JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. In this appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., convict Kamal Aggarwal assailed judgment dated 10.03.2006, passed by Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P., in Case No. 9 S/7 of 2005, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Kamal Aggarwal, whereby he stands convicted for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-(rupees ten thousand) and in default thereof, further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 18.03.2005, police party headed by SHO, Babita Rana (PW. 8), comprising of ASI Perwal Singh (PW. 1), Constable Naresh Kumar (PW. 6) and Gulab Singh (not examined) had set up a Nakka near Jatoli Temple at Solan-Rajgarh road. At about 10.00 PM, accused came in a car, which was stopped for checking. Though nothing incriminating was found in the car, but however, suspecting that he may be carrying some contraband substance, upon personal search, from the jacket worn by the accused, one polythene packet containing charas was recovered, which upon weighment was found to be of 150 grams. Two samples of 25 grams each were drawn and sealed with a seal having impression 'T'. Sample and bulk parcel were taken into possession vide memo (Ex. PW. 1/A). Rukka (Ex. PW. 8/A) was sent through Gulab Singh, on the basis of which FIR No. 45 of 2005, dated 19.03.2005 (Ex. PW. 8/B) was registered at Police Station, Solan, under the provisions of Section 20 of the NDPS Act, against the accused. File was taken back to the spot. Accused was arrested. Necessary formalities were also completed on the spot. Whereafter, contraband substance was deposited with MHC Madan Lal (PW. 7). Special report (Ex. PW. 2/A) was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Solan. Sealed sample was sent by MHC Madan Lal through Constable Mohan Lal (PW. 3) for chemical analysis to CTL, Kandaghat. Report of the Chemical Analyst (Ex. PW. 8/E) was obtained by the police. 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. Sealed sample was sent by MHC Madan Lal through Constable Mohan Lal (PW. 3) for chemical analysis to CTL, Kandaghat. Report of the Chemical Analyst (Ex. PW. 8/E) was obtained by the police. 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. The accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, in all, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he took plea of innocence. No evidence in defence was led. 5. Trial Court, after appreciating the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, convicted the accused of the charged offence and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence the present appeal. 6. Having heard Mr. Anup Chitkara and Ms. Anshika Sood, Advocates, on behalf of the convict as also M/s. R.S. Verma and H.K.S. Thakur, learned Addl. AGs., on behalf of the State, as also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence, so placed on record by the prosecution, Court is of the considered view that trial Court erred in not appreciating the testimonies of prosecution witnesses in its right perspective. Contradictions which are glaring, rendering the prosecution case to be extremely doubtful stand ignored. No notice thereof has been taken by the trial Court. In fact, one finds the reasons for convicting the accused to be contained only in para 14 of the trial Court judgment. 7. In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 , the apex Court, has held as under: "7. This Court had ever since Its inception considered the correct principle to be applied by the Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal and held that the High Court has 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. The Privy Council in AIR 1934 227 (Privy Council), negatived the legal basis for the limitation which the several decisions of the High Courts had placed on the right of the State to appeal under Section 417 of the Code. Lord Russel delivering the judgment of the Board pointed out that there was "no indication in the Code of any limitation or restriction on the High Court in the exercise of its powers as an appellate Tribunal", that no distinction was drawn "between an appeal from an order of acquittal and an appeal from a conviction", and that "no limitation should be placed upon that power unless it be found expressly stated in the Code". He further pointed out at p. 404 that, "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". In Sanwat Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 715 , after an exhaustive review of cases decided by the Privy Council as well as by this Court, this Court considered the principles laid down in Sheo Swarup's case (supra) and held that they afforded a correct guide for the appellate court's approach to a case against an order of acquittal It was again pointed out by Das Gupta, J., delivering the judgment of five Judges in Harbans Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 439 ; "In many cases, especially the earlier ones the Court has in laying down such principles emphasised the necessity of interference with an order of acquittal being based only on 'compelling and substantial reasons' and has expressed the view that unless such reasons are present an Appeal Court should not interfere with an order of acquittal (vide Suraj Pal Singh v. The State, (1952) SCR 194; Ajmer Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 76 ; Puran Vs. The State of Punjab (I), AIR 1953 SC 459 . The State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 76 ; Puran Vs. The State of Punjab (I), AIR 1953 SC 459 . The use of the words 'compelling reasons' embarrassed some of the High Courts in exercising their jurisdiction in appeals against acquittals and difficulties occasionally arose as to what this Court had meant by the words 'compelling reasons'. In later years the Court has often avoided emphasis on 'compelling reasons' but nonetheless adhered to the view expressed earlier that before interfering in appeal with an order of acquittal a Court must examine not only questions of law and fact in all their aspects but must also closely and carefully examine the reasons which impelled the lower courts to acquit the accused and should interfere only if satisfied after such examination that the conclusion reached by the lower court that the guilt of the person has not been proved is unreasonable. (Vide Chinta v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 1959 decided on 18-11-1960; Ashrafkha Haibatkha Pathan v. The State of Bombay, Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1960 decided on 14-12-1960) "............... On close analysis, it is clear that the principles laid down by the Court in this matter have remained the same. What may be called the golden thread running through all these decisions is the rule that in deciding appeals against acquittal the Court of Appeal must examine the evidence with particular care, must examine also the reasons on which the order of acquittal was based and should interfere with the order only when satisfied that the view taken by the acquitting Judge is clearly unreasonable. Once the appellate court comes to the conclusion that the view taken by the lower court is clearly an unreasonable one that itself is a 'compelling reason' for interference. For, it is a court's duty to convict a guilty person when the guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, no less than it is its duty to acquit the accused when such guilt is not so established." [See: Aher Raja Khima Vs. The State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217 . 8. Though trial Court observes that there is nothing on record to show that accused was released on bail, in connection with an offence, so committed by him under the provisions of Section 292 of Indian Penal Code. The State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217 . 8. Though trial Court observes that there is nothing on record to show that accused was released on bail, in connection with an offence, so committed by him under the provisions of Section 292 of Indian Penal Code. But significantly, ignored the statement of the Investigating Officer, who feigned ignorance of registration of any such case against the accused. Registration of such case, on the very same day, but prior to the occurrence of incident in question, stands admitted by Naresh Kumar (PW. 6). Thus, testimony of the SHO cannot be said to be fully inspiring in confidence. After all she was the incharge of the concerned Police Station and ought to have been aware of the same. 9. According to both Babita Rana (PW. 8) and Perwal Singh (PW. 1), accused was asked to show papers of the vehicle, which were not available. If that were so, then why is it that no case under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was registered against the accused. This fact remains unexplained. 10. One further finds version of police officials Perwal Singh, Naresh Kumar and Babita Rana of having set up Nakka not proved on record by placing any documentary evidence. Why was Nakka set up? When did police party leave the Police Station? When did they return? All this has not been explained by the prosecution. This acquires significance, in view of the contradiction, which is material, in the testimonies of police officials. Babita Rana states that Nakka was set up towards Jatoli Temple, on Rajgarh road; Naresh Kumar states it was so done at some distance ahead from Jatoli Bye-pass and Perwal Singh states it was set up at Jatoli Temple. Version of prosecution witnesses of having recovered the contraband substance from the conscious possession of the accused, at the time, when they had set up a Nakka, thus renders the prosecution case to be doubtful. 11. Also one finds from the testimony of Perwal Singh that tea shop of Mohan Lal is on the link road. Also two shops were at the place of Nakka. It is not the case of prosecution that no independent witness was available there. Babita Rana has not explained as to why no independent witnesses were associated for carrying out recovery proceedings. Also two shops were at the place of Nakka. It is not the case of prosecution that no independent witness was available there. Babita Rana has not explained as to why no independent witnesses were associated for carrying out recovery proceedings. She states that contraband substance was weighed with the weights and scales kept in the kit carried by her. However, there is no documentary evidence establishing the fact that police party was carrying such kit with them. After all police had not set up Nakka on prior information of transit of any contraband substance. Also the area, in question, is not prone to drug trafficking. Her testimony, also to this extent, is uninspiring in confidence. 12. Even by way of link evidence, this Court finds the prosecution not to have established its case beyond reasonable doubt. MHC Madan Lal (PW. 7) only states that NCB forms and contraband substance were deposited with him and sample was sent through Constable Mohan Lal (PW. 3) for chemical analysis. Now Malkhana register has not been produced in Court. Why so? has not been explained. Production thereof would have only proved the time when the property was entrusted by the SHO, whose testimony one does not find to be fully inspiring in confidence. 13. Also this Court finds that sample, as per the Forensic Science Laboratory's report (Ex. PW. 8/E) was reduced by 20%. It was seized on 18.03.2005 and sent to the Laboratory without any delay. How can there be a reduction of 20% has not been explained by the prosecution. 14. Also site plan (Ex. PW. 8/C) has not been correctly prepared by the Investigating Officer, which fact is so admitted by her, in her cross-examination, wherein she states that in the site plan she has not shown the village, shops, Khokha and factory. 15. Findings returned by the trial Court, convicting the accused, cannot be said to be based on correct and complete appreciation of testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Such findings cannot be said to be on the basis of any clear, cogent, convincing, legal and material piece of evidence, leading to an irresistible conclusion of guilt of the accused. Incorrect and incomplete appreciation thereof, has resulted into grave miscarriage of justice, inasmuch as accused stands wrongly convicted for the charged offence. 16. Such findings cannot be said to be on the basis of any clear, cogent, convincing, legal and material piece of evidence, leading to an irresistible conclusion of guilt of the accused. Incorrect and incomplete appreciation thereof, has resulted into grave miscarriage of justice, inasmuch as accused stands wrongly convicted for the charged offence. 16. Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 10.03.2006, passed by Sessions Judge, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in Case No. 9 S/7 of 2005, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Kamal Aggarwal, is set aside and accused Kamal Aggarwal is acquitted of the charged offences. Accused is already on bail as such bonds are discharged. Amount of fine, if deposited by the accused, be refunded to him accordingly. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.