JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. 1. Assailing the judgment dated 14.9.2007, passed by learned Special Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba, H.P., in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2007, titled as State of H.P. vs. Gurdeep Singh & another, whereby respondents-accused stand acquitted, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 24.1.2007, at about 5.30 p.m., police party headed by ASI-Kirpal Singh (PW-16), accompanied by HC-Roop Singh (PW-5), Constable Raj Kumar (PW-6), Constable Mazid Mohd. (PW-7), HHC-Rabhubir Singh (PW-11) and Constable Sanjay Kumar (not examined in Court) had set up a naaka at Nainikhud. HC-Kishori Lal (PW-3) incharge of Police Post Bakhloh who was on routine duty also joined them. At about 5.30 p.m., they stopped a white coloured vehicle bearing registration No. PB 09D 3922 (Tata Sumo), being driven by accused Gurdeep Singh in which accused Vinod Kumar was sitting. The vehicle was searched in the presence of independent witnesses Harbans Lal (PW-1) and Sh. Kartar Singh (PW-2). From the bonnet of vehicle, plastic bag was recovered in which charas like substance, in the shape of balls and batties was found. Constable Mazid Mohd. (PW-7) was deputed to arrange weights and scales which he brought from the shop of Sh. Sanjay Kumar (PW-4). Upon weighment, contraband substance was found to be of 22 kilograms. Two samples of 25 grams each were drawn and sealed with three seals each bearing seal impression-T. The remaining stuff was packed and sealed with ten seals of seal impression-T. The sealed parcels were taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ext. PW-1/A). PW-16 sent ruka (Ext. PW-6/A) to police Station Dalhousie through constable Raj Kumar (PW-6), on the basis of which F.I.R. No. 7 of 2007 (Ext. PW-14/A), dated 24.1.2007 was registered under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On the spot accused were arrested. Special Report (Ext. PW-10/A) was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Chamba through HHC-Ishwar Dutt (PW-10) which was received by HC-Rakesh Kumar (PW-12). PW-16 completed necessary formalities on the spot and deposited the case property with SHO-Manohar Lal (PW-14), who resealed the same with seal impression-H. The sealed sample was sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga through Const. Manjit Guleria (PW-8). Report (Ext. PW-16 completed necessary formalities on the spot and deposited the case property with SHO-Manohar Lal (PW-14), who resealed the same with seal impression-H. The sealed sample was sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga through Const. Manjit Guleria (PW-8). Report (Ext. PX) revealed the contraband substance to be charas. As such, with the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial by SI-Vijay Singh (PW-15). 3. Accused were charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined sixteen witnesses and statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were also recorded, in which they took up a defence of innocence and false implication. No defence evidence was led by the accused. 5. Appreciating the testimonies of prosecution witness, trial Court acquitted the accused of the charged offence. Hence, the present appeal. 6. We have extensively heard learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the record. 7. At the very thresh-hold it be observed that both the independent witnesses Harbans Lal (PW-1) and Kartar Singh (PW-2) have not supported the prosecution case with regard to the factum of recovery of the contraband substance in their presence. We are conscious of the fact that if testimonies of police officials otherwise inspire confidence and independent witnesses having resiled from their statements and not supported the prosecution in Court, still the accused can be held guilty for the charged offence. It is also a settled principle of law that testimonies of police officials, if otherwise inspire confidence, then corroboration of their testimonies is only a matter of prudence and not rule. [See: Pramod Kumar Versus State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2013) 6 SCC 588 .] 8. It is also a settled position of law that if prosecution is able to establish recovery from the conscious possession of the accused, onus of proving innocence shifts upon the accused. 9. It is also a settled principle of law that vested right accrues in favour of the accused with the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court. It is also a settled position of law that if prosecution is able to establish recovery from the conscious possession of the accused, onus of proving innocence shifts upon the accused. 9. It is also a settled principle of law that vested right accrues in favour of the accused with the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court. [See: Mookkiah and another Versus State, represented by Inspector of Police Tamil Nadu, (2013) 2 SCC 89 ; State of Rajasthan Versus Talevar and another, (2011) 11 SCC 666 ; Govindaraju alias Govinda Versus State by Sriramapuram Police Station & another, (2012) 4 SCC 722 ; State of Rajasthan vs. Shera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta, (2012) 1 SCC 602 ] 10. However, it is also a settled position of law that if trial Court has erred in correctly and completely appreciating the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which has resulted into illegality, it is the duty of the appellate Court to rectify such mistake and decide the case in accordance with law. 11. It is well established principle of law that (i) the 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) 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 the trial court are perverse or otherwise unsustainable; (iii) the appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, trial Court failed to take into consideration any admissible fact; and (iv) the trial Court failed to take into consideration any admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law. (See:Balak Ram & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1974 SC 2165 ; Allarakha K Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 3 SCC 57 ; Raghunath v. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 398 ; State of U.P. v. Ram Veer Singh & Ors., AIR 2007 SC 3075 ; S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (D) by his LRs. & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 2066 ; Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 186 ; Arulvelu & Anr. v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206 ; Perla Somasekhara Reddy & Ors. & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 2066 ; Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 186 ; Arulvelu & Anr. v. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206 ; Perla Somasekhara Reddy & Ors. v. State of A.P., (2009) 16 SCC 98 ; and Ram Singh alias Chhaju v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 445 ). 12. In Sheo Swaroop and Ors. v. King Emperor, AIR 1934 PC 227, the Privy Council held 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...." 13. In Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the apex Court observed as under: "(1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." 14. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Banne @ Baijnath & Ors., (2009) 4 SCC 271 , the apex Court gave illustrations of certain circumstances in which the Court would be justified in interfering with a judgment of acquittal by the High Court, which principle, in our considered view, would squarely apply to the judgment under review by us. The circumstances include; (i) The High Court's decision is based on totally erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled legal position; (ii) The High Court's conclusions are contrary to evidence and documents on record; iii) The entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal leading to grave miscarriage of justice; (iv) The High Court's judgment is manifestly unjust and unreasonable based on erroneous law and facts on the record of the case; (v) Apex Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the High Court; and (vi) the apex Court would be extremely reluctant in interfering with a case when both the Sessions Court and the High Court have recorded an order of acquittal. The apex Court further held that “Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that in exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused and further that the trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference with the decision of the trial court in a routine manner, where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for such interference.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. To establish as to whether contraband substance i.e. charas was actually recovered from the conscious possession of the accused or not, Sh. B. S. Parmar, learned Addl. Advocate General has invited our attention to the testimonies of relevant prosecution witnesses namely Sh. Harbans Lal (PW-1), Sh. Kartar Singh (PW-2), HC-Kishori Lal (PW-3), HC-Roop Singh (PW-5), Constable Raj Kumar (PW-6), Constable Mazid Mohd. (PW-7) and ASI-Kirpal Singh (PW-16), out of whom PW-1 and PW-2 have not supported the prosecution case. 16. Significantly both PW-1 and PW-2 have disputed their presence on the spot. Both of them are stock witnesses and have appeared as such in three – six cases under the N.D.P.S. Act. Though they do not deny their signatures on the recovery memo (Ext.PW-1/A), recovery memo of documents of the vehicle (Ext. PW-1/B) and specimen seal impression taken on cloth (Ext. PW-1/C), but in their unrebutted testimonies clarify that police obtained their signatures on blank papers. They saw the accused for the first time in Court. In fact PW-1 states that police obtained his signatures in his dhaba at Nainikhud bazaar where even according to PW-2, there are 40 to 50 shops. It has also come on record that Naaka was not set up at Nainikhud bazaar but in the khud, at a place, where there is a bifurcation from where one road leads to Mail side, which place is distant from the bazaar. Why is it that police did not associate any other person in carrying out search or seizure operation remains unexplained, more so, in the teeth of otherwise uninspiring testimony of PW-16. 17. Now we shall deal with the testimonies of police officials present at the time of effecting recovery of charas. 18. According to PW-16, he along with PW-3, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-11 were present on the spot i.e. Nainikhud where they set up a naaka at the bifurcation point. 17. Now we shall deal with the testimonies of police officials present at the time of effecting recovery of charas. 18. According to PW-16, he along with PW-3, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-11 were present on the spot i.e. Nainikhud where they set up a naaka at the bifurcation point. At about 5.30 p.m. vehicle (Tata Sumo) bearing registration No. PB 09D 3922 driven by accused Gurdeep Singh, in which accused Vinod Kumar was sitting, came from Chamba side. On signal the vehicle stopped at a distance of about 30-35 meters from the naaka point. On checking, from the bonnet of the vehicle, one plastic bag was recovered. Upon opening, charas in the shape of balls and batties was recovered. Independent witnesses i.e. Sh. Harbans Lal (PW-1) and Sh. Kartar Singh (PW-2) present on the spot were associated. Constable Mazid Mohd. (PW-7) on asking brought weights and scale. Weights were of “2 kg, 1 kg, 500 grams, 200 grams, 100 grams and 50 grams”. Upon weighment, the contraband substance was found to be 22 kg. Two samples of “25” grams each were taken and separately sealed with seal impression-T by affixing three seals. Remaining stuff was packed in a piece of cloth and sealed with ten seals of the same seal impression-T. Samples and contraband substance was taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ext. PW-1/A). Specimen seal was retained on a piece of cloth (Ext. PW-1/C). He filled up NCB form (Ext. PW-14/C) on the spot and also put seal impression-T thereupon. Thereafter, he handed over the seal to HC-Kishori Lal (PW-3). All present on the spot witnessed the proceedings. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 signed the memo of recovery. Thereafter he wrote ruka (Ext. PW-6/A) and sent it to the SHO-Police Station Dalhousie through C-Raj Kumar (PW-6), on the basis of which FIR (Ext.PW-14/A) was registered, copy of which was brought on the spot. He arrested the accused vide memos (Ext. PW-1/F and 1/G). With the completion of proceedings on the spot, he left for the police station where he reached at 11.30 p.m. He entrusted the case property to ASI-Manohar Lal (PW-14), the officiating SHO, who resealed the same with his seal-H in his presence, as also presence of C-Rajesh Kumar. 19. He arrested the accused vide memos (Ext. PW-1/F and 1/G). With the completion of proceedings on the spot, he left for the police station where he reached at 11.30 p.m. He entrusted the case property to ASI-Manohar Lal (PW-14), the officiating SHO, who resealed the same with his seal-H in his presence, as also presence of C-Rajesh Kumar. 19. On first brush we find the witness to have narrated the incident in a truthful manner and his version, in examination in chief, to be corroborated by PW-3, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7. But however, minute examination of testimonies of all these police officials would only establish it to be not so. We find testimonies of these witnesses not to be inspiring in confidence at all. 20. PW-16 admits that in the bazaar at Nainikhud there are 30 to 35 shops and houses. Why is it that he did not associate any “independent witness/respectable person” of the area at the time of effecting recovery which took place during broad day light? He chose to associate only stock witnesses Harbans Lal and Kartar Singh, who in any event have not supported the prosecution case and deny their presence on the spot. The witnesses admit that independent witnesses were running their shops/hotels at Naini Khud. No explanation is forthcoming on record, explaining presence of such witnesses at a place where police had set up a naaka, which place undisputedly was at a place distant from the bazaar. It has come in the testimony of PW-6 that Naaka was set up at a place which is at a distance of about 700 – 800 mts. away from Nainikhud bazaar. It is not the case of PW-16 that he called these independent witnesses. It has come on record in the unrebutted testimony of independent witnesses that police got their signatures on blank papers at Nainikhud (bazaar) where they are running their business. 21. Crucially, though PW-16 searched the accused persons but admits not to have issued any notice or offered to get the search conducted in the presence of police, Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. He admits not to have prepared any memo of such search. This fact, in the given circumstances acquires significance only when we find testimony of this witness not to be inspiring in confidence. He admits not to have prepared any memo of such search. This fact, in the given circumstances acquires significance only when we find testimony of this witness not to be inspiring in confidence. We are conscious of the fact that mandatory provision of law, for conducting personal search would not apply in this case as contraband substance was not recovered from the person of the accused, but then, this fact gains significance in the manner and backdrop in which the prosecution allegedly recovered the contraband substance. In the chain of such events it would be relevant to observe that this witness admits not to have filled up the NCB form, in its entirety, on the spot. Even on the number of forms which were filled up by him there is variation. He is not sure whether he filled up three or four NCB forms. He does not even remember which of the columns of the form were filled up by MHC at the police station. He is a senior police official and is supposed to know and depose about the exact events which took place on the spot. Significantly he admits that NCB form does not bear the number of F.I.R. Now if constable Raj Kumar (PW-6) had brought the case file back to the spot after registration of the F.I.R., then why is it that he left such column blank in the form. Absence thereof only gains significance in the backdrop of major contradictions, which emerge on record in the testimony of this witness and PW-3 with regard to completion of proceedings pertaining to search, seizure and recovery on the spot, by the police party. According to this witness, Const. Raj Kumar (PW-6) brought the case file back from the police station at about 9.20 p.m. where after, police party left the spot at about 9.30 p.m., which fact stands materially contradicted by PW3 according to whom all proceedings stood completed at 7.30 p.m. Noticeably PW-3 states that he had already reached Police Post Bakhloh, where he was posted, at about 8.00 p.m. Now this version totally belies the prosecution case and shatters the testimony of PW-16. 22. We find another material contradiction to have emerged from the conjoint reading of testimonies of PW-3 and PW-16. According to PW-16, after putting seal impression-T on NCB form (Ext. 22. We find another material contradiction to have emerged from the conjoint reading of testimonies of PW-3 and PW-16. According to PW-16, after putting seal impression-T on NCB form (Ext. PW-14/C), on the spot, seal was handed over to PW-3, who materially contradicts such fact, by deposing that the same was handed over to the Investigating Officer at Police Post Banikhet. Significantly, seal-T used by the police party was not produced in the Court. We have grave doubt about the presence of PW-3 on the spot. Apart from the contradiction with regard to completion of proceedings pertaining to search, seizure and recovery, which we have just noticed, we find PW-6, in his unrebutted testimony to have deposed that “the police party left from the Banikhet Police Post to the spot. No other police official joined us at Nainikhad. The Naaka was laid at about 2.30 PM”. Noticeably, PW-3 was not one of the police officials who had left with the police party from Police Post Banikhet. PW-3 who was posted at a totally different station i.e. Police Post Bakhloh and had independently left from there not in connection with the work to be carried out by the raiding party which left Police Post Banikhet. We find difficult to believe the version of any of the police officials as according to PW-5, PW-3 joined at a place where naaka had been set up. 23. These facts further render the prosecution case with regard to search, seizure and recovery of the contraband substance to be extremely doubtful. 24. Crucially the matter does not end here. Independent witness Sh. Sanjay Kumar (PW-4), states that on 24.1.2007 police came to his shop at Nainikhud and took weights and scale of “2 k.g., 500 grams, 100 grams”. He does not remember the description of other weights. We may observe that PW-7 clarifies that he had also got weights measuring “200 grams” and “50 grams”. But what gains importance is further version of PW-4 according to whom, weights were taken from him “at about 9 or 10 AM”. Now this testimony of his goes unrebutted. Contradiction with regard to timing has not been explained on record. Perhaps it may be a typographical error and word “AM” may have been wrongly typed out. But what gains importance is further version of PW-4 according to whom, weights were taken from him “at about 9 or 10 AM”. Now this testimony of his goes unrebutted. Contradiction with regard to timing has not been explained on record. Perhaps it may be a typographical error and word “AM” may have been wrongly typed out. Assuming it to be “PM” even then his testimony totally knocks down the substratum of the prosecution case rendering the version of the raiding party to be false, as according to PW-3, entire proceedings stood completed on the spot by “7.30 p.m.” after recovery was effected at “5.30 p.m.”. Significantly on the question of recovery all police officials mention the time to be 5.30 p.m. PW-7 does not state the time he reached the spot alongwith the weights and scale, but crucially he states that police party left the spot for police station Dalhousie at about “9 or 9.30 PM”. Now this witness contradicts version of PW-16, according to whom F.I.R. was brought back by PW-6 only at 9.20 p.m. Contradiction with regard to timing becomes relevant and material when one examines the testimony of PW-7, according to whom ruka was sent to Police Station Dalhousie at about 6.30 p.m. Now if weights and scale were brought at 9.00 – 10.00 p.m. then where was the question of sending the ruka, which describes and records the weight of the contraband substance, to the police station at 6.30 p.m. Obviously police party has not come out with the truth. In the sequence of these events we further find something else to be intriguing. None of the witnesses state that scale of “25 gm” was brought from PW-4. PW-16 does not state that he took out sample of 50 grams, divided it into two and then sealed them separately. Hence, how did police weigh the samples to be of “25 grams” each, has not been explained. Police party could have straightaway taken the accused with the contraband substance to Nainikhud for weighment. But it was not so done. 25. The matter does not rest here. Contradictions are galore, replete, relevant and material, falsifying the prosecution witnesses as also the case. 26. Testimony of PW-6 that accused were given the option of being searched before the police, Gazetted officer or Magistrate and that they chose to be searched by the police stands materially contradicted by PW-16. 25. The matter does not rest here. Contradictions are galore, replete, relevant and material, falsifying the prosecution witnesses as also the case. 26. Testimony of PW-6 that accused were given the option of being searched before the police, Gazetted officer or Magistrate and that they chose to be searched by the police stands materially contradicted by PW-16. 27. Version of PW-16 that seal was taken away by PW-3 stands materially contradicted by PW-3 himself according to whom he handed over the same to PW-16 on the spot. 28. Significantly, PW-6 is signatory to the seizure memos but does not remember which of the documents were drawn and signed first. 29. Testimony of HHC-Raghubir Singh (PW-11) who tried to support the version of PW-16 does not inspire confidence at all. The witness remained present all throughout at the time of recovery. He does not even remember personal search of the accused was carried out or not. In fact, he goes on to state that “accused persons were not searched by the ASI”. Thus version of PW-16 and other police officials that accused were searched stands belied by this witness. 30. Noticeably PW-16 admits that contraband substance of 22 k.g. was packed in a plastic bag. The engine of the vehicle was on. Considering the volume it is difficult to fathom that the contraband substance could have been concealed inside the bonnet, particularly when he admits that plastic bag is inflammable and with the heat emanating from the engine the contraband substance would have melted. But it was not so. Recovered substance was in the shape of balls and batties. This fact also gains significance in the backdrop of testimony of PW-3, according to whom, 17 packets of charas were recovered, which in fact is not the case of prosecution at all. 31. Further according to PW-9 “there were ten seals of ‘T’ and six seals of impression H, two sample parcels duly sealed with three seals of each impressions H & T alongwith sample seal and NCB form which was entered by me in the Malkhana Register. The copy of the Malkhana register containing this entry is Ext. PW.9/A, which is correct as per original brought by me today in the Court”. Now seal-T, according to PW-16 was with PW-3. It is not the case of prosecution that PW-3 deposited the seal in the maalkhana. The copy of the Malkhana register containing this entry is Ext. PW.9/A, which is correct as per original brought by me today in the Court”. Now seal-T, according to PW-16 was with PW-3. It is not the case of prosecution that PW-3 deposited the seal in the maalkhana. Seal-T has also not been produced in Court. Thus, version of PW-9 stands belied. 32. Further, perusal of form (Ext. PW-9/A) reveals that there is no reference of either the NCB forms or the seals. It only talks of the seized sample. Not only this, witness talks of road certificate (Ext.PW-8/A) which he took to F.S. L. Junga. However in cross examination, admits it to be correct that there is no entry qua deposit of NCB form in the maalkhana register with the MHC. He furnishes an explanation that documents were entered in the roznamcha, which has not seen the light of the day, is not acceptable. Crucially, without any explanation, he admits to have retained NCB forms in his custody between 24.1.2007 and 26.1.2007. This gains significance in the backdrop of his statement that he had four NCB forms whereas according to PW-16 there were only three in number. 33. We find testimony of PW-9 to be materially contradicted and belied by Constable Manjit Guleria (PW-8), who took the contraband substance to the Laboratory, according to whom, “The NCB form, copy of FIR and recovery memo were in the sealed parcel.” He thus totally shatters the creditworthiness of PW-9. It is not the case of prosecution that PW-14 had sealed the parcel in the presence of PW-8. 34. We find that in the road certificate (Ext. PW-8/A) even the number of the F.I.R. is different. None has come forward to explain this discrepancy. 35. Having perused the testimony of the prosecution witnesses on record it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable material on record. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the court below are not borne out from record, perverse, illegal, erroneous or arisen out of incomplete appreciation of the prosecution evidence. There are improvements, which are major, embellishments and contradictions, rendering the testimonies of these witnesses to be shaky and unbelievable. 36. It cannot be said that the findings returned by the court below are not borne out from record, perverse, illegal, erroneous or arisen out of incomplete appreciation of the prosecution evidence. There are improvements, which are major, embellishments and contradictions, rendering the testimonies of these witnesses to be shaky and unbelievable. 36. Thus, in our considered view, prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the contraband substance was recovered from the conscious possession of the accused in the manner in which it wants us to believe. 37. The accused have 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 , since it cannot be said that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice, no interference is warranted in the instant case. 38. For all the aforesaid reasons, present appeal, devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Records of the Court below be immediately sent back.