Judgment Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed by the State against the judgment rendered by learned Special Judge (1), Kangra at Dharmshala in Sessions Case No. 51-N/VII/2005 whereby, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused for his having committed offences under Section 20 and 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Brief facts of the case which are necessary to determine the appeal are that on March 19, 2005 at about 3.30 p.m. PW-10 Inspector Nathu Ram alongwith other police officials was on patrol duty adjoining Bari Khad and temple. PW-1 Subhash Chand and PW-3 Narotam Singh both of them were going to Nurpur town on scooter stopped the scooter and commenced discussion with the police regarding the case. At about 3.40 p.m. one boy was noticed to be proceeding towards Bhari Khad on foot and on seeing the police he retraced and started fleeing. On his conduct arousing suspicion, the police apprehended him and on inquiry he disclosed his name as Harjeet Singh alias Lovely. He was asked to give his personal search in the presence of PW Subhash Chand and PW-3 Narotam Singh. He was asked vide Ext.PW-1/A to exercise his option to get his personal search done in the presence of an authorized officer. However, under memo Ext.PW-1/B he consented to be searched by Inspector Nathu Ram. Subsequently, PW-10 Nathu Ram and his accompanying officials gave their personal search to the accused under memo Ext.PW-1/C. Thereafter the personal search of the accused was carried out. On personal search of the accused, a polythene wallet was recovered inside his pants near the waist. On its inspection charas was recovered in the form of sticks and little orbs were recovered from it. Another polythene wallet of smaller size was recovered from the back right side pocket of the pants. On inspection it contained brown coloured powder, which was determined to be smack. On weighing charas was found to be 320 grams and smack was found to be 20 grams. From the recovered bulk charas two samples of 20 grams each were drawn and were separated. The remaining residue charas weighing 280 grams was kept inside the polythene wallet wherefrom it was extracted, whereas sample charas was put in two different polythene wallets. Besides two samples of five grams each were separated from the recovered bulk of smack weighing 20 grams. The remaining residue charas weighing 280 grams was kept inside the polythene wallet wherefrom it was extracted, whereas sample charas was put in two different polythene wallets. Besides two samples of five grams each were separated from the recovered bulk of smack weighing 20 grams. The samples of smack after being wrapped in two different polythene wallets were inserted in two match boxes and the remaining smack was packed inside same recovered wallet and was wrapped in a piece of cloth. The parcels of sample of charas and smack as well as the remaining charas and smack were sealed with seal bearing impression “M” and were taken in possession under memo Ext.PW-1/E in the presence of witnesses, namely, Subhash Chand and Narotam Singh. The specimen of seal impression was taken on a piece of cloth Ext.PW1/D. The parcel of bulk of charas was marked as “A”, the parcels of sample charas were marked as A-1 and A2, the parcel of bulk smack was marked as “B” and the parcels of sample smack were marked as B-1 and B-2. NCB form were filled in triplicate. Ruqua Ext.PW-2/A was sent to the Police Station, through constable Joginder Singh. However, the investigation of the case led the police to conduct the search of the residential house of the accused, in accordance with the procedure prescribed and during search of the residential house of the accused one little scale of brass and weights of 5 grams, 10 grams, 20 grams, 50 grams, two smoking pipes (chilams) two pieces of silver foil paper having smell of burn and one small diary in which datewise account of charas and smack and the words Badma, PW and Atta were scribed were recovered from inside the Almirah of the house of the accused. On inquiry Badma was revealed by the accused to be connoting charas, PW was revealed to mean Power smack and Atta revealed to mean poppy husk of opium. All the aforesaid articles were sealed in a parcel and taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW-1/F. Investigating Officer prepared site plans Ext.PW-10/B & Ext.PW-10/C of the place of recovery and the house of the accused and also recorded statements of the witnesses. The accused was arrested and on the basis of Ruqua Ext.PW-2/A formal F.I.R. Ext.PW-2B was registered against the accused. The accused was arrested and on the basis of Ruqua Ext.PW-2/A formal F.I.R. Ext.PW-2B was registered against the accused. The investigating officer despatched the sample parcel of charas to CTL Kandaghat and sample parcel of smack to CFSL, Chandigarh and on receipt of its reports comprised in Ext.PW-10/D and Ext.PW-10/E, respectively, challan was prepared against the accused and presented in the Court for trial of the accused on 3rd November, 2005. 3. The accused was charged for his having committed offences under Sections 20 and 18 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. On conclusion of adduction of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded wherein he denied the prosecution case and pleaded innocence. 5. On perusal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused. In appeal before this Court Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General has contended with force and vigour that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court below are not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather they are a sequel to gross mis-appreciation of the material evidence on record. Hence, he contends that the findings of acquittal be reversed by this Court by exercising appellate jurisdiction and be substituted by findings of conviction and concomitantly a proper sentence be imposed upon the accused/respondent. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has with considerable force and vigour contended that the findings of acquittal recorded by the Court below are based on a mature and balanced appreciation of the evidence on record and do not necessitate interference, rather merit vindication by this Court in appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing on either side and have with caution and care studied the evidence on record. 7. The contraband as recovered from the alleged conscious and exclusive possession of the accused, is, both charas weighing 320 grams and smack weighing 20 grams. 6. We have heard learned counsel appearing on either side and have with caution and care studied the evidence on record. 7. The contraband as recovered from the alleged conscious and exclusive possession of the accused, is, both charas weighing 320 grams and smack weighing 20 grams. The recovery of the aforesaid items of contraband as alleged by the prosecution to have been recovered from the purported conscious and exclusive possession of the accused, not only in the presence of the official witnesses yet, also in the presence of independent witnesses, namely, PW-1 Subhash Chand and PW-3 Narotam Singh. Hence, it has been contended that the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-3 comprise evidence of an untainted and impartisan character, hence, necessitated its being revered, rather being ousted as untenably done by the learned Court below. While analyzing the merit of the above contention of the learned Additional Advocate General, it is necessary to bear in mind the fact that the learned trial Court while discarding the testimony of PW-1 Subhash Chand, had, in its sagacity ousted his testimony on the score that his testimony was neither disinterested nor impartisan, hence, rendering the prosecution case to be lacking in veracity. Acquisition of taint of bias by their testimonies arose from the fact of the father of the accused having contested the election of Pradhan against him. Besides an admission on the part of PW-1 Subhash Chand of his having suspected that a case of power theft was registered against him at the instance of the father of the accused, disinvested this witness to don the mantle of a disinterested and impartisan witness. Hence, it was aptly concluded by the learned trial Court that his testimony was ingrained with the vice of inimicality, as such, was aptly recorded by the learned Court below to be necessitating irreverence. Even while omitting to accord credence to the testimony of PW-3 the learned trial Court had reasoned that, he, is a stock witness of the police. No evidence was adduced on the part of the prosecution to convey, that even while he denied the suggestion put to him by the learned defence counsel of his having appeared as a police witness in 10-12 cases, he had not appeared so, hence, was not a stock witness, as claimed by the defence. No evidence was adduced on the part of the prosecution to convey, that even while he denied the suggestion put to him by the learned defence counsel of his having appeared as a police witness in 10-12 cases, he had not appeared so, hence, was not a stock witness, as claimed by the defence. Consequently, for omission of adduction of evidence portraying impartisanship of PW-3 Narotam Singh or evidence belying the fact of his being a stock witness as canvassed by the defence. It is to be concluded, that hence, when cogent evidence had remained unadduced by the prosecution to belie the fact of his being a suspect witness, hence, lacking interestedness, as such, his testimony acquires the taint or hue of inveracity. Concomitantly, it is to be concluded, that the joining of interested or impartisan witnesses, at the instance of the police in the proceedings relating to search, seizure and recovery of the aforesaid articles of contraband, from the purported exclusive and conscious possession of the accused, was deliberate, to fasten coerced truth to the otherwise slanted prosecution version. It appears that both the PWs informed the police about the accused purportedly indulging in trading of contraband. Besides, both, as conveyed by the prosecution version had led the police to the house of the accused from where the items as disclosed, in memo Ext.PW-1/F were recovered. Both would have proceeded to lead the police to the house of the accused for conducting search and seizure and consequent recovery of the articles depicted in Ext.PW-1/F, only in the event of one of them, namely, PW-1 Subhash Chand, bearing inimicality towards the accused who for the reasons aforesaid had taken to with the connivance of the police, plant a false case to settle scores with the accused. It is also enigmatic that the police took to only associate PW-1 and PW-3 as witnesses to the purported search, seizure and recovery of the articles of contraband initially at Bari Khad, in whose vicinity a temple is located and continued to join them as witnesses, while carrying out search, seizure and recovery of the articles comprised in Ext.PW-1/F, from the house of the accused, especially when given the close vicinity of the site of occurrence to a temple where either its Pujari or devotees could easily have been associated in the proceeding relating to search, seizure and recovery of the articles of contraband. The implicit reliance placed by the Investigation Officer upon purported independent witnesses, renders the entire proceedings to be blemished. While concluding that their testimonies are heaped with a morass of skepticism, as a corollary then the prosecution version qua the manner in which the articles of contraband were recovered is, too, rendered vulnerable to skepticism. 8. Moreover, evidence exist on record qua the belated despatch of charas recovered on 19th March, 2005 near Bari Khad at about 3.00 p.m. from the alleged conscious and exclusive possession of the accused, to the laboratory, for analysis, in as much, as when it was recovered from the alleged conscious and exclusive possession of the accused on the date aforesaid, yet it came to be dispatched to CTL Kandaghat for analysis belatedly on 29th March, 2005. Apart from the above tainting delay in the purported despatch of sample of charas recovered, at the site of occurrence from the alleged conscious and exclusive possession of the accused what further raises eyebrows, is the fact as unraveled by a perusal of the report of CTL Kandaghat, comprised in Ext.DX, of only one sample of charas having been received at CTL Kandaghat and its weighing 15.894 grams. The aforesaid evidence on record belies the prosecution version of two sample parcels having been prepared from the bulk charas weighing 320 grams. The concomitant effect, is, that it renders doubtful the prosecution case. As a matter of fact, even the fact of bulk charas, weighing 320 grams having been hence, recovered from the alleged and conscious possession of the accused at the relevant time, at the site of occurrence and therefrom two samples weighing 20 grams each having been separated and each of the two samples being sent to CTL Kandaghat, for analyses and for opinion thereupon, is vulnerable to skepticism. The further corollary is that the genuineness of prosecution version of the bulk charas weighing 320 grams having been recovered from the purported conscious and exclusive possession of the accused is seeped in or is engulfed in a shroud of doubt and mystery. The further corollary is that the genuineness of prosecution version of the bulk charas weighing 320 grams having been recovered from the purported conscious and exclusive possession of the accused is seeped in or is engulfed in a shroud of doubt and mystery. What aggravates the aforesaid inference qua the infirmities aforesaid making inroads into the veracity of the prosecution version, is of even the single parcel of sample charas which at the time of its separation from the bulk charas weighed 20 grams, found to have been reduced in weight, to 15.1894 grams when received in the laboratory. Such reduction in weight, is, material. It has remained un-explained. Such reduction can be attributable to no other fact than that of the sample of charas as sent for analysis and for rendition of an opinion thereupon by the CTL Kandahat being other than the one which was allegedly recovered from the purported conscious and exclusive possession of the accused. The further inference which ensues therefrom is that the exercise relating to search, seizure and recovery of the contraband from the alleged conscious and exclusive possession of the accused, is, a mere mock. In sequel it has to be disbelieved. Moreover, hence, the accused remains unconnected with the consummate link. 9. In so far as two samples of 5 grams each of smack or heroine drawn from the bulk of 20 grams of heroine purportedly recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused at the site of occurrence, it is significant, to, mention that the aforesaid sample parcels were sealed with seal “M” and one sealed with seal “B”. Ex. PW-11/B which is the report of CFSL Chandigarh reports that the weight of one sample of smack was 4.9 grams and the weight of the other sample parcel was 3.96 grams. Even if the difference in weight qua one sample parcel is minimal, yet the reduction in weight of the second parcel from its original weight of 5 grams is, stark and glaring. It has remained unexplained. The reduction in weight of each of the sample parcels of heroine/smack, raises an inference of its being begotten, in sequel to some parcels other than the parcel allegedly recovered from the purported conscious and exclusive possession of the accused at the site of occurrence being sent for analysis. It has remained unexplained. The reduction in weight of each of the sample parcels of heroine/smack, raises an inference of its being begotten, in sequel to some parcels other than the parcel allegedly recovered from the purported conscious and exclusive possession of the accused at the site of occurrence being sent for analysis. Hence the accused remained unconnected with the consummate link, in as much as the aforementioned opinion of CFSL Chandigarh comprised in Ext.PW-11/B does not establish, hence, his guilt. Even otherwise Ex. PW-11/A, which is the report of CFSL, Chandigarh does not carry any worth, for omission of signatures on it of the Director, CFSL, Chandigarh. There is no wrangle that the report of CFSL, is, required to be countersigned by the Director for rendering it admissible in evidence under Section 293 Cr. P.C. Even if the noting portion of the file about the preparation of the report Ex. PW-11/A has been signed by the Director, yet such signatures on the noting portion of the file would not meet the requirement as envisaged under Section 293 Cr. P.C. of Ex. PW-11/A containing the countersignature, of the Director. In other words, Ex. PW-11/A ought to independently of the noting bear the countersignature of Director CFSL which it did not bear, hence, rendering it for want of compliance with Section 293 Cr. P.C. inadmissible, in evidence. Also then, consequently, Ex. PW-11/A cannot be read against the accused. The upshot of the above discussion, is, that there is neither any glaring nor stark error of mis-appreciation or non-appreciation of material evidence on record by the learned court below, rather the learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence in a mature and balanced manner. Obviously the findings of acquittal recorded do not warrant interference. 10. In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal and is accordingly dismissed.