JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. 1. State has appealed against the judgment dated 18.3.2008 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Solan, District Solan, Camp at Nalagarh, Himachal Pradesh, passed in Case No. 20FTC/7 of 2007, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Desh Raj, challenging the acquittal of respondent Desh Raj (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who stands charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20(b)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act). 2. On 18.4.2007, police party headed by SI Sita Ram (PW-11) was present at Shalaghat. At about 9.45 a.m., seeing the police party, accused Desh Raj got frightened and tried to flee away. On suspicion, he was apprehended. Suspecting that he may be possessing some narcotic substance, SI Sita Ram, after associating Joginder Singh (PW-4) and Arun Kumar as witnesses, apprised the accused of his statutory right and after obtaining his consent, searched him. From the pocket of accused, one packet, which appeared to be charas like substance, was recovered. It was weighed and found to be 250 grams. Two samples of 25 grams each were drawn and sealed separately with seal impression ‘Y’. NCB form (Ex.PW-11/F) was filled up on the spot. On the basis of Ruka (Ex. PW-11/H), FIR No.39, dated 18.4.2007 (Ex. PW-5/A) was recorded at Police Station, Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Accused was arrested. With the completion of formalities on the spot, contraband substance was deposited with the MHC. The sealed sample was sent for chemical analysis to FSL, Junga and as per report (Ex. PW-11/Q), it was confirmed that accused was carrying charas with himself. With the completion of investigation, which prima facie 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(b)(B) of the NDPS Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and statement of the accused under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he took plea of innocence. 5. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and the material on record, trial Court acquitted the accused of the charged offence. 5. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and the material on record, trial Court acquitted the accused of the charged offence. Hence, the present appeal by the State. 6. We have heard Mr. B.S. Parmar, learned Additional Advocate General, on behalf of the State as also Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate, on behalf of the accused. We have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. Having done so, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice. 7. 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 essential ingredients so required to constitute the charged offence. 8. In Prandas v. The State, AIR 1954 SC 36 , Constitution Bench of the apex Court, has held as under: “(6) It must be observed at the very outset that we cannot support the view which has been expressed in several cases that the High Court has no power under S. 417, Criminal P.C., to reverse a judgment of acquittal, unless the judgment is perverse or the subordinate Court has in some way or other misdirected itself so as to produce a miscarriage of justice. In our opinion, the true position in regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 417, Criminal P.c. in an appeal from an order of acquittal has been stated in – ‘Sheo Swarup v. Emperor’, AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) at pp.229, 230 (A), in these words: “Sections 417, 418 and 423 of the Code give to the High Court full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial, (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. To state this, however, is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of the appeal should and will act in accordance with rules and principles well known and recognized in the administration of justice.” 9. In the instant case, we find that two views, with regard to recovery of contraband substance from the conscious possession of the accused, have emerged. Trial Court, in our considered view, rightly did not accept the testimony of police officials Ramesh Kumar (PW-5) and Sita Ram (PW-11). Benefit of doubt has been rightly given to the accused. 10. Independent witnesses Joginder Singh (PW-4) and Sanjeev Kumar (PW-10) have not supported the prosecution case. Witness to recovery is Joginder Singh. Despite his extensive cross-examination, we find nothing fruitful could be elicited from his testimony. Sanjeev Kumar is a Photographer, who was associated during investigation. We find there is uncontroverted testimony to the effect that police did not effect any recovery from anyone in his presence. 11. As per version of Sita Ram, he associated Sanjeev Kumar and recovery was effected by the police party and photographs were clicked at that time. Now significantly, Ramesh Kumar is not there in any of the photographs. Hence, his presence on the spot, as a witness to the recovery of contraband substance from the conscious possession of the accused, itself is rendered doubtful. Why would both the witnesses be not there in the photographs? It appears, this witness was not part of the raiding party or else he ought to have been there in the photograph. Hence, his presence on the spot, as a witness to the recovery of contraband substance from the conscious possession of the accused, itself is rendered doubtful. Why would both the witnesses be not there in the photographs? It appears, this witness was not part of the raiding party or else he ought to have been there in the photograph. Our attention is invited to the Rapat Rojnamcha (Ex.PW-1/A), indicating his name to be part of the police party, but then we do not find this fact to be sufficient enough to prove such fact, particularly when independent witnesses do not record presence of Ramesh Kumar on the spot. 12. Insofar as testimony of Sita Ram is concerned, we find that even this witness could not tell the distance of Shalaghat Bazaar from the shop of Diwan Chand, where allegedly accused was apprehended. He admits that the site plan has not been correctly prepared, indicating physical boundaries and characteristics existing on the spot and the place where police party apprehended the accused. It is in this backdrop, we are of the considered view, that document (Ex. PW-1/A) cannot be relied upon to convict the accused, more so in the absence of any corroboration. 13. Crucially Sita Ram states that “it is correct that Ex. PW11/A does not show that I had specifically told the accused that to give his search before Magistrate and Gazetted Officer is his legal right.” “It is correct that except me none of the police official gave their search to the accused prior to his search.” 14. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that there is infraction of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 15. We also find that another independent witness Arun Kumar has not been examined by the prosecution. There is no justifiable explanation for the same. 16. In the instant case, solitary statement of Sita Ram, without any corroboration, in our considered view, would not be sufficient enough to prove the charged offence, beyond reasonable doubt, more so when two view have emerged on record. 17. Hence, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence so as to prove that the accused was found in conscious and exclusive possession of Charas. 18. 17. Hence, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence so as to prove that the accused was found in conscious and exclusive possession of Charas. 18. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the parties. 19. 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 versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 , 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 ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.