11.25 AM when they were present near Vikasnagar bus stand a secret information was received regarding involvement of accused persons present in Court in trade of charas. He has stated that information was received by Inspector Ram Lal who prepared reasons of belief Ext.PW4/A and forwarded the same to Dy.S.P. and at about 1.20 PM one maruti van bearing No. HP-01A-0394 appeared near the Khokha (Temporary shed) of accused Gurpreet. He has further stated that two persons were sitting in the vehicle and I.O. gave option to persons sitting in vehicle regarding search before a Magistrate, gazetted officer or by the police officials. He has stated that accused opted to be searched by the police officials and memo Ext.PW1/A was prepared. He has further stated that at that time three independent witnesses were present and they gave their search to accused and memo Ext.PW1/B was prepared. He has stated that on weighment charas was found 2 Kg. 450 grams and opium was found 275 grams. He has stated that two samples of 50 grams each from charas and two samples of 20 grams each from opium took out and sealed in separate cloth parcels and sealed with seal impression ‘K’. He has stated that seal impression was also obtained on piece of cloth Ext.PW1/C and impression was also obtained on NCB form and case property took into possession vide memo Ext.PW1/D. He has stated that seal after use was handed over to witness Tilak Raj and I.O. prepared ruka Ext.PW5/A and handed over the ruka to him and he took the same to police station on the basis of which FIR Ext.PW5/B was registered. He handed over the case file to I.O. on the same day. He has denied suggestion that no recovery was effected from accused persons. He handed over the case file to I.O. on the same day. He has denied suggestion that no recovery was effected from accused persons. He has stated that he has not signed any document in present case. 9.6 PW6 C. Govind Singh has stated that he was posted as Constable in P.S. East for the last five years. He has stated that on dated 8.6.2007 MHC Shiv Kumar handed over to him two sealed parcels sealed with seal ‘A’ along with sample of seal, docket, copy of FIR and NCB form vide RC No. 49/07. He has further stated that parcels were stated to be containing charas and opium and he deposited same in FSL Junga on the same day and obtained the receipt on the back of RC which he handed over to MHC on his return. He has stated that so far as case property remained in his possession it remained safe and untampered. He has denied suggestion that samples were tampered by him. He has stated that he handed over the parcel on dated 8.6.2007 in FSL Junga. He has denied suggestion that he has deposed falsely. 9.7 PW7 MHC Shiv Kumar has stated that he is posted as MHC P.S. East since 2004 and as per malkhana register case property of this case was deposited on dated 6.6.2007 with him by ASI Jasbir Singh who was acting as SHO. He has stated that he has brought the original malkhana register. He has further stated that according to Sr. No. 362/07 case property was entered in malkhana register and copy Ext.PW7/A is correct. He has further stated that one sealed parcel sealed with seal ‘A’ in which one bag containing 2 Kg. 350 grams charas and one small scale and some weights were sealed along with sample of seal. He has stated that in the same sealed bag another sealed parcel with seal impression ‘A’ stated to be containing opium 235 grams along with sample seal was deposited with him along with four samples sealed with seal ‘A’ and one vehicle along with documents and key was deposited with him. He has stated that in the same sealed bag another sealed parcel with seal impression ‘A’ stated to be containing opium 235 grams along with sample seal was deposited with him along with four samples sealed with seal ‘A’ and one vehicle along with documents and key was deposited with him. He has further stated that he made entry of same in malkhana register and on dated 8.6.2007 vide RC No. 49/07 he forwarded one sample of opium and one sample of charas along with NCB form, sample seal, docket through C. Govind to FSL Junga who after depositing the same in Laboratory returned the RC to him. He has further stated that he brought the original RC register copy thereof is Ext.PW7/B which is true and correct. He has stated that there is no entry of NCB form being deposited in the record. He has stated that entries in malkhana register are in his hand. He has stated that no seal having seal impression ‘A’ was deposited at the time of depositing the case property. He has denied suggestion that case property was tampered with and he has also denied suggestion that entry in malkhana register was subsequently made to implicate the accused. 9.8 PW8 ASI Jasbir Singh has stated that he remained posted as ASI/IO in P.S. East Shimla from 2004 to 30.7.2007 and on dated 6.6.2007 Inspector Ram Lal Bansal at about 9.30 PM produced before him one sealed parcel containing one sealed parcel sealed with seal ‘K’ stated to be containing 2 Kg 350 grams of charas, one small weighing scale, weights and two coins and also containing 235 grams of opium along with two sealed samples sealed with seal ‘K’ of 50 grams each of charas and also two sealed samples sealed with seal ‘K’ of 20 grams each of opium. He has stated that he resealed the aforesaid case property with his own seal and he issued resealing certificate Ext.PW8/A. He has denied suggestion that no seal impression was obtained upon a piece of cloth. He has stated that entries in NCB form Ext.PW8/B are in his hand. He has denied suggestion that he did not deposit any case property with MHC. 9.9 PW9 Dy.S.P. Swaran Singh has stated that he is posted as Dy.S.P. CID Crime Branch since the year 2005. He has stated that entries in NCB form Ext.PW8/B are in his hand. He has denied suggestion that he did not deposit any case property with MHC. 9.9 PW9 Dy.S.P. Swaran Singh has stated that he is posted as Dy.S.P. CID Crime Branch since the year 2005. He has stated that on dated 6.6.2007 he was present in his office and at about 11.35 AM HHC Jagdish Chand of Crime Branch produced before him reasons of belief before him. He has further stated that he has brought the original reason of belief with him and after perusing the same he appended his report and signatures on same as well as on carbon copy of the same he appended his signatures. He has stated that carbon copy of reason of belief is Ext.PW4/A. He has also stated that at about 1.10 PM he left his office and went to Vikasnagar on the basis of reasons of belief he reached near petrol pump at Vikasnagar at about 1.25 PM and there team headed by Inspector Ram Lal Bansal was present and three independent witnesses Tilak Raj, Pardeep and Surinder were also present. He has stated that in the meanwhile one Maruti van white coloured bearing No. Hp-01A-0394 appeared there which was stopped and in van two persons were sitting who disclosed their names as Gurpreet and Surinder Kumar. He has stated that Surinder was driving the van at the relevant time and on basis of secret information option of search was given to accused persons whether they wanted to be searched in presence of Magistrate, gazetted officer or by police present there. He has stated that accused opted for the search by police and consent memo Ext.PW1/A was prepared and they gave their personal search to accused persons and memo in this regard Ext.PW1/B was prepared. He has stated that on search of the vehicle in between both the accused one blue coloured bag was there which was opened. He has further stated that from one side of bag charas in the shape of balls, sticks and tikki recovered which was wrapped in polythene and from other side of bag brownish matter was recovered. He has stated that one constable was deputed to bring weight and scale and he brought the same on spot from one Rajesh Kumar. He has further stated that on weighment charas 2 Kg. He has stated that one constable was deputed to bring weight and scale and he brought the same on spot from one Rajesh Kumar. He has further stated that on weighment charas 2 Kg. 450 grams and opium 275 grams were recovered. He has stated that from the recovered charas and opium two samples of each were detected for chemical examination and samples of charas and opium were sealed separately and remaining bulk of charas and opium were also sealed. He has stated that carbon copy of special report is Ext.PW9/A which bears his signatures. He has denied suggestion that no recovery was effected. He has denied suggestion that documents Ext.PW1/A to Ext.PW1/J and Ext.PW4/A were prepared later on. 9.10 PW10 Rajinder Kumar has stated that since the year 2002 he was posted in CID and on dated 7.6.2007 Inspector Ram Lal Bansal gave him special report which he delivered to Dy.S.P. Swaran Singh in the CID office and copy of which is Ext.PW9/A. He has denied suggestion that he did not hand over the special report. 9.11 PW11 Inspector Ram Lal Bansal has stated that on dated 6.6.2007 he along with ASI Rajinder Singh, HC Ram Singh, HHC Jagdish Chand, HHC Kulwant Singh and C. Rajinder Kumar and C. Parmanand were present at Vikasnagar in connection with detection of NDPS cases. He has stated that at about 11.15 AM he received a secret information that Gurpreet and Surinder Kumar are indulging in illegal activities who own Maruti Van No. HP-01A-0394 in which they carry charas to the shop of Gurpreet Singh and sold to customers. He has stated that on that information he sent a report under Section 42(2) of NDPS Act through HHC Jagdish Kumar to his senior officer Dy.S.P. Crime Swaran Singh and report is Ext.PW4/A. He has further stated that thereafter he along with his staff reached at tea stall of Gurpreet Singh near petrol pump where tea stall of Gurpreet was closed and he joined Joginder Singh, Pardeep Kumar employees of petrol pump and one another Tilak Raj councilor of M.C. in the raiding party and in the meantime Dy.S.P. Swaran Singh along with HHC Jagdish Chand also reached on the spot. He has stated that at about 1.25 PM maruti van No. HP-01A-0394 came from the side of bus stand Vikasnagar and stopped in front of the khokha (Temporary shed) of Gurpreet Singh which was apprehended by them. He has stated that in van two persons Gurpreet Singh and Surinder Singh driver both present in Court were sitting. He has further stated that they disclosed their identity to both accused. He has stated that he informed the accused that he had received secret information against the accused and wanted to search his vehicle and option was given whether they wanted to be searched before a Magistrate, but accused gave their consent vide memo Ext.PW1/A that they wanted to be searched by police officials. He has stated that thereafter search of accused persons conducted and search of van was also effected and on search of van one bag was found kept in the middle of both front seats. He has stated that on opening the bag charas in shape of sticks and tikkies was found wrapped in plastic cover. He has stated that in another bag opium was kept. He has stated that on weighment charas was found 2 Kg. 450 grams and opium was found 275 grams. He has further stated that two samples of 50 grams each were separated from charas and two samples of 20 grams each were separated from recovered opium and thereafter they were sealed and remaining charas and samples were separately sealed and seal after use was handed over to Tilak Raj vide memo Ext.PW1/B. He has stated that thereafter accused were informed about grounds of arrest vide memos Ext.PW1/G and Ext.PW1/H. He has also stated that after arrest inspection memo Ext.PW1/J was prepared. He has stated that he prepared ruka Ext.PW5/A and he also recorded statements of witnesses. He has stated that site plan Ext.PW11/D was also prepared and NCB form in triplicate was also prepared. He has stated that special report was also sent through C. Rajinder Kumar. He has denied suggestion that case property was tampered. He has denied suggestion that report under Section 57 of the Act Ext.PW9/A was not sent to S.P. CID. He has denied suggestion that documents Ext.PW1/A to Ext.PW1/J were prepared later on in police station to falsely implicate the accused. He has denied suggestion that case property was tampered. He has denied suggestion that report under Section 57 of the Act Ext.PW9/A was not sent to S.P. CID. He has denied suggestion that documents Ext.PW1/A to Ext.PW1/J were prepared later on in police station to falsely implicate the accused. He has denied suggestion that statements of witnesses Ext.PW11/A, Ext.PW11/B and Ext.PW11/C were not recorded as per their versions. He has denied suggestion that none of independent witnesses namely Surinder Singh, Pardeep and Tilak Raj were present at the spot. He has denied suggestion that no recovery was effected from accused in their presence. He has also denied suggestion that special report was prepared in police station. He has denied suggestion that spot map was prepared in police station. 10. Statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused have stated that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in present case. They did not lead any defence evidence. (a) Testimonies of Surinder Singh PW1, Pardeep Kumar PW2 and Tilak Raj PW3 are hostile to the prosecution case 11. It is the case of prosecution that 2 Kg. 450 grams of charas and 275 grams of opium were recovered from exclusive and conscious possession of accused persons in presence of PW1 Surinder Singh, PW2 Pardeep Kumar and PW3 Tilak Raj. PW1 Surinder Singh appeared in witness box as PW1, Pardeep Kumar appeared as PW2 and Tilak Raj appeared as PW3. All independent witnesses have stated in positive manner that no charas was recovered from exclusive and conscious possession of accused in their presence. PW1 Surinder Singh, PW2 Pardeep Kumar and PW3 Tilak Raj have also stated in positive manner that no opium was also recovered from exclusive and conscious possession of accused in their presence. PW1, PW2 and PW3 were cross examined by prosecution at length but no incriminating evidence has come against accused persons in testimonies of PWs 1, 2 and 3. Hence it is held that testimonies of PW1 Surinder Singh, PW3 Pardeep Kumar and PW3 Tilak Raj qua recovery of charas and opium from exclusive and conscious possession of accused are fatal to the prosecution case. (b) Marginal witnesses of seizure memo and consent memo do not prove the contents of seizure memo and consent memo which is fatal to prosecution case 12. (b) Marginal witnesses of seizure memo and consent memo do not prove the contents of seizure memo and consent memo which is fatal to prosecution case 12. It is well settled law that contents of any document should be proved by testimonies of marginal witnesses only as per Indian Evidence Act 1872. It is also well settled law that Indian Evidence Act 1872 is applicable to criminal cases. In present case marginal witnesses of seizure memo Ext.PW1/D and consent memo Ext.PW1/A are Surinder Singh PW1, Pardeep Kumar PW2 and Tilak Raj PW3. It is held that prosecution did not prove the contents of seizure memo of charas and opium and consent memo as per testimonies of marginal witnesses of documents. It is well settled law that contents of document can be proved only through persons who are signatories to the document. In present case independent witnesses PW1 Surinder Singh, PW2 Pardeep Kumar and PW3 Tilak Raj who are signatories of documents Ext.PW1/D and Ext.PW1/A did not prove contents of seizure memo and consent memo as alleged by prosecution and same is fatal to the prosecution. It is well settled law that simple proof of signatures is not sufficient to prove the contents of documents. (c) Crime number not mentioned in NCB form which is fatal to the prosecution 13. It is proved on record that column of crime number has been kept blank in NCB form. No reason has been assigned by prosecution as to why column of crime number has been kept blank. It is held that mentioning of crime number in NCB is essential in order to connect NCB form with the crime number. Non-mentioning of crime number in NCB form is also fatal to the prosecution. It is well settled law that NCB form should be connected with the crime number in order to convict the accused. (d) Testimonies of PW4 HHC Jagdish Kumar and PW5 HHC Kulwant Singh not helpful to prosecution case due to non-signatory of seizure memo and consent memo. 14. It is well settled law that NCB form should be connected with the crime number in order to convict the accused. (d) Testimonies of PW4 HHC Jagdish Kumar and PW5 HHC Kulwant Singh not helpful to prosecution case due to non-signatory of seizure memo and consent memo. 14. Testimonies of PW4 HHC Jagdish Kumar and PW5 HHC Kulwant Singh are not helpful to prosecution case because PW4 HHC Jagdish Kumar and PW5 HHC Kulwant Sngh are not signatories to seizure memo of charas and opium Ext.PW1/D and are also not signatories to consent memo Ext.PW1/A. It is held that testimonies of PW4 HHC Jagdish Kumar and PW5 HHC Kulwant Sngh are not helpful to the prosecution in present case because PW4 HHC Jagdish Kumar and PW5 HHC Kulwant Singh are not signatories to seizure memo Ext.PW1/D and also not signatories to consent memo Ext.PW1/A. It is well settled law that contents of document can be proved by way of witnesses who are signatories to documents. In view of the fact that PW4 HHC Jagdish Kumar and PW5 HHC Kulwant Singh are not signatories to documents Ext.PW1/D and Ext.PW1/A, it is not expedient in the interest of justice to convict the accused on the testimonies of PW4 HHC Jagdish Kumar and PW5 HHC Kulwant Singh who are not signatories to seizure memo and consent memo and in view of contradictory testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3. (e) Accused persons are entitled for benefit of two views 15. In present case two views have emerged. PW1 Surinder Singh, PW2 Pardeep Kumar and PW3 Tilak Raj who are alleged eye witnesses of incident as per prosecution have stated in positive cogent and reliable manner that no charas and no opium were recovered from exclusive and conscious possession of accused. On the contrary PW4 HHC Jagdish Kumar and PW5 HHC Kulwant Singh have stated in positive manner that 2 Kg. 450 grams of charas and 275 grams of opium were recovered from exclusive and conscious possession of accused. In view of two contradictory views it is expedient in the interest of justice to give benefit of doubt to the accused persons in present case. It was held in case reported in 1998(2) S.L.J. 1408 Shashi Pal and others vs. State of HP that if two versions appear in prosecution evidence then version beneficial to the accused, should be adopted. It was held in case reported in 1998(2) S.L.J. 1408 Shashi Pal and others vs. State of HP that if two versions appear in prosecution evidence then version beneficial to the accused, should be adopted. (Also see 1993(1) SLJ 405 titled State of H.P. vs. Sudarshan Singh, See 1995(3) SLJ 1819 titled State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Inder Jeet and others, See 1995(4) SLJ 2728 titled State of H.P. vs. Diwana and others. It was held by Apex Court of India in Criminal Appeal No. 1320 of 1999 decided on 12th April, 2005 titled state of U.P. vs. Gambhir Singh and others that if two views are reasonably possible then one in favour of accused must be preferred.(Also see 2005(5) JT 553 titled State of U.P. vs. Gambhir Singh and others) It is well settled principle of law that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. (See (2013)2 SCC 89 titled Mookkiah and another vs. State See 2011(11) SCC 666 titled State of Rajasthan vs. Talevar, See AIR 2012 SC (Supp) 78 titled Surendra vs. State of Rajasthan, See 2012(1) SCC 602 State of Rajasthan vs. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta.) It is also well settled principle of law (i) That Appellant Court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible though the view of the appellate Court may be more probable. (ii) That while dealing with a judgment of acquittal Appellant Court must consider entire evidence on record so as to arrive at a finding as to whether views of learned trial Court are perverse or otherwise unsustainable. (iii) That Appellate Court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, learned trial Court failed to take into considered any admissible fact and (iv) That learned trial Court failed to take into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law. (iii) That Appellate Court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, learned trial Court failed to take into considered any admissible fact and (iv) That learned trial Court failed to take into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law. (See AIR 1974 SC 2165 titled Balak Ramand another vs. State of U.P., See (2002)3 SCC 57 , titled Allarakha K. Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat, See (2003)1 SCC 398 Raghunath vs. State of Haryana, See AIR 2007 SC 3075 State of U.P. vs. Ram Veer Singh and others, See AIR 2008 SC 2066 (2008)11 SCC 186 S. Rama Krishna vs. S. Rami Raddy (D) by his LRs. & others. Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh and others vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009)10 SCC 206 titled Arulvelu and another vs. State, (2009)16 SCC 98 Perla Somasekhara Reddy and others vs. State of A.P. and (2010)2 SCC 445 titled Ram Singh @ Chhaju vs. State of Himachal Pradesh.) It was held in case reported in (2005)9 SCC SC 765 (DB) titled Anjlus Dungdung vs. State of Jharkhand that suspicion however strong cannot take place of proof. It was again held in case AIR 1979 SC 1382 titled State (Delhi Administration) vs. Gulzarilal Tandon that suspicion however grave cannot take place of proof. (also see AIR 1984 SC 1622 titled Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, See: AIR 1983 SC 906 titled Bhugdomal Gangaram and others vs. the State of Gujarat See: AIR 1985 SC 1224 titled State of U.P. vs. Sukhbasi and others. It was held in case reported in AIR 1967 SC 520 titled Charan Singh vs. The State of UP that the Court must guard against the danger of allowing conjecture or suspicion to take place of legal proof. (Also see AIR 1971 SC 1898 titled (1) Gian Mahtani and (2) Budhoo and others vs. State of Maharashtra). (f) Non-production of original seal in Court fatal to the prosecution 16. PW11 Inspector Ram Lal Bansal has stated that original seal after use was handed over to PW3 Tilak Raj. But PW3 Tilak Raj when appeared in witness box has stated in positive manner that original seal was not handed over to him. Original seal not produced in the Court in order to compare specimen of seal upon parcels. It is held that non-production of original seal in the Court is fatal to the prosecution. But PW3 Tilak Raj when appeared in witness box has stated in positive manner that original seal was not handed over to him. Original seal not produced in the Court in order to compare specimen of seal upon parcels. It is held that non-production of original seal in the Court is fatal to the prosecution. (See: Latest HLJ 2011 HP 1195 (DB) titled Nanha vs. State; Also see (1998)8 SCC 449 titled State of Rajasthan vs. Gopal.) 17. In view of above stated facts, we hold that learned trial Court has properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. We affirm the judgment passed by learned trial Court and we dismiss the appeal filed by State of H.P. We give the benefit of doubt to accused persons in present case. Charas and opium will be confiscated to State in accordance with law. Record of learned trial Court be transmitted back forthwith along with certified copy of this judgment. Appeal stands disposed of including all pending miscellaneous application(s) if any.