JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, Judge Appellant-convict Vinod Kumar alias Manoj, hereinafter referred to as the accused, has assailed the judgment dated 5.5.2008, passed by learned Special Judge (Sessions Judge), Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No.6 of 2007, titled as State of H.P. v. Vinod Kumar alias Manoj, whereby he stands convicted of the offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 18 & 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year, in relation to offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine pay fine of Rs.20,000/-, and in default of payment thereof to further undergo imprisonment for one month, in relation to offence punishable under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 19.9.2006, HC Ram Lal (PW-10) alongwith LHC Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) were on patrol duty. At Thalaut, they laid a routine Naka. At about 9.30 a.m., they noticed the accused carrying a bag with himself. Seeing the police party, he became perplexed. On suspicion, he was stopped. In the meanwhile, one vehicle (Quallis) came. Virender Kumar (PW-9) was on the driver seat and Neet Shekhar (PW-8) was sitting in it. They were asked by the police to associate themselves and become witnesses. In their presence, Police officials gave their search to the accused and thereafter accused, who disclosed his name to be Vinod Kumar alias Manoj, was searched. From the bag (Ex. P-3), police recovered contraband substances, which appeared to be charas (in the shape of sticks and balls) and opium. Contraband substances were weighed and found to be 1.8 kgs Charas and 450 grams opium. Two samples, each weighing 25 grams, were drawn and separately sealed with seal ‘R’. The remaining stuff was also sealed with the same seal. Two samples, each weighing 25 grams, were drawn from the opium and sealed separately with seal ‘R’. The remaining bulk opium was sealed with seal ‘R’. NCB form (Ex. PF) was prepared, contraband substance seized vide seizure Memo (Ex. PA). Ruka (Ex. The remaining stuff was also sealed with the same seal. Two samples, each weighing 25 grams, were drawn from the opium and sealed separately with seal ‘R’. The remaining bulk opium was sealed with seal ‘R’. NCB form (Ex. PF) was prepared, contraband substance seized vide seizure Memo (Ex. PA). Ruka (Ex. PB) was sent through Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) for registration of case, on the basis of which FIR No.112/06, dated 19.9.2006 (Ex. PL), under the provisions of Sections 18-20/61/85 of the Act, was registered at Police Station, Aut, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, by Mangat Ram (PW-7). Case file was taken back to the spot. Accused was arrested. Police conducted necessary investigation on the spot. Sealed parcels, NCB form were deposited with MHC Parkash Chand (PW-3). Special report (Ex.PE) was also sent by Parkash Chand (PW3) through Constable Bansi Lal (PW-2) to the Additional Superintendent of Police. Sealed samples were sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory and report (Ex. PG) revealed the contraband substances to be charas and opium. Thereafter, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses and statement of the accused under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he pleaded false implication, further clarifying that he was engaged by Ms Meena Kumari, whose vehicle he was driving at the time when police stopped him. Police party already had a bag with themselves and nothing was recovered from him. To establish his defence, he examined Ms Meena Kumari (DW-1). 5. Appreciating the material on record, Court below, notwithstanding the fact that independent witnesses (PW-8 & PW-9) did not support the prosecution, yet finding the testimony of the police officials to be reliable, trustworthy and worthy of credence, convicted the accused and sentenced him as aforesaid. The Court found the prosecution to have established its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the present appeal. 6. Mr. Anoop Chitkara, learned counsel for the accused, has made submissions to a limited extent. According to him, defence of the accused stand probablized. Hence, he deserves acquittal. 7. The Court found the prosecution to have established its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the present appeal. 6. Mr. Anoop Chitkara, learned counsel for the accused, has made submissions to a limited extent. According to him, defence of the accused stand probablized. Hence, he deserves acquittal. 7. In his statement, under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused states thus : I was employed by Meena Kumari as a driver on her vehicle (Pick Up Max) bearing No.HP-65-6665. I was sitting in that vehicle alongwith Meena Kumari and was driving. First, my vehicle was stopped and after some time a Quallis car was stopped by the police. The bag was already with the police people. The police people came to Aut in my vehicle and at that time the people of the other vehicle were also following them. In the Police Station, I was made to sign at several places on several blank papers and cloth, and asked the car containing witnesses and the Pick Up of Meena Kumari to go from there. There was nothing with me. am innocent. In this regard my only witness is Meena Kumari, because the people who were in the second vehicle have already been examined. 8. PW-1 and PW-10 have denied that accused was driving the vehicle (Pick Up Van), in which Meena Kumari was sitting. PW-1 admits that Pick Up Van was on the spot. Though PW-8 states that he had seen the accused drive the Pick Up Van, in which a lady was sitting, but however, this version of his is not corroborated by PW-9, who does not state such fact. We find version so narrated by PW-8, not to be inspiring in confidence, for the reason that he admits it to be true that police had nabbed the accused, who disclosed his name as Vinod Kumar. Also, police gave their personal search to the accused. If accused was falsely implicated, why would police do such a thing? This witness also admits to have signed various documents (Memos (Ex. PA & P-2) proved on record and exhibited). These documents conclusively establish and prove the prosecution case of recovery. Significantly, his earlier version that police had nabbed the accused appears to be true and correct. If accused was falsely implicated, why would police do such a thing? This witness also admits to have signed various documents (Memos (Ex. PA & P-2) proved on record and exhibited). These documents conclusively establish and prove the prosecution case of recovery. Significantly, his earlier version that police had nabbed the accused appears to be true and correct. Presence of Meena Kumari on the spot stands explained by PW-10 in his uncontroverted testimony, according to whom, accused after his arrest, had desired that Meena Kumari be informed. Thus, presence of Meena Kumari, on the spot, stands explained by the prosecution. 9. In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion, defence of the accused cannot be said to have been probablized, more so when one independently but minutely examines the testimony of Meena Kumari (DW1), who simply states that police stopped their vehicle, which was being driven by accused. The vehicle was checked and thereafter taken to Police Station, Aut. Significantly, she does not disclose the reason why the vehicle was stopped and taken to the Police Station, Aut. No explanation is forthcoming, as to why she did not report the matter to any person qua illegal detention of either the accused or her vehicle. Also she did not protest. That part, there is nothing on record to establish engagement of the accused as her driver. She does not state from where she was coming and going to which place. Also, she does not state that the Pick Up Van was used only for personal use. It is a commercial vehicle. 10. However, the matter does not come to an end here. To satisfy our conscience and discharge our constitutional duties and obligations, being first Court of appeal, we now proceed to examine the testimonies of prosecution witnesses for ascertaining the fact as to whether, guilt of the accused, in relation to the charged offence, stands fully established by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt or not. 11. Prosecution case, with respect to recovery of the contraband substance, on the spot, rests upon the testimonies of police officials (PW-1 and PW-10) and two independent witnesses, Neet Shekhar (PW-8) and Virender Kumar (PW-9). 12. PW-8 and PW-9 have not supported the prosecution. They were declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. 13. 11. Prosecution case, with respect to recovery of the contraband substance, on the spot, rests upon the testimonies of police officials (PW-1 and PW-10) and two independent witnesses, Neet Shekhar (PW-8) and Virender Kumar (PW-9). 12. PW-8 and PW-9 have not supported the prosecution. They were declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. 13. It is a settled proposition of law that merely because a witness has turned hostile, his entire evidence cannot be termed to be unworthy of credence. It is for the Court to consider, whether as a result of contradiction, witness stands fully discredited or part of his testimony can still be believed. If the credit of a witness is not fully shaken, Court can rely upon that part of the testimony which appears to be creditworthy. 14. It is also a settled position of law that if the version of police officials is otherwise found to be trustworthy and believable, conviction can be based on their testimonies. Though, it is a matter of prudence that in a given case their version may require corroboration. 15. Now, in the instant case, we find that police officials, namely PW-1 and PW-10, in one voice, have fully substantiated the prosecution case. We do not find there are any material contradictions, discrepancies, variations, embellishments, rendering their version to be unbelievable or the witnesses to be not worthy of credence. It cannot be said that police officials have deposed falsely or their testimony is impeachable, in any manner. 16. PW-10 categorically states that on 19.9.2006, he alongwith LHC Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) and Constable Sachin had set up a Naka at Shalanala near Thallaut. At about 9.30 a.m., one boy came from Thallaut side, carrying a bag in his right hand. The boy was nabbed on the spot. In the meanwhile, one vehicle (Quallis) came from Mandi side. On signal, the vehicle was stopped. Two occupants, namely Virender Kumar (PW-8) and Neet Shekhar (PW-9) were asked to associate as witnesses. On enquiry, the boy (identified in the Court), who was apprehended, disclosed his name as Vinod Kumar. First, the police officials gave their search to the accused, on which nothing incriminating was found and then the accused was searched. From the bag, which the accused was carrying, contraband substance (charas), in the shape of sticks and battis, was recovered. On smell, it was found to be charas. First, the police officials gave their search to the accused, on which nothing incriminating was found and then the accused was searched. From the bag, which the accused was carrying, contraband substance (charas), in the shape of sticks and battis, was recovered. On smell, it was found to be charas. Another bag containing contraband substance, i.e. opium was recovered. Scales carried by them were used for weighing the contraband substance. Charas was found to be 1.8 kgs and opium 450 grams. Two samples, each weighing 25 grams, were separately drawn from each of the recovered contraband substance. They were sealed separately with five seals, bearing seal Mark ‘R’. The remaining bulk parcels was sealed separately with nine seals of seal impression ‘R’. NCB form (Ex.PF) was filled on the spot. Ruka (Ex. PB) was sent through PW-1 to the Police Station, who returned with the file, after registration of the FIR. Accused was arrested on the spot vide Memo (Ex.PO). As per desire of the accused, Meena Kumari was informed. Recovery was effected in the presence of PW-8 and PW-9, whose statements Mark ‘A’ and Mark ‘B’ were also correctly recorded. With the completion of investigation, case property was handed over in the Police Station to Mangat Ram (PW-7). Now, this version of his stands fully corroborated by PW-1. Cross-examination of these witnesses by the accused has not shattered the veracity of their statement. 17. These witnesses, who are worthy of credence and their testimony inspiring in confidence, have thus clearly established recovery of the contraband substance from the accused. 18. Perusal of testimony of PW-8 & PW-9 clearly establishes their presence on the spot, at the relevant time. Though they denied any recovery effected from the accused in their presence, but however, admit that police had given their personal search to the accused vide Memo Ex. PA. PW-8 admits his signatures thereupon. Now if police, according to this witness, did not effect any recovery in their presence, then where was the need to sign any documents. It is not that police had threatened, intimidated or coerced them to sign. Obviously, the attempt, though futile, according to us, is only to help the accused. Be that as it may, admission of their signatures on recovery memo only corroborates the version of police officials. It is not that police had threatened, intimidated or coerced them to sign. Obviously, the attempt, though futile, according to us, is only to help the accused. Be that as it may, admission of their signatures on recovery memo only corroborates the version of police officials. To overcome his admission of signatures, PW-9 merely states that he signed blank papers, but then admits that he was neither under any threat nor any fear at the time when they were signed. Why is it that he signed blank papers? has not been explained by him. He further contradicts himself by stating that he signed the papers as he was under the impression that some bond was to be executed by the accused. Significantly, neither was PW-9 known to the accused nor had the accused asked him to sign any bond on his behalf. It is also not the case of the accused. Hence, purported reason assigned by him is unbelievable and this part of the testimony discredited and discarded. Both, PW-8 and PW9 were confronted with their statements (Mark ‘A’ & ‘B’) recorded by the police, which stand proved by the Investigating Officer. 19. We further find the prosecution case to have been established by link evidence. SI Mangat Ram (PW-7) has clarified that the sealed parcels bearing seal ‘R’, NCB form (Ex. PF), search and seizure memo (Ex. PA), were handed over to him. Accused was also produced before him. Ruka (Ex.PB) was received by him, on the basis of which FIR (Ex. PL) was registered. The contraband substance was kept by him in safe custody and sent for chemical analysis to the laboratory. Report (Ex.PG) was received by him. Prakash Chand (PW-3) has corroborated the version of this witness. 20. The samples were taken to the laboratory by Bhupinder Singh (PW-4), on the asking of PW-3. Even he has clarified that so long as samples remained with him, there was no tampering. 21. PW-3 further clarified that on his asking Bansi Lal (PW-2) took the special report and delivered it in the Office of Additional Superintendent of Police, Mandi. 22. In support of his contentions, Mr. Even he has clarified that so long as samples remained with him, there was no tampering. 21. PW-3 further clarified that on his asking Bansi Lal (PW-2) took the special report and delivered it in the Office of Additional Superintendent of Police, Mandi. 22. In support of his contentions, Mr. Chitkara, learned counsel for the accused, has referred to and relied upon the decisions rendered by the apex Court in Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 7 SCC 543 ; and State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra and another, 1996 SCC (Cri) 1278. We find the decisions, in no manner, advance the case of the accused. 23. Thus, from the conjoint reading of testimonies of the relevant prosecution witnesses, it is evidently clear that prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused, in relation to the charged offence; beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent and consistent evidence. 24. We do not find any illegality, infirmity, perversity or unreasonableness, in the judgment passed by the Court below. It cannot be said that the Court below, erred in correctly and completely appreciating the evidence led by the parties, resulting into travesty of justice. For all the aforesaid reasons, appeal is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.