JUDGMENT : P.S. RANA, J. 1. Present appeal is filed against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan HP in case No.3-S/7 of 2008 titled State of HP Vs. Mushtkeen under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE: 2. It is alleged by prosecution that on dated 2.3.2008 at about 2.10 PM near Kasauli Chowk Dharampur accused was found in exclusive and conscious possession of 150 grams of charas. It is alleged by prosecution that on dated 2.3.2008 PW8 Krishan Chand along with HHC Kanshi Ram and PW2 Constable Anil Kumar were on patrolling duty vide daily diary report Ext PW3/G. It is alleged by prosecution that on dated 2.3.2008 at about 2.10 PM when said patrolling party reached near Kasauli Chowk it noticed that accused was coming from Sukijohri side towards Kalka on National Highway No.22 and was in possession of red colour envelope in his left hand. It is alleged by prosecution that when accused saw police officials accused got frightened and suddenly turned towards Kasauli road and thereafter accused was apprehended. It is alleged by prosecution that PW8 Krishan Chand inquired from accused but accused could not give satisfactory answer to the question put by PW8 Krishan Chand and in the meantime PW1 Som Dutt and Chand Kishore Shopkeepers and other people also gathered at the spot. It is alleged by prosecution that on suspicion PW8 Krishan Chand conducted the search of the accused and charas was found inside the plastic envelope. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter Chand Kishore was sent to bring weights and scales who brought the same and charas was weighed which was found 150 grams. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter two samples of 25 grams charas were took out and remaining charas was also sealed in a parcel. It is alleged by prosecution that the sample impression of seal was obtained upon a piece of cloth Ext PW1/B and thereafter seal was handed over to PW1 Som Dutt. It is alleged by prosecution that seizure memo and NCB forms were prepared and rukka was sent through constable PW2 Anil Kumar to Police Station Dharampur for registration of FIR. It is alleged by prosecution that spot map Ext PW8/A was prepared. It is alleged by prosecution that seizure memo and NCB forms were prepared and rukka was sent through constable PW2 Anil Kumar to Police Station Dharampur for registration of FIR. It is alleged by prosecution that spot map Ext PW8/A was prepared. It is alleged by prosecution that special report was also handed over to Superintendent of Police Solan and report of chemical analyst was also sought from Forensic Science Laboratory Junga. Charge was framed against the accused under Sections 20 (b) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. Prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses in support of its case: S. No. Name of Witness PW1 Som Dutt PW2 Anil Kumar PW3 Parveen Kumar PW4 Rakesh Kumar PW5 Padam Dev PW6 Chaitanya Swroop PW7 Prem Lal PW8 Krishan Chand PW9 Brijesh Sood 4. Prosecution also produced following piece of documentary evidence in support of its case: S. No. Description Ext.PW1/A Search memo Ext PW1/B Sample seal Ext PW1/C Arrest memo Ext PY Examination report Ext.PZ Specimen seal. Ext.PW2/A Rukka Ext.PW3/A. FIR Ext.PW3/B. Endorsement Ext.PW3/C. Copy of RO Ext.PW3/D. Copy of Malkhana Register. Ext.PW3/D1 Copy of Malkhana Register. Ext.PW3/E Special Report. Ext.PW3/F Test Memo. Ext.PZ 1 Signature of police official Ext.PW3/G Copy of G.D. entry No.19 (a). Ext.PW3/H Certificate Ext.D1 Statement constable Anil Kumar u/s 161Cr.PC. Ext.PW5/A. Signature Ext.PW6/A. Copy of G.D entry No. 27(A). Ext.PW6/B. Copy of G.D entry No.31(A) Ext.PW6/C Copy of G.D. entry No.7(A) Ext.PW6/D Copy of G.D entry No.13(A) Ext.PW6/E Copy of G.D entry No.41(A) Ext.PW8/A. Spot Map. Ext.PW8/B Seizer Memo. Ext.PW8/C Arrest Memo. Ext.PW9/A. Sample seal. 5. Statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused did not lead any defence evidence. Learned trial Court acquitted the accused under Section 20-B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge Solan appellant-State filed present appeal. 7. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent and also perused entire record carefully. 8. Point for determination in the present appeal is whether learned trial Court did not properly appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties and caused miscarriage of justice to the appellant as alleged in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 8. Point for determination in the present appeal is whether learned trial Court did not properly appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties and caused miscarriage of justice to the appellant as alleged in memorandum of grounds of appeal. ORAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION: 9. PW1 Som Dutt has stated that he is shopkeeper and running a tea shop at Kasauli Chowk Dharampur for the last two years. He has stated that on dated 2.3.2008 at about 3 PM a person came from Sukhijohari side to Kasauli Chowk holding a plastic bag in his hand. He has stated that he could not state with certainty whether that person was accused or some other person. He has stated that police officials checked the plastic bag which was in the hand of accused. He has stated that bag was containing one muffler, one shawl, one handkerchief and some sticks. He has stated that he does not know what was those sticks. He has stated that when search took place by police officials he and Chand Kishore were present at the spot. He has stated that thereafter police officials sent Chand Kishore to bring weights and scales. He has stated that thereafter weights and scales were brought. He has stated that from the recovered contraband 50 grams contraband was divided into 25 grams each. He has stated that two samples were put into two packets separately and rest contraband was kept in another packet separately. He has stated that thereafter packets were sealed separately. He has stated that police arrested the accused and took him into custody. He has stated that arrest memo Ext PW1/C bears his signature. He has denied suggestion that he has deposed falsely in the present case at the instance of police officials. He denied suggestion that police did not recover any polythene bag from accused. He denied suggestion that no contraband was recovered from the accused. He denied suggestion that entire proceedings were took place in police station. He denied suggestion that nothing was done in the rain shelter. He denied suggestion that his signatures were obtained in police station. 9.1 PW2 Anil Kumar has stated that he remained posted in Police Station Dharampur in the year 2007-2008. He denied suggestion that entire proceedings were took place in police station. He denied suggestion that nothing was done in the rain shelter. He denied suggestion that his signatures were obtained in police station. 9.1 PW2 Anil Kumar has stated that he remained posted in Police Station Dharampur in the year 2007-2008. He has stated that on dated 2.3.2008 he along with HHC Kanshi Ram and PW8 Krishan Kumar were on patrolling duty and were going towards Dharampur market. He has stated that they started from police station Dharampur at about 2.10 PM and stated that accused came from Sukhi Johari side and was going towards Kalka on National Highway No. 22. He has stated that accused was holding a red colour polythene envelope on his right hand and when accused saw police officials he turned towards Kasauli road and tried to run away from the spot. He has stated that thereafter accused was apprehended. He has stated that on inquiry from accused he could not give satisfactory answer about his whereabouts. He has stated that in the meanwhile people gathered at the spot. He has stated that Som Dutt and Chand Kishore shopkeepers also reached at the spot. He has stated that on suspicion the search of the plastic bag of accused was conducted. He has stated that during the search of the bag one shawl, a muffler, a handkerchief and a polythene bag containing charas in the form of sticks were recovered. He has stated that accused was brought to a rain shelter nearby the spot and Chand Kishore was deputed to bring weights and scales from the shop. He has stated that on weighing the charas it was found 150 grams. He has stated that out of the total recovered charas two samples 25 grams each were separated and same were kept into two packets. He has stated that thereafter bag and packets of charas was sealed with seal impression “N'. He has stated that thereafter rukka was sent to police station and NCB form was also filled at the spot. He has denied suggestion that no charas was recovered from the accused. He denied suggestion that no search of the bag was conducted. He denied suggestion that Som Dutt was not present in the rain shelter. He denied suggestion that police officials demanded free bed sheets from the accused. He has denied suggestion that no charas was recovered from the accused. He denied suggestion that no search of the bag was conducted. He denied suggestion that Som Dutt was not present in the rain shelter. He denied suggestion that police officials demanded free bed sheets from the accused. He denied suggestion that accused refused to give bed sheets free of cost. He denied suggestion that accused was falsely implicated in the present case. He denied suggestion that no proceedings took place in the rain shelter. He denied suggestion that no sealing took place in the rain shelter. He denied suggestion that entire proceedings took place in the police station. He denied suggestion that accused was not apprehended. He denied suggestion that nothing was recovered from exclusive and conscious possession of the accused. 9.2 PW3 Parveen Kumar has stated that he was posted as MHC in Police Station Dharampur since February 2008. He has stated that on dated 2.3.2008 at about 3.20 PM constable Anil Kumar deposited with him rukka Ext PW2/A which was sent by Head Constable Krishan Chand Police Station Dharampur. He has stated that on the basis of rukka FIR Ext PW3/A was recorded. He has stated that thereafter file was sent to Investigating Officer through aforesaid constable. He has stated that on the same day at about 6.30 PM SHO Brijesh Sood Police Station Dharmpur deposited with him three parcels along with NCB form in triplicate. He has stated that parcels were deposited in malkhana. He has stated that entry was recorded in the malkhana register at serial No.327. He has stated that thereafter on dated 3.3.2008 he deputed constable Rakesh Kumar to deposit sample of charas in Forensic Science Laboratory Junga for analysis vide RC No. 160 of 2008. He has stated that thereafter chemical report and NCB form were handed over to him and he made entry qua receipt in malkhana register. He has stated that on dated 3.3.2008 Station House Officer Police Station Dharampur had handed over special report to him. He has stated that attested copy of RC No. 160 of 2008 Ext PW3/C is true and correct as per original record. He has stated that attested copy of malkhana register Ext PW3/D and Ext PW3/D1 are true and correct as per original record. He has stated that sample parcels remained intact in his custody. He has stated that attested copy of RC No. 160 of 2008 Ext PW3/C is true and correct as per original record. He has stated that attested copy of malkhana register Ext PW3/D and Ext PW3/D1 are true and correct as per original record. He has stated that sample parcels remained intact in his custody. He has denied suggestion that Station House Officer did not deposit with him anything. He denied suggestion that he did not send any document to the laboratory. He has denied suggestion that he did not receive anything from laboratory. He denied suggestion that he did not record daily diary No.19. He denied suggestion that he has deposed falsely being police officials. 9.3 PW4 Rakesh Kumar has stated that he was posted in Police Station Dharampur since 2006. He has stated that on dated 3.3.2008 he was deputed by MHC Police Station to deposit a parcel containing 25 grams charas sealed with four seal impressions “H” in Forensic Science Laboratory Junga for analysis along with NCB form in triplicate vide RC No.160 of 2008. He has stated that on dated 11.4.2008 he was again deputed by MHC to collect sample parcel from FSL Junga and thereafter he collected the parcel from laboratory and thereafter handed over the same to MHC on the same day. He has stated that till the parcel remained with him no tampering was conducted. He has denied suggestion that no sample was given to him. He denied suggestion that sample was not deposited in the laboratory. 9.4 PW5 Padam Dev has stated that he remained posted in Police Station Dharampur since May 2005 to May 2008. He has stated that on dated 3.3.2008 special report of present case was handed over to him by MHC Parveen Kumar Police Station Dharampur which was placed before Superintendent of Police Solan. He has stated that on dated 3.3.2008 at about 11 AM he presented special report to S.P Solan and thereafter one copy of special report was handed over to him. He has stated that thereafter a copy of special report was also handed over by him to Investigating Officer Krishan Chand in Police Station. He has stated that copy of special report is Ext PW3/E and signature encircled at “A” Ext PW5/A was made by S.P Solan in his presence. He has stated that thereafter a copy of special report was also handed over by him to Investigating Officer Krishan Chand in Police Station. He has stated that copy of special report is Ext PW3/E and signature encircled at “A” Ext PW5/A was made by S.P Solan in his presence. 9.5 PW6 Chaitanya Swroop has stated that he was posted as MC in Police Station Dharampur since 2006. He has stated that daily reports which were entered in the computer was handled by him and the same were also typed by him. He has stated that DD No.19 Ext PW3/G was entered in computer by him and copy which was attested by him bears his signature. He has stated that similarly rapat No.27 Ext PW6/A, rapat No.31 Ext PW6/B, rapat No.7 Ext PW6/C, rapat No.13 Ext PW6/D and rapat No.41 Ext PW6/E were attested by him and all bear his signatures and the same are true and correct as per original record. 9.6 PW7 Prem Lal has stated that he remained posted as Reader to S.P Solan w.e.f. June 2007 till March 2008. He has stated that on dated 3.3.2008 a special report in the present case under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act was submitted by Constable Padam Dev Police Station Dharampur to S.P Solan at about 11 AM. He has stated that after receipt of the same S.P Solan made his endorsement on the report and thereafter one copy was handed over to aforesaid constable and other copy was handed over to him by S.P Solan. He has stated that he affixed diary number upon both reports and kept one copy in his record. He has stated that special report Ext PW3/E and endorsement Ext PW5/A was made by S.P Solan in his presence. He has stated that he brought office copy Ext PW3/E which bears his signature. 9.7 PW8 Krishan Chand has stated that he remained posted as Investigating Officer in Police Station Dharampur since 2006 to May 2008. He has stated that on dated 2.3.2008 he along with HHC Kanshi Ram and Constable Anil Kumar were on patrolling duty. He has stated that at about 2.20 PM when he reached at Kasauli Chowk nearby Police Station Dharampur then from Sukhi Johari side accused was coming towards Kalka on National Highway No.22 who was holding a red colour envelope in his left hand. He has stated that at about 2.20 PM when he reached at Kasauli Chowk nearby Police Station Dharampur then from Sukhi Johari side accused was coming towards Kalka on National Highway No.22 who was holding a red colour envelope in his left hand. He has stated that as soon as accused saw police official accused got frightened and suddenly turned towards Kasauli road. He has stated that accused was apprehended near Kasauli chowk. He has stated that on inquiry from accused he could not answer satisfactorily. He has stated that in the meantime Som Dutt and Chand Kishore shopkeepers and other people also gathered at the spot. He has stated that on suspicion he conducted search of red colour envelope of accused. He has stated that during search of the envelope a muffler, shawl and a handkerchief including charas which was kept in a plastic envelope were found. He has stated that Chand Kishore was sent to bring weights and scales. He has stated that thereafter he brought weights and scales and recovered charas was weighed which was found to be 150 grams. He has stated that out of two samples of charas 25 grams each were separately taken and kept into two packets. He has stated that remaining charas, shawl, handkerchief and muffler were sealed in other parcels. He has stated that recovered material was took into possession vide seizure memo Ext PW1/A. He has stated that sample of seal Ext PW1/B bears his signature and the signature of the witness. He has stated that NCB form was also filled. He has stated that he also prepared rukka Ext PW2/A. He has stated that he inspected the spot and site plan Ext PW8/A was prepared. He has stated that marginal notes are correct as per spot position. He has stated that the value of the recovered charas was Rs.15,000/- (Rupee fifteen thousand). He has stated that he handed over case property along with sample parcels including sample of seal and NCB form in triplicate to SHO Police Station Dharampur. He has stated that he recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses as per their versions and also prepared special report Ext PW3/E which bears his signature. He has stated that he obtained copy of RC Ext PW3/C and also obtained abstract Ext PW3/D and Ext PW3/D1 from MHC Police Station Dharampur. He has stated that he recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses as per their versions and also prepared special report Ext PW3/E which bears his signature. He has stated that he obtained copy of RC Ext PW3/C and also obtained abstract Ext PW3/D and Ext PW3/D1 from MHC Police Station Dharampur. He has stated that he also obtained rapats Ext PW6/A to Ext PW6/E and Ext PW6/G. He has stated that after the receipt of FSL report Ext PZ1 and Ext PY and after completion of investigation he handed over case file to SHO Police Station Dharampur. He has denied suggestion that police officials demanded bed sheets from accused. He denied suggestion that accused refused to give bed sheets. He denied suggestion that accused was falsely implicated in the present case. He denied suggestion that no seal was handed over to Som Dutt. He denied suggestion that no sealing was conducted at the spot. He denied suggestion that he recorded the statement of the witness at his own. He denied suggestion that he did not hand over the case property to Station House Officer. He denied suggestion that a false case has been filed against accused. He denied suggestion that Som Dutt and Chand Kishore were not present at the spot. He denied suggestion that all the proceedings were conducted in Police Station. He denied suggestion that present case filed against the accused due to revengeful attitude. 9.8 PW9 Brijesh Sood has stated that he was posted as SHO Police Station Dharampur till 2008. He has stated that on dated 2.3.2008 HC Krishan Chand presented three parcels sealed with seal impressions “N” containing 100 grams charas, a muffler, shawl and handkerchief in bigger parcel which was sealed with nine seal impressions “N” and remaining two parcels containing five seals of “N” stated to have contained 25 grams sample of charas along with NCB forms in triplicate. He has stated that seals were found intact and tallied with sample of seal. He has stated that columns No. 9, 10 and 11 of NCB forms were filled in which bears his signature. He has stated that he deposited all the three parcels along with NCB forms in triplicate. He has stated that rapat Ext PW6/B was also recorded. He has stated that facsimile of seal “H” was also affixed on the NCB form. He has stated that he deposited all the three parcels along with NCB forms in triplicate. He has stated that rapat Ext PW6/B was also recorded. He has stated that facsimile of seal “H” was also affixed on the NCB form. He has stated that special report Ext PW3/E was also presented to him. He has stated that he has submitted the same to S.P Solan. He has stated that on the receipt of FSL report Ext PZ1 and Ext PY and after completion of investigation he prepared chargesheet and presented the same in Court. He has stated that report under Section 173 Cr PC bears his signature. He denied suggestion that case property was not produced by the Investigating Officer. He denied suggestion that he did not reseal the case property. He denied suggestion that he did not submit the case property to S.P Solan. He denied suggestion that accused was falsely implicated in the present case. He denied suggestion that entire proceedings were conducted in Police Station at his instance. 10. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded. He has stated that a false case has been foisted against him. He has stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in present case. Accused did not lead any defence evidence. Contradictory testimony of independent eye witness PW1 Som Dutt in examination in chief and cross examination is fatal to prosecution case 11. In the present case as per prosecution story PW1 Som Dutt is the eye witness of the recovery of contraband. We have carefully perused the testimony of PW1 Som Dutt. PW1 has stated in positive manner in examination in chief that he could not state with certainty whether the person from whom the contraband was recovered was accused or some other person because he had seen the accused only for once. The above stated testimony of PW1 Som Dutt is fatal to the prosecution in examination in chief. We are of the opinion that testimony of PW1 is not sufficient to convict the accused and the testimony of PW1 did not inspire confidence of the Court in view of the contradictory statement given by PW1 in his testimony in examination in chief and cross examination. Contradiction between the place of recovery in the site plan and seizure memo is also fatal to the prosecution. 12. Contradiction between the place of recovery in the site plan and seizure memo is also fatal to the prosecution. 12. We have carefully perused the search and seizure memo Ext PW1/A. In column No. 4 of seizure memo it has been specifically mentioned that contraband was recovered at National Highway No. 22 Dharampur Kasauli Chowk on dated 2.3.2008 at about 2.15 PM but in the site plan Ext PW8/A in column No. 4 it has been shown that recovery was effected in rain shelter shown at mark “D” in the site plan. We are of the opinion that in view of the contradictory location of recovery shown in the seizure memo and site plan Ext PW8/A i.e. rain shelter it is not expedient in the ends of justice to convict accused in the present case. Non production of original seal for comparison in Court is also fatal to prosecution case 13. As per prosecution story the original seal after use was handed over to PW1 Som Dutt. PW8 HC Krishan Chand has stated that original seal was handed over to PW1 Som Dutt but on the contrary PW1 Som Dutt has stated that he does not know where the seal was kept by the investigating agency. In view of the contradictory statement qua the original seal between PW1 Som Dutt and PW8 Krishan Chand it is not expedient in the ends of justice to convict the accused in the present case. It was held in case report in Latest HLJ 2011 115 Nanha Vs. State that if the original seal is not produced in Court for comparison then conviction could not be recorded. Also see 1998 8 SCC 449 titled State of Rajasthan Vs. Gopal. Investigation of the entire case by the complainant himself has caused miscarriage of justice to accused in the present case. 14. As per FIR Ext PW3/A complainant in the present case is Head Constable Krishan Chand. In the present case complainant has himself conducted the entire proceedings of the investigation i.e. preparation of search and seizure memo and NCB form from column No. 1 to 8. Complainant himself recorded the statement of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC and complainant himself prepared site plan Ext PW8/A. Such practice of investigation is deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Complainant himself recorded the statement of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC and complainant himself prepared site plan Ext PW8/A. Such practice of investigation is deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In the present case complainant Krishan Chand himself investigated the entire present case and seized the contraband himself. He prepared the sample and sealed the same himself. He sealed the parcels himself and sent rukka himself. He prepared site plan and recorded the statement of the witness himself. He also himself deposited the seized contraband with MHC. In the present case whole investigation of the present case was contrary to criminal jurisprudence and ipso facto contrary to law. See 1976 Cri.L.J 713 titled Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan. Also see 1993 Cri. L.J. 3716 titled Gian Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan. It is not the case of prosecution that another investigating officer was not available. Criminal law requires that investigation of criminal case should be conducted by independent investigating officer. Complainant himself could not be independent investigating officer when punishment in criminal case is grave in nature. Contradiction between the weights of sample of contraband sealed in a parcel and contradiction between the weights of contraband received in FSL Junga is also fatal to the prosecution case 15. As per prosecution story 25 grams of contraband was sealed for sample purpose and as per prosecution the parcel of sample of contraband was sent to the office of chemical analyst for chemical examination. As per prosecution story 25 grams of contraband was sealed in a parcel of sample but as per report of chemical analyst Ext PY 25.081 grams of sample was received in the State Forensic Science Laboratory Junga on dated 3.3.2008. We are of the opinion that above stated contradiction between the weights of sealed parcel mentioned in the seizure memo and receipt parcel in the office of State Forensic Science Laboratory Junga qua weight is also fatal to the prosecution in the present case. Contradiction between the descriptions of reseal in the NCB form and report of chemical analyst is fatal to the prosecution case 16. As per NCB form the description of seal impression of reseal was “H” but as per chemical analyst report the description of reseal was “N'. The above stated contradiction qua reseal between NCB form and examination report submitted by FSL Junga is fatal to the prosecution. 17. As per NCB form the description of seal impression of reseal was “H” but as per chemical analyst report the description of reseal was “N'. The above stated contradiction qua reseal between NCB form and examination report submitted by FSL Junga is fatal to the prosecution. 17. Submission of learned Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State that the judgment passed by learned trial Court is wrong on facts as well as law and is based upon hypothetical reasoning, surmises and conjectures and learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record and has not evaluated direct and cogent prosecution evidence is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution in the present case. As per prosecution story 150 grams charas was found in the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused on dated 2.3.2008 at about 2.30 PM at National Highway No. 22 Dharampur Kasauli Chowk. The prosecution has prepared the seizure memo Ext PW1/A placed on record. We have carefully perused seizure memo Ext PW1/A placed on record. As per seizure memo the witness of seizure memo are Som Dutt and Chand Kishore. The testimony of Som Dutt is not trustworthy, reliable and inspires confidence of the Court because PW1 Som Dutt has given contradictory statement in the examination in chief and cross examination. PW1 has stated in examination in chief in positive manner that he could not state with certainty whether the person from whom the contraband was recovered was accused or some other person. The above stated testimony of PW1 is not sufficient to convict the accused in the present case. Although the prosecution did not examine another independent witness i.e. Chand Kishore in the present case. Although on dated 20.11.2008 Sh Chand Kishore independent witness was present in Court but learned Public Prosecutor has given statement before the Court that he does not want to examine Chand Kishore another independent eye witness of the seizure memo being won over by the accused. It is well settled law that search and seizure memo is the substantive piece of evidence. Seizure memo Ext PW1/A is a substantive documentary evidence relied by the prosecution. It is well settled law that search and seizure memo is the substantive piece of evidence. Seizure memo Ext PW1/A is a substantive documentary evidence relied by the prosecution. It is well settled law that the contents of the documents should be proved by the testimony of witnesses who are signatory to search and seizure memo Ext PW1/A. Other prosecution witnesses PW2 Constable Anil Kumar and PW3 Parveen Kumar are not signatory to seizure memo Ext PW1/A placed on record and signatures of PW2 Anil Kumar and PW3 Parveen Kumar did not figure in search and seizure memo Ext PW1/A placed on record. It is well settled law that as per Chapter V of Indian Evidence Act 1872 contents of the documents should be proved by way of a person who is signatory to the document. Hence we are of the opinion that testimonies of PW2 Anil Kumar and PW3 Parveen Kumar are not helpful to prosecution for proving contents of document seizure memo because PW2 and PW3 are not signatory to seizure memo relied by prosecution. 18. Another submission of learned Additional Advocate General that learned trial Court has discarded the testimony of official witnesses without assigning any reason and on this ground appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. We are of the opinion that official witnesses are not signatory to search and seizure memo Ext PW1/A. We are of the opinion that contents of search and seizure memo could not be proved by way of official witnesses who are not signatory to seizure memo document. It is well settled law that search and seizure memo in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance should be proved in accordance with law. Although Ext PW1/A has signed by Krishan Chand Investigating Officer but we are of the opinion that Krishan Chand Investigating Officer is a interested witness and is not impartial witness because he himself took active part in the preparation of search and seizure memo, sealing of charas parcels, preparation of site plan and recording statement of witnesses. 19. Another submission of learned Additional Advocate General that learned trial Court has wrongly given the benefit of doubt to accused regarding the place of recovery is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. 19. Another submission of learned Additional Advocate General that learned trial Court has wrongly given the benefit of doubt to accused regarding the place of recovery is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. We have carefully perused the search and seizure memo and site plan submitted by the prosecution. As per search and seizure memo Ext PW1/A the contraband was recovered from the possession of accused at National Highway No. 22 Dharampur Kasauli Chowk. Investigating Officer has specifically mentioned in column No.4 of search and seizure memo qua the place where the search and seizure memo was prepared. There is no reference in search and seizure memo that proceedings were conducted in the rain shelter. The word rain shelter is missing in search and seizure memo Ext PW1/A placed on record. On the contrary in the site plan Ext PW8/A the Investigating Officer has specifically mentioned that recovery was effected in the rain shelter and no reason has been assigned by the Investigating Officer as to why he did not mention the word rain shelter in column No.4 of search and seizure memo. Non mentioning of word rain shelter in the search and seizure memo has cast doubt in the prosecution story. 20. Another submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant that there was bonafide mistake of chemical examiner qua mentioning reseal impression in chemical examination report is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. In the present case the prosecution did not examine chemical examiner in order to prove that mentioning of description of reseal in the chemical examiner report was by mistake. No reason has been assigned by the prosecution as to why the prosecution did not examine the chemical examiner in order to prove that entry in the chemical analyst report qua description of reseal was by mistake. 21. Another submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State that there is no enmity with the accused and in view of the testimony of PW1 Som Dutt read as a whole appeal be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. We are of the opinion that prosecution is under legal obligation to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. We are of the opinion that prosecution is under legal obligation to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of PW1 Som Dutt qua identity of accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt in the present case. PW1 has given contradictory statement in his testimony in examination in chief and cross examination when he appeared in Court qua the identity of the accused. It was held in case reported (2005) 9 SCC 765 titled Anjlus Dungdung Vs. State of Jharkhand that suspicion however strong cannot take place of proof. It was held in case reported in (2010) 11 SCC 423 titled Nanhar Vs. State of Haryana that prosecution must stand or fall on its own leg and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defense. Also See: (1984) 4 SCC 116 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra. It is well settled law that conjecture or suspicion cannot take place of legal proof. See: AIR 1967 SC 520 Charan Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh. Also See: AIR 1971 SC 1898 Gian Mahtani Vs. State of Maharashtra. It was held in case reported in AIR 1979 SC 1382 State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Gulzarilal Tandon that suspicion however strong cannot take the place of legal proof. Also See: AIR 1983 SC 906 titled Bhugdomal Gangaram and others Vs. The State of Gujarat See: AIR 1985 SC 1224 titled State of UP Vs. Sukhbasi and others. It is well settled principle of law that vested right accrued in favour of the accused with the judgment of acquittal by learned trial Court. (See (2013) 2 SCC 89 titled Mookkiah and another Vs. State. See 2011 (11) SCC 666 titled State of Rajashthan Vs. Talevar and another. See AIR 2012 SC (Supp) 78 titled Surendra Vs. State of Rajasthan. See 2012 (1) SCC 602 titled State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutt). It is well settled principle of law (i) That appellate 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. State of Rajasthan. See 2012 (1) SCC 602 titled State of Rajasthan Vs. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutt). It is well settled principle of law (i) That appellate 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 the appellate 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 consideration any admissible fact (iv) That learned trial court took into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law. (See AIR 1974 SC 2165 titled Balak Ram and another Vs. State of UP, See (2002) 3 SCC 57 titled Allarakha K. Mansuri Vs. State of Gujarat, See (2003) 1 SCC 398 titled 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, See (2009) 10 SCC 206 titled Arulvelu and another Vs. State, See (2009) 16 SCC 98 titled Perla Somasekhara Reddy and others Vs. State of A.P,See: (2010) 2 SCC 445 titled Ram Singh @ Chhaju Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh). 22. In view of the above stated facts and case law cited supra we affirm the judgment passed by learned trial Court and dismiss the appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh. Pending application (s) if any are also disposed of. Record of learned trial Court along with certified copy of judgment be sent back forthwith.