JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 11.1.2008 rendered by the Special Judge-II, Mandi in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2007 whereby the respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 has been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 12.11.2006 police party was on patrol and Nakka duty on Karsog-Kelodhar-Chatri road. At 4.30 when the police party was at Ultidhar, accused came on foot. He saw the police. He threw his bag Ex.P-4. He tried to run away. He was over-powered. The bag was searched. It contained Charas. It was weighed and found to be 1 kg 200 grams. SI Surti Ram drew two samples of charas of 25 grams each out of the recovered stuff. He packed and sealed the sample charas in separate parcels with seal having impression "S". The remaining charas was packed and sealed in separate parcel with seal having impression "S". He also filled in NCB form. He took specimen seal impression on pieces of cloth. He took into possession the case property and seizure memos were prepared. SI Surti Ram also sent rukka through Constable Durga Singh to Police Station, Karsog. Accused was arrested on the spot. The contraband was sent to C.F.S.L. Chandigarh. The Chemical Examiner sent his report. According to the report, the same was charas. Police investigated the case and the challan was put up in the court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses in all to prove its case against the accused. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded. He denied the case of the prosecution in entirety. Learned trial Court acquitted the accused. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the accused, has supported the judgment rendered by the trial court. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 7. 4. Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the accused, has supported the judgment rendered by the trial court. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 7. PW-1 Head Constable Dhiraj Singh has deposed that on 12.11.2006, he alongwith SI/SHO Surti Ram, ASI Shriram, Constable Ami Chand and Constable Durga Singh were in official vehicle No. HP-33-8179 on patrol duty. They had laid Nakka at Ultidhar. At 4.30 A.M. one person came from shortcut. When he saw the police party, he got perplexed. He threw away his bag and tried to run away. He was over powered by SI Surti Ram. The bag was searched. It contained charas. It weighed 1 kg 200 grams. SI Surti Ram drew two samples of charas out of the recovered charas of 25 grams each. Two samples of 25 grams each were put in two separate packets and the packets were made into two separate parcels. These were sealed with six seal impressions each having seal impression "S" whereas the remaining stuff was put in the same bag. It was sealed with same seal impression "S". 12 seal impressions were embossed on the same. NCB form in triplicate was also filled in on the spot. The seal after use was handed over by the Investigating Officer to him. He has produced the seal. SI Surti Ram sent rukka through Constable Durga Singh to Police Station, Karsog for registration of case. The sample parcel was sent to C.F.S.L. Chandigarh. It was received back with an objection that columns of NCB form were not filled in properly and fresh NCB form was to be filled in. Thereafter, on 21.11.2006, SHO Surti Ram asked him to handover the seal to him. He handed over the seal having impression "S" to SHO Surti Ram. Fresh NCB form was filled in vide mark "A". SHO Surti Ram after embossing seal impression "S" on mark "A" again handed over the ring, which was used for sealing the case property. 8. PW-2 Durga Singh has deposed the manner in which accused was arrested and proceedings were completed on the spot. He took the rukka to the Police Station. SHO Surti Ram after embossing seal impression "S" on mark "A" again handed over the ring, which was used for sealing the case property. 8. PW-2 Durga Singh has deposed the manner in which accused was arrested and proceedings were completed on the spot. He took the rukka to the Police Station. He came back with rukka from Ultidhar till 6.00 A.M. He came on foot upto Kelodhar from Ultidhar with rukka and after Kelodhar he came in a vehicle upto Karsog. He came in a truck from Kelodhar at about 6.20 A.M. He did not know how far is Kelodhar from Ultidhar. 9. PW-3 Mahant Ram has deposed the manner in which accused was arrested and the seizure and sampling process was completed on the spot. According to him, on 12.11.2006, constable Durga Singh brought one rukka mark "B". It was sent by SI Surti Ram on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW-3/A was recorded. Thereafter, he sent the file through constable Durga Singh to the spot. On 12.11.2006, SI/SHO Surti Ram deposited with him three sealed parcels. He entered the case property in the Malkhana register. The parcel containing samples were marks A-1 and A-2. NCB form was also deposited. He has brought original register Malkhana vide Ex.PW-3/C. He sent one parcel containing sample charas, NCB form with dockets, copy of FIR, copy of recovery memo and specimen seal impression through constable Ami Chand vide RC No. 84 of 2006 to C.F.S.L. Chandigarh. He produced RC vide Ex.PW-3/D. On 17.11.2006, constable Ami Chand brought back the parcel containing documents with objection of the C.F.S.L. Chandigarh that NCB form be sent on the new prescribed proforma. Thereafter, SHO Surti Ram again filled in the prescribed NCB form. He asked Head Constable Dhiraj Singh to produce the seal. SHO, again prepared the prescribed NCB form and embossed seal impression "S" on the same. The seal was again handed over to Dhiraj Singh. Thereafter, on 22.11.2006, he again sent the sealed parcel containing sample alongwith articles, NCB form, specimen seal impression, copy of FIR and recovery memo through constable Ami Chand to C.F.S.L. Chandigarh vide RC No. 84 of 2006. He filled in column Nos. 1, 2 of the NCB form. 10. Statement of PW-4 constable Tarsem Singh is formal in nature. 11. Thereafter, on 22.11.2006, he again sent the sealed parcel containing sample alongwith articles, NCB form, specimen seal impression, copy of FIR and recovery memo through constable Ami Chand to C.F.S.L. Chandigarh vide RC No. 84 of 2006. He filled in column Nos. 1, 2 of the NCB form. 10. Statement of PW-4 constable Tarsem Singh is formal in nature. 11. PW-5 Constable Amin Chand has deposed that on 15.11.2006, MHC Mahant Ram of Police Station, Karsog handed over to him, one parcel containing sample charas sealed with seal impression "S" six in number alongwith specimen seal impression, NCB form, copy of FIR, recovery memo vide RC No. 84 of 2006 for depositing the same with C.F.S.L. Chandigarh. 12. Statements of PW-6 Sanjeev Kumar, PW-7 Chander Shekhar, PW-8 Jai Singh and PW-9 Parma Nand are formal in nature. 13. PW-10 Surti Ram has deposed the manner in which the accused was apprehended, charas was recovered, it was weighed and sampling procedure was completed. He filled in NCB form. Rukka was sent through Constable Durga Singh to the Police Station, Karsog. He prepared spot map Ex.PW-10/B. The parcel was returned back by C.F.S.L. Chandigarh with an objection that latest NCB form having 12 columns be sent. He prepared fresh NCB form. He took back the seal from Dhiraj Singh and seal impression was embossed on the NCB form. On 21.11.2006, the parcel containing sample alongwith NCB form old as well as new, copy of recovery memo and copy of FIR were again sent through Constable Amin Chand by the MHC. Docket was prepared. He recorded the statements of witnesses. He sent rukka at 6.00 A.M. through Constable Durga Singh. He went on foot. He returned from the Police Station on foot at the spot 8.30 or 8.45 or 9.00 A.M. He did not see Constable Durga Singh alighting from the bus at the place of occurrence on his return from Police Station. He also did not come on motorcycle. 14. According to PW-3 Head Constable Mahant Ram, SI Surti Ram has deposited with him three sealed parcels and he has entered the same in the Malkhana register. However, it is evident from Ex.PW-3/A that only two samples have been deposited in the Malkahana. Mark A-1 has not been deposited in the Malkhana on 12.11.2006. The prosecution has not explained where mark A-1 was kept with effect from 12.11.2006 to 15.11.2006. 15. However, it is evident from Ex.PW-3/A that only two samples have been deposited in the Malkahana. Mark A-1 has not been deposited in the Malkhana on 12.11.2006. The prosecution has not explained where mark A-1 was kept with effect from 12.11.2006 to 15.11.2006. 15. There are also contradictions the manner in which PW-2 Durga Singh has taken the rukka to Police Station and came back. There are variations in the statements of PW-2 Durga Singh and PW-10 Surti Ram to this effect. 16. The C.F.S.L. Chandigarh has returned the contraband on the ground that NCB form was not in prescribed proforma. According to PW-10 Surti Ram, he has filled in all the columns on the prescribed proforma and the contraband was thereafter sent for chemical examination to C.F.S.L. Chandigarh. The prosecution has placed on record the copy of old NCB form Ex.PW-3/E and the latest NCB form has not been placed on record. The new proforma was filled in on 21.11.2006. Moreover, Ex.PW-1/A specimen seal impression was placed on record only at the time of recording statement of PW-1 Dhiraj Singh. The documents have been placed on record with the challan. There are inherent contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, which render the case of prosecution doubtful. There is no explanation where mark A-1 remained with effect from 12.11.2006 to 15.11.2006 and why the new NCB form was not exhibited. The trial court has correctly appreciated the evidence led by the prosecution and there is no need to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial court. 17. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.