JUDGMENT P.S. Rana Judge Both these appeals are being disposed of together by this common judgment as both appeals have been filed against the same judgment and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge Fast Track Kullu HP in Sessions Trial No. 40/2007 titled State of HP Vs. Ganesh Kumar decided on 9th January 2008. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PROSECUTION CASE: 2. Brief facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution are that on 9th May 2007 at about 9.30 AM at a place Baldhar District Kullu accused was found in conscious and exclusive possession of charas measuring 1Kg 200 grams. Learned trial Court framed the charge against the accused under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) on 13th September, 2007. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. Prosecution examined six oral witnesses in support of its case:- Sr.No. Name of Witness PW1 Sobha Ram PW2 Rajender Singh. PW3 Vipon Kumar PW4 Prem Lal PW5 Kashmi Ram PW6 Ram Karan 3.1 Prosecution also produced following piece of documentary evidence in support of its case:- Sr.No. Description: Ext.PA Copy of Rapat Rojnamcha. Ext.PB Specimen of seal impression ‘T Ext.PC Seizure memo of Charas Ext.PD Copy of FIR Ext.PE Copy of extract of entry in Malkhana Register. Ext.PF. Copy of R.C. Ext.PG Copy of Column No.12 of NCB Form. Ext.PL Copy of Column No.1 to 8 of NCB Form. Ext.PK Copy of Special Report. Ext.PH Endorsement on S.R. Ext. PJ Extract of Special Report Register. Ext.PM Rukka. Ext.PN Spot Map. Ext.PO Arrest Memo Ext.PP. Report of Chemical Examiner 4. Statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused did not examine any defence witness. The accused took the plea of complete innocence and false implication. The learned Special Judge Fast Track, Kullu HP convicted the appellant under Section 20 of the ‘Act’ to rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 40,000/- (Rs. Forty thousands). The learned trial Court further directed that in default of payment of fine the appellant shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. GROUNDS OF CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.148 OF 2008: 5. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court the State of Himachal Pradesh filed the present appeal. 40,000/- (Rs. Forty thousands). The learned trial Court further directed that in default of payment of fine the appellant shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. GROUNDS OF CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.148 OF 2008: 5. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court the State of Himachal Pradesh filed the present appeal. It is pleaded that learned trial Court has awarded lesser punishment to convict Ganesh Kumar which has resulted in mis-carriage of justice and it is further pleaded that the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court deserves for enhancement and prayer for enhancement of sentence sought. GROUNDS OF CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.404 OF 2008: 6. It is pleaded that the findings of the learned trial Court are based upon conjectures and surmises. It is pleaded that there is no link evidence in prosecution case and it is pleaded that there is no direct evidence in present case and appellant Ganesh Kumar is entitled for the benefit of doubt. It is pleaded that contraband was not recovered from appellant-Ganesh Kumar. It is further pleaded that prosecution did not associate any independent eye witnesses except police officials. It is pleaded that learned trial Court did not properly appreciate oral as well as documentary evidence placed on the record. 7. We have considered the submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Ganesh Kumar. 8. Question that arises for determination before us in Cr. Appeal No. 148 of 2008 titled State of HP Vs. Ganesh Kumar is whether learned trial Court has not awarded adequate sentence and another question arises for determination before us in Cr. Appeal No. 404 of 2008 titled Ganesh Kumar Vs. State of HP is whether the learned trial Court on the basis of material on record was not justified in convicting appellant-Ganesh Kumar. ORAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY PROSECUTION: 9. PW1 Sobha Ram has stated that he was posted as HHC at Police Station Banjar since 24th August, 2005 and he brought roznamcha Ext.PA of Police Station Banjar. He has stated that the same is correct as per original record. 10. PW2 HC Rajinder Singh has stated that he was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Banjar w.e.f. 2003 to September 2007. He has stated that the same is correct as per original record. 10. PW2 HC Rajinder Singh has stated that he was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Banjar w.e.f. 2003 to September 2007. He has stated that on 9.5.2007 he along with SHO Ram Karan, Constable Dalip Kumar, Constable Laxman Kumar and HHC Ajay Kumar were proceeding towards Baldhar in order to collect information about the illicit cultivation of poppy plants. He has stated that at about 9.30 AM they reached near Baldhar. He has stated that accused present in the Court came from forest side. He has stated that the accused was carrying polythene envelope in his right hand and when he saw the police officials accused threw polythene envelope at the spot and fled towards the forest. He has stated that SHO Ram Karan directed Constable Laxman Dass and HHC Ajay Kumar to chase and apprehend the accused. He has stated that the accused was apprehended by Constable Laxman Dass and HHC Ajay Kumar and he has further stated that accused was brought to the spot. He has further stated that SHO Ram Karan asked the name of the accused and accused disclosed his name as Ganesh Kumar son of Bhim Bahadur resident of Gushaini. He has stated that it was secluded place and no independent witness was available at the spot. He has stated that SHO Ram Karan and Constable Laxman Dass associated him as witness in the present case. He has stated that polythene envelope thrown by the accused at the spot was checked by SHO Ram Karan. He has stated that one sky blue coloured bag was found inside the polythene envelope and he has further stated that on checking the bag it was found containing charas. He has further stated recovered charas was weighed at the spot and it was found 1 Kg 200 grams. He has further stated that two samples of charas 25 grams each were separated and sealed in separate parcels. He has stated that remaining charas was kept back in the same bag and said bag was placed back in the same polythene envelope which was sealed in separate parcel. He has stated that six seal impression of ‘T’ were affixed on each parcel. He has stated that the samples of seal impressions ‘T’ were obtained separately and sample Ext PB bears his signature. He has stated that six seal impression of ‘T’ were affixed on each parcel. He has stated that the samples of seal impressions ‘T’ were obtained separately and sample Ext PB bears his signature. He has stated that the seal after use was handed over to him. He has further stated that NCB Form in triplicate was filled at the spot by SHO Ram Karan. He has further stated that the sealed parcels were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext PC. He has further stated that memo Ext PC was signed by him and Constable Laxman Dass. He has further stated that seizure memo Ext. PC was handed over to the accused free of cost. He has further stated that thereafter rukka was prepared at the spot by SHO Ram Karan which was handed over to him. He has stated that he took rukka to Police Station Banjar and handed over the same to MHC Vipon Kumar. He has further stated that charas Ext P5, Polythene envelope Ext P3 and blue sky coloured bag Ext P4 were the same which were recovered from the accused. He has further stated that charas Ext. P5 was recovered from the possession of the accused. In cross examination he has denied suggestion that he was not present at the spot. He has also denied suggestion that charas was not recovered from the accused. He has also denied suggestion that NCB Form were not filled in at the spot. He has also denied suggestion that unclaimed bag was also found by the police at bus stand Banjar. He has denied suggestion that on the basis of suspicion accused was took to Police Station Banjar. He has also denied suggestion that accused was falsely implicated in present case as the accused is Nepali National. 11. PW3 HC Vipon Kumar has stated that he was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Banjar since 2005. He has stated that on 9th May 2007 he was holding temporary charge of the post of MHC at Police Station Banjar because MHC Chaman Lal had proceeded on leave. He has stated that HC Rajender Kumar had handed over rukka to him on the basis of which FIR Ext PD was registered at Police Station Banjar. He has stated that on 9th May 2007 he was holding temporary charge of the post of MHC at Police Station Banjar because MHC Chaman Lal had proceeded on leave. He has stated that HC Rajender Kumar had handed over rukka to him on the basis of which FIR Ext PD was registered at Police Station Banjar. He has stated that on the same day at 1.30 PM SHO Ram Karan had handed over three sealed parcels, NCB Form in triplicate, samples of seal impressions ‘T’ and other connected documents to him. He has stated that he deposited aforesaid articles at police Malkhana Banjar. He has further stated that each parcel contained six seal impressions of ‘T’. He has further stated that on 10th May, 2007 he handed over one sealed sample parcel, NCB Form in triplicate, sample of seal impressions ‘T’, copy of seizure memo and copy of FIR to HHC Prem Lal No. 240 vide RC No.35/07 with a direction to deposit the same at FSL Junga. He has further stated that extract of Malkhana register Ext PE is correct as per the original record. He has further stated that the case property was not tampered at any stage. In cross examination he has denied suggestion that he did not receive any rukka. He has also denied the suggestion that FIR was not written by him and he has also denied suggestion that case property was not deposited with him. He has also denied suggestion that sample was not sent to FSL Junga. He has also denied suggestion that the case property had been tampered by him. 12. PW4 HHC Prem Lal has stated that he was posted as General Duty Constable at Police Station Banjar in the month of May 2007. He has stated that on 10.5.2007 MHC Vipon Kumar had handed over one sealed sample parcel of charas and other connected documents to him with a direction to deposit the same at FSL Junga and deposited the same in the laboratory on 11th May, 2007. He has stated that he obtained receipt from the laboratory and handed over the same to MHC Police Station Banjar. In cross examination he has denied suggestion that he did not take the sample to FSL Junga. 13. PW5 HHC Kashmi Ram has stated that he was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police Kullu in the month of May, 2007. He has stated that he obtained receipt from the laboratory and handed over the same to MHC Police Station Banjar. In cross examination he has denied suggestion that he did not take the sample to FSL Junga. 13. PW5 HHC Kashmi Ram has stated that he was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police Kullu in the month of May, 2007. He has stated that on 10th May, 2007 special report of this case was received by Sh. Ahmad Sayeed Deputy Superintendent of Police Kullu and he has stated that he appended his endorsement on the report Ext PH. He has stated that necessary entry was made by him in the extract register Ext PJ. He has stated that the special report Ext PK is correct as per the original record. In cross examination he has denied suggestion that special report was not received by Deputy Superintendent Kullu. He has denied suggestion that he had fabricated entry in the register. 14. PW6 SI Ram Karan has stated that he was posted as SHO at Police Station Banjar w.e.f. August 5 to September 2007. He has stated that on 9th May, 2007 he along with HC Rajender HHC Ajay Kumar Constable Laxman and Constable Dalip Kumar had proceeded from Police Station Banjar in order to collect information regarding illicit cultivation of poppy plants. He has stated that at about 9.30 AM near Baldhar one person Nepali came from forest side. He has stated that he was carrying polythene envelope in his hand. He has stated that he identified the Nepali in the Court. He has further stated that when the police officials saw the accused he threw the polythene envelope at the spot and fled towards the nearby forest. He has stated that he directed Constable Laxman Dass and HHC Ajay Kumar to chase and apprehend the accused. He has further stated that both of them apprehended the accused and brought him to the spot. He has stated that he asked the name of the accused on which he disclosed his name as Ganesh Kumar son of Bhim Bhadur resident of Gushaini. He has stated that the place was secluded and barren forest. He has stated that no independent person was found present at the spot. He has stated that he associated HC Rajender Singh and Constable Laxman Dass as witness in this case. He has stated that the place was secluded and barren forest. He has stated that no independent person was found present at the spot. He has stated that he associated HC Rajender Singh and Constable Laxman Dass as witness in this case. He has stated that the polythene envelope which was thrown on the spot by the accused was checked by him and it was found containing one blue sky coloured bag. He has stated that on checking of the bag it was found containing charas. He has further stated the recovered charas was weighed on the spot and it was found 1 Kg 200 grams. He has stated that two samples of charas 25 grams each were separated from the recovered charas and were sealed in separate parcels. He has stated that remaining charas was placed back in the same bag and the same was again placed in the polythene envelope and was sealed in separate parcel. He has stated that thereafter each parcel was sealed by affixing six seal impressions of ‘T’. He has further stated that NCB Form Ext PL in triplicate filled in by him at the spot. He has stated that FIR number was added subsequently in column No.1. He has stated that the seal after use was handed over to HC Rajender Singh. He has further stated that a copy of seizure memo Ext PC was supplied to the accused free of cost. He has stated that rukka Ext PM was prepared at the spot by him which was handed over to HC Rajender Singh. He has further stated that the site plan Ext PN was prepared at the spot. He has stated that the accused was arrested by him and he was apprised about the commission of offence and punishment prescribed under Section 20 of the ‘Act’. He has further stated that thereafter he proceeded to Police Station Banjar from the spot along with accused and case property. He has stated that he has filled column of NCB Form. He has stated that he reached at Police Station Banjar at 1.30 PM and handed over the case property, NCB Form in triplicate, samples of seal impressions ‘T’ and other connected documents to MHC Vipon Kumar who deposited the articles in police Malkhana. He has stated that he has filled column of NCB Form. He has stated that he reached at Police Station Banjar at 1.30 PM and handed over the case property, NCB Form in triplicate, samples of seal impressions ‘T’ and other connected documents to MHC Vipon Kumar who deposited the articles in police Malkhana. He has stated that on the next day he handed over special report Ext PK to Sh Ahmad Sayeed Deputy Superintendent of Police Kullu. He has stated that statements of witnesses were also recorded by him and the report of FSL Junga was received which is Ext PP. He has stated that on bulk parcel Ext.P1, sample parcel Ext.P2, and sample of seal impressions ‘T’ Ext P6 bears his signatures. He has stated that polythene envelope Ext P3, bag Ext P4 and charas Ext P5 were recovered from the accused and after completion of investigation he prepared the challan and presented the same in Court. In cross examination he has denied suggestion that he was not present at the spot. He has also denied suggestion that charas was recovered from the accused. He has denied suggestion that parcels were sealed at the spot. He has also denied the suggestion that NCB Form in triplicate were not filled in at the spot. He has also denied suggestion that site plan was not prepared at the spot. He has denied suggestion that rukka was not prepared at the spot. He has also denied suggestion that entire proceedings were conducted at Police Station Banjar falsely in order to implicate the accused in this case. He has also denied suggestion that unclaimed bag was found by the police at bus stand Banjar. He has also denied suggestion that on the basis of suspicion accused was took to police station Banjar. He has denied suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. 15. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused has stated that a false case has been foisted against him. Accused has stated that charas was not recovered from him. Accused did not lead any defence evidence. Findings qua grounds of Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2008, titled State vs. Ganesh Kumar 16. 15. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Accused has stated that a false case has been foisted against him. Accused has stated that charas was not recovered from him. Accused did not lead any defence evidence. Findings qua grounds of Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2008, titled State vs. Ganesh Kumar 16. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State that learned trial Court has not awarded adequate sentence upon the convict in view of the ruling of Full Bench of this Court announced in Criminal Appeal No.763 of 2002, titled State of H.P. vs. Mehboon Khan alongwith Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 2003 titled State of H.P. Vs. Kuldeep Singh and others and Criminal Appeal No. 541 of 2004, titled State of H.P. Vs. Chaman Lal decided on 24th September 2013 is accepted for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It was held by Full Bench of Hon’ble H.P. High Court in case cited supra that percentage of resin contents in stuff would not be a determinative factor of small quantity, above smaller quantity and commercial quantity. It was held that whole of the stuff is to be taken to determine the quantity i.e. smaller, above smaller and commercial quantity. Even as per notification No. SO2941 dated 18th November 2009 issued by the Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue entire mixture of any solution in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances’ cases would be a determining factor of small quantity above smaller quantity and commercial quantity. It is well settled law that ruling given by the Full Bench of Hon’ble High Court of H.P. is binding throughout the Himachal Pradesh till the ruling given by Full Bench of Hon’ble High Court of H.P. is not set aside by Hon’ble Apex Court of India. As of today ruling given by the Full Bench of Hon’ble High Court of H.P. Criminal Appeal No. 763 of 2002 titled State of H.P. vs. Mehboon Khan cited supra has not been set aside by the Apex Court of India and even as of today, operation of judgment announced by the Full Bench of Hon’ble High Court of H.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 763 of 2008, titled State of H.P. vs. Mehboon Khan has not been stayed by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India. Hence it is held that whole of stuff was to be taken to determine the quantity i.e. smaller, above smaller and commercial in the present case. The Full Bench of Hon’ble High Court of H.P. has overruled the ruling given by the Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court of H.P. in case reported in Latest HLJ 2010 HP 207 titled Sunil vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. 17. Learned trial Court has convicted the appellant to rigorous imprisonment of four years and also directed to pay fine of Rs. 40,000/- (Rs. Forty thousands only) for commission of offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 1 Kg and 200 grams charas was found from the conscious and exclusive possession of accused which falls in the category of commercial quantity. Sr. No. 23 of the Notification specifies the small and commercial quantity as per the Act. As per Section 20 (c) of the Act minimum punishment for recovery of commercial quantity is for a term which shall not be less than ten years but it may extend to twenty years and minimum fine is rupees one lac which may extend to rupees two lac. We are of the view that learned trial Court has committed illegality by way of imposing lesser punishment prescribed under Section 20 (c) of the Act. 18. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the convict that learned trial Court had granted adequate punishment in accordance with law is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. We hold that learned trial Court has not granted the minimum punishment prescribed under Section 20 (c) of the Act qua recovery of commercial quantity from the accused/convict in view of ruling given by the Full Bench of Hon’ble High Court of H.P. cited supra, titled State of H.P. vs. Mehboon Khan. Hence we hold that sentence imposed by learned trial Court warrants enhancement in the ends of justice. Findings qua grounds of Criminal Appeal No.404 of 2008 titled Ganesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. 19. Submissions of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant Ganesh that judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court is based upon conjectures and surmises is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Oral eyewitness examined by the prosecution 20. Submissions of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant Ganesh that judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court is based upon conjectures and surmises is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Oral eyewitness examined by the prosecution 20. There are two direct eye witnesses of the case namely PW2 HHC Rajender Singh and PW6 Ram Karan and both have stated in positive manner that contraband 1 Kg 200 grams was recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused. The evidence of both these witnesses is trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of the Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW2 Rajender Singh and PW6 Ram Karan. Oral corroborative evidence examined by the prosecution. 21. In the present case PW1 HHC Sobha Ram has proved the roznamcha in his testimony, PW3 HC Vipan Kumar has stated in positive manner that three sealed parcels and NCB form in triplicate, samples of seal impression ‘T’, copy of seizure memo and copy of FIR have been deposited by him in the malkhana. PW4 HHC Prem Lal the another link witness has stated that he deposited the articles in the office of FSL Junga and PW5 HHC Kashmi Ram the another link witness has stated in positive manner that special report was received to Dy.S.P.. Hence, we hold that prosecution has proved its case by way of oral corroborative evidence adduced by the prosecution. Documentary evidence produced by the prosecution 22. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that prosecution did not prove its case by way of documentary evidence is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Even documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution is Ext.PA copy of Rapat Roznamcha, Ext.PB specimen of seal impression ‘T’, Ext.PC seizure memo of charas, Ext.PF copy of RC, Ext.PG and Ext.PL copies of NCB Forms, Ext.PK copy of Special Report, Ext.PJ extract of Special Report, Ext.PM Rukka, Ext.PN Spot map, Ext.PO Arrest Memo and Ext.PP report of Chemical Examiner also proved the case of the prosecution without any reasonable doubt that contraband was recovered from the possession of the accused. Even as per chemical analyst report placed on record shows various scientific tests such identification, chemical and chromatographic were carried out in the Laboratory with Ext.P-1 under reference. Even as per chemical analyst report placed on record shows various scientific tests such identification, chemical and chromatographic were carried out in the Laboratory with Ext.P-1 under reference. The tests performed indicated cannabinols including the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol in the sample. The microscopic examination indicated the presence of cystolithic hair in the sample. The resin were found to be 33.57% in W/W in Ext.P-1. As per opinion of the Chemical Examiner the exhibit marked as P/1 is a sample of Charas. 23. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant Ganesh that there is no direct independent witness in the present case and on this ground, appellant/accused Ganesh is entitled for the benefit of doubt is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. PW2 H.C. Rajinder Singh eye witness of the incident and PW6 Ram Karan another eye witness of the incident have stated in positive manner that place where the contraband was recovered from the possession of appellant Ganesh was secluded place and independent witness could not be procured. Testimonies of PWs 2 and 6 that place was secluded and independent witness could not be procured are trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of this Court. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of PW2 and PW6 to the effect that no independent witness could be procured at the time of recovery of contraband due to secluded place. Hence we hold that non-procurement of independent witness at the time of recovery is satisfactorily explained by PW2 H.C. Rajinder Singh and PW6 Ram Karan in their oral testimonies. We also hold that non-procurement of independent witness at the time of recovery is not fatal to the prosecution case. 24. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant Ganesh that contraband was recovered from other person and was not recovered from the possession of appellant Ganesh is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons mentioned hereinafter. PW2 H.C. Rajinder Singh eyewitness of the incident and PW6 Ram Karan another eye witness of the incident have stated in positive manner that contraband was recovered from the possession of the accused in their presence. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of PW2 and PW6 who are direct eye witnesses of the incident. 25. PW2 H.C. Rajinder Singh eyewitness of the incident and PW6 Ram Karan another eye witness of the incident have stated in positive manner that contraband was recovered from the possession of the accused in their presence. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of PW2 and PW6 who are direct eye witnesses of the incident. 25. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that testimonies of PWs 2 and 6 are not sufficient to convict the appellant in the present case is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that conviction can be sustained in a criminal case upon the sole testimony of a single witness if testimony is trustworthy, reliable and inspire confidence of the Court. See: AIR 1973, S.C. 944 Jose Vs. State of Kerla, See: AIR 1957 S.C. 614 Vadivelu Thevar Vs. The State of Madras and See: AIR 1965 S.C. 202 Masalti and others Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh. It was held in case reported in AIR 1987 S.C. 1328 Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab that there is no hard and fast rule which could be laid down for appreciation of evidence and it is a question of fact and each case has to be decided on the fact as they proved in a particular case. 26. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant Ganesh that link evidence is missing in the present case and on this ground appeal filed by Ganesh appellant be accepted is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Link evidence PW4 Prem Lal and PW5 Kashmi Ram and documentary evidence Ext.PA to Ext.PP clearly corroborate the version of prosecution case, which inspires confidence of the Court and same are trustworthy and reliable. 27. Another submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant Ganesh that PW2 HC Rajinder Singh and PW6 SI Ram Karan are police officials and on the testimony of police witness, conviction could not be sustained is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons mentioned hereinafter. It was held in case reported in AIR 1973 S.C.2783 Nathu Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh that mere fact that the witnesses examined in support of the prosecution case were the police officials was not strong enough to discard their evidence. It was held in case reported in AIR 1973 S.C.2783 Nathu Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh that mere fact that the witnesses examined in support of the prosecution case were the police officials was not strong enough to discard their evidence. It was held in case reported in AIR 1985 S.C. 1092 State of Gujrat Vs. Raghunath Vamanrao Baxi that in appreciating oral evidence in criminal cases the question in each case is whether the witness is a truthful witness and whether there is anything to doubt his veracity in any particular matter about which he deposes. Where the witness is found to be truthful on material facts that is end of the matter. It was further held by Hon’ble the Apex Court that where the witness found to be partly truthful Court may take the precaution of seeking some corroboration and Court is not entitled to reject the evidence of a witness merely because they are government servants who in the course of their duties or even otherwise might have come into contact with investigating officers and who might have been requested to assist the investigating agencies. It was further held by Hon’ble Apex Court of India that it would be wrong to reject the evidence of police officers either on the mere ground that they are interested in the success of the prosecution and it was held that it is extremely unfair to a witness to reject his evidence by merely giving him a label. 28. We have carefully perused the judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court and found that learned trial Court has considered the oral as well as documentary evidence in detail while convicting appellant Ganesh. However, learned trial Court has not awarded minimum adequate sentence to appellant Ganesh Kumar as prescribed under Section 20 of the Act as the contraband recovered from exclusive and conscious possession of appellant Ganesh Kumar falls in the category of commercial quantity. We are of the opinion that business of charas is spoiling the youth of the Nation and youth of the Nation is wealth of the Nation. No individual person can be allowed to acquire monetary gain at the cost of wealth of the Nation i.e. youths. 29. We are of the opinion that business of charas is spoiling the youth of the Nation and youth of the Nation is wealth of the Nation. No individual person can be allowed to acquire monetary gain at the cost of wealth of the Nation i.e. youths. 29. In view of our above findings, we allow Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2008 titled State of H.P. vs. Ganesh Kumar on ground of inadequacy of sentence and hold that enhancement of sentence is expedient in the ends of justice. 30. We dismiss the Criminal Appeal No. 404 of 2008, titled Ganesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. Certified copy of this judgment be placed in Criminal Appeal No. 404 of 2008, titled Ganesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. 31. Let convict Ganesh Kumar be produced before us on 19-6-2014 for hearing upon enhancement of sentence.