JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Since both these appeals arise out of the very same impugned judgment, they are being considered and disposed of together. 2. Appellant-convict Suraj Mal, hereinafter referred to as the accused, has filed Criminal Appeal No.379 of 2014, assailing the judgment dated 23.2.2008/25.2.2008, passed by Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, Himachal Pradesh, in NDPS Act case No.02 of 2006, titled as State v. Suraj Mal whereby he stands convicted of the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 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 three years and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 3. State has filed Criminal Appeal No.315 of 2008, seeking enhancement of the sentence so imposed by the trial Court. 4. It is the case of prosecution that on 16.10.2005, HC Tain Singh (PW-7), HHC Jia Lal (PW-1), Constable Puran Chand (PW-2) and Constable Mukesh Kumar were on patrol and traffic checking duty at Kot Nallah. At 2.15 p.m., they saw one person come towards Darog side. Noticing unusual behaviour, on suspicion, police party apprehended him. On query, he disclosed his name (Suraj Mal) and particulars. He was carrying a polythene bag, which, on suspicion, after apprising him of his statutory rights and obtaining his consent, was searched. From the same, charas weighing 1.250 kg was recovered. Two samples, each weighing 25 grams, were drawn, which were sealed with seal impression ‘H’. Remaining bulk parcel was also packed and sealed separately with the same seal. Specimen of the seal (Ex. PW-1/D) was also drawn. NCB form was filled up in triplicate on the spot. Ruka (Ex.PW-2/A) was sent through Puran Chand (PW-2), on the basis of which FIR No.76, dated 16.10.2005 (Ex. PW- 3/A), for offence under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, was registered at Police Station, Ani, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. Accused was arrested. With the completion of proceedings on the spot, case property was entrusted to SI Bhup Ram (PW-3), who resealed the same with his own seal of seal impression ‘X’ and deposited it in the Malkhana, which was kept in safe custody by MHC Hem Raj (PW-5). Sealed samples were taken for analysis to the CTL, Kandaghat and report (Ex. With the completion of proceedings on the spot, case property was entrusted to SI Bhup Ram (PW-3), who resealed the same with his own seal of seal impression ‘X’ and deposited it in the Malkhana, which was kept in safe custody by MHC Hem Raj (PW-5). Sealed samples were taken for analysis to the CTL, Kandaghat and report (Ex. PW-7/E) taken on record. Special report (Ex. PW-4/B) was received in the Office of Dy. S.P. by HC Prakash (PW-4). With the completion of investigation, which, prima facie, revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 5. Accused was charged for having committed an offence, punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 6. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and statement of the accused, under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was also recorded, in which he took plea of false implication. He also examined one witness in his defence. 7. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and the material on record, trial Court convicted the accused of the charged offence. After considering the decision rendered by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.190 of 2004, titled as Ram Lal v. State of H.P. and report (Ex. PW-7/E) of the Chemical Examiner, which proved the resin content to be only 27.07% and taking the quantity recovered from the accused to be small and not commercial, sentenced him as aforesaid. 8. Thus, State has filed Criminal Appeal No.315 of 2008 for enhancement of sentence and accused has filed Criminal Appeal No.379 of 2014, assailing his conviction and sentence. 9. Accused has assailed the judgment on the ground that (1) no independent witnesses were associated by the prosecution, which renders the prosecution case to be fatal; (2) number of the FIR so mentioned in the consent and recovery memos only establishes preparation of documents at the Police Station, rendering the prosecution case to be false; (3) in the absence of recovery of any other articles, including money, from the possession of the accused, recovery of the contraband substance also is rendered doubtful; (4) defence taken by the accused stands probablized through the testimony of defence witness. 10. Having heard Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Mr. 10. Having heard Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocates General, and Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, on behalf of the State as also Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate, on behalf of the accused, we are of the considered view that the judgment of conviction does not require any interference. However, insofar as question of imposition of sentence is concerned, in view of the changed position in law, appeal filed by the State needs to be allowed. 11. It is a settled proposition of law that sole testimony of police official, which if otherwise is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other witnesses or admissible evidence, cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a police official and may be interested in the success of the case. It cannot be stated as a rule that a police officer can or cannot be a sole eye-witness in a criminal case. It will always depend upon the facts of a given case. If the testimony of such a witness is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and if required duly corroborated by other witnesses or admissible evidences, then the statement of such witness cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a police officer and may have some interest in success of the case. It is only when his interest in the success of the case is motivated by overzealousness to an extent of his involving innocent people; in that event, no credibility can be attached to the statement of such witness. 12. It is not the law that Police witnesses should not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The presumption applies as much in favour of a police officer as any other person. There is also no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of a police officer even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. Rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. If such a presumption is raised against the police officers without exception, it will be an attitude which could neither do credit to the magistracy nor good to the public, it can only bring down the prestige of police administration. 13. Rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. If such a presumption is raised against the police officers without exception, it will be an attitude which could neither do credit to the magistracy nor good to the public, it can only bring down the prestige of police administration. 13. Wherever, evidence of a police officer, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and absence of some independent witness of the locality does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of the police officers merely because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. Such reliable and trustworthy statement can form the basis of conviction. [See: Govindaraju alias Govinda v. State by Srirampuram Police Station and another, (2012) 4 SCC 722 ; Tika Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 15 SCC 760; Girja Prasad v. State of M.P., (2007) 7 SCC 625 ); and Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956]. 14. Apex Court in Tahir v. State (Delhi), (1996) 3 SCC 338 , dealing with a similar question, held as under:- "6. ....In our opinion no infirmity attaches to the testimony of the police officials, merely because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent evidence. The Rule of Prudence, however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of their evidence, since they can be said to be interested in the result of the case projected by them. Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case." 15. Uncontrovertedly, HC Tain Singh (PW-7) states that on 16.10.2005, he was on patrol and traffic checking duty at Kot Nallah. Uncontrovertedly, HC Tain Singh (PW-7) states that on 16.10.2005, he was on patrol and traffic checking duty at Kot Nallah. At that time police officials HHC Jia Lal (PW-1), Constable Puran Chand (PW-2) and Mukesh Kumar were with him. At about 2.15 p.m., police party saw the accused coming towards Darog at Kot Nallah. Seeing the police party, accused got afraid, but however, on suspicion, was apprehended. On query, accused disclosed his name as Suraj Mal, resident of village Kalwa (Haryana). Accused was carrying a polythene bag with him. Suspecting that he may be carrying some contraband substance, police sought to search him. Accused, who was informed of his statutory right of being searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, consented (vide Memo Ex. PW-1/A) to be searched by the police officials present on the spot. From the polythene bag, charas in the shape of candles and balls, wrapped in a newspaper, was recovered. Upon weighment, it was found to be 1.250 kg. Two samples, each weighing 25 grams, were drawn. Samples as also bulk parcel were sealed with seal impression ‘H’ and taken into possession vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-1/C). Specimen impression (Ex.PW-1/D) of the seal was taken separately. Ruka (Ex. PW-2/A) was sent through Constable Puran Chand (PW-2) to the Police Station, on the basis of which FIR (Ex.PW-3/A) registered. With the receipt of the case file, after registration of the FIR, further proceedings were conducted. Accused was arrested and information of such arrest was furnished to his brother-in-law Sanjeev Kumar vide memo (Ex.PW-7/C). Accused was brought to the Police Station and produced before SHO Bhup Ram (PW-3), who also resealed the case property with his own seal of impression ‘X’ and filled up the NCB form. Special Report (Ex.PW-4/B) was sent through Constable Sunder Singh (PW-6) to the Office of Dy. S.P., Ani. Report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex.PW-7/E) was taken on record. The witness has proved bulk parcel (Ex.P-1), polythene bag (Ex.P-2) and sample (Ex.P-3). From the cross-examination part of his testimony, one cannot say that the credit of this witness stands impeached in any manner. He is cogent, clear and consistent in his version. His version cannot be said to be false, unbelievable or uninspiring in confidence. His testimony is also not shaky in any manner. 16. We find his version to have been corroborated, on all material points, by Jia Lal and Puran Chand. 17. He is cogent, clear and consistent in his version. His version cannot be said to be false, unbelievable or uninspiring in confidence. His testimony is also not shaky in any manner. 16. We find his version to have been corroborated, on all material points, by Jia Lal and Puran Chand. 17. Undoubtedly, no independent witness has been associated by the police, in carrying out the search and seizure operations. The issue as to whether in every case, and under the all circumstances, police must associate independent witnesses, while carrying out search and seizure operations, is no longer res integra. 18. Witnesses do state that the place where the accused was apprehended, was a motorable road, but then they have clarified that even though prior to the accused being apprehended, they had checked some vehicles, but however, no vehicle passed at the time when search and seizure operations were going on. Ruka (Ex. PW-2/A) clearly records the fact that Kot Nallah is in the middle of jungle and no independent witness could have been associated for carrying out search and seizure operations. It is a case of chance recovery. In one voice, all the witnesses have deposed that no other person was present on the spot, who could have been associated as an independent witness. 19. In this backdrop, non-association of independent witnesses, reason whereof stands sufficiently explained, cannot be a factor rendering the prosecution case to be fatal. Thus, the prosecution case solely rests upon the testimonies of the police officials, which we find to be fully inspiring in confidence. 20. Even by way of corroboration and link evidence, we find the prosecution to have also established version of the police party, who carried out search and seizure operations. 21. Bhup Ram states that on receipt of Rukka, he registered FIR (Ex.PW-3/A) and on 16.10.2005 itself, Tain Singh handed him three parcels sealed with seal impression ‘H’; NCB form in triplicate and sample seal. The sealed parcels were resealed with seal impression ‘X’, impression of which was also embossed on NCB form. The parcels, as also sample seal, were handed over to MHC Hem Raj (PW-5). The witness has produced sample seal (Ex.PW-3/B). 22. MHC Hem Raj further states that the case property was entered in the Malkhana register (Ex. PW- 5/A). The sample was handed over to Constable Puran Chand, vide Road Certificate (Ex.PW-5/B). The parcels, as also sample seal, were handed over to MHC Hem Raj (PW-5). The witness has produced sample seal (Ex.PW-3/B). 22. MHC Hem Raj further states that the case property was entered in the Malkhana register (Ex. PW- 5/A). The sample was handed over to Constable Puran Chand, vide Road Certificate (Ex.PW-5/B). The witness has clarified that so long as the case property remained with him, it was not tampered with. 23. Constable Puran Chand has clarified that he took the case property to the CTL, Kandaghat and so long as it remained with him, it was not tampered with. This witness has explained that after registration of the FIR, he took the case file to the spot and handed it over to HC Tain Singh. Thus number of the FIR being recorded on the documents of search and seizure operations, stands explained. There is no difference in the ink or the handwriting. In any case, it is not the suggested case of the accused that the police had forged the documents. 24. Contraband substance was recovered from the polythene bag carried by the accused. Hence, there is no question of the police having recovered any money or other material from the possession of the accused. Thus, contention only merits rejection. 25. There was no reason for the police to have falsely implicated the accused. It is not the case of the accused that police harboured any animosity resulting into false implication. He claims to be a resident of Haryana, a far of place. His presence on the spot remained unexplained by him. Had there been any intention of the Investigating Officer to plant the contraband substance on the accused, then he might have planted small quantity of Charas. 26. It is true that the accused is only to probablize his defence and not prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. 27. In Dharampal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 9 SCC 608 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, held that the initial burden of proof of possession lies on prosecution and once it is discharged legal burden would shift on the accused. Standard of proof expected from the prosecution is to prove possession beyond all reasonable doubt but what is required to prove innocence by the accused would be preponderance of probability. Standard of proof expected from the prosecution is to prove possession beyond all reasonable doubt but what is required to prove innocence by the accused would be preponderance of probability. Once the plea of the accused is found probable, discharge of initial burden by the prosecution will not nail him with offence. 28. Offences under the Act being more serious in nature, higher degree of proof is required to convict an accused. It needs no emphasis that the expression possession is not capable of precise and completely logical definition of universal application in context of all the statutes. Possession is a polymorphous word and cannot be uniformly applied, it assumes different colour in different context. In the context of Section 18/20 of the Act once possession is established, the accused who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it because it is within his special knowledge. Section 54 of the Act raises presumption of possession of illicit articles. 29. The Act creates legal fiction and presumes the person in possession of illicit articles to have committed the offence in case he fails to account for the possession satisfactorily. Possession is a mental state and Section 35 of the Act gives statutory recognition to culpable mental state. It includes knowledge of fact. The possession, therefore, has to be understood in the context thereof and when tested on this anvil, we find that the accused has not been able to account for satisfactorily, the possession of Charas. Once possession is established, the Court can presume that the accused had culpable mental state and had committed the offence. 30. In somewhat similar facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, had the occasion to consider this question in Madan Lal and another vs. State of H.P., 2003 (7) SCC 465, wherein it has been held that once possession is established, the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it, because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this position because of the presumption available in law. Similar is the position in terms of Section 54 where also presumption is available to be drawn from possession of illicit articles. (See also: Dehal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1139). 31. Section 35 of the Act gives a statutory recognition of this position because of the presumption available in law. Similar is the position in terms of Section 54 where also presumption is available to be drawn from possession of illicit articles. (See also: Dehal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1139). 31. In the present case, not only possession but conscious possession stands established. It has not been shown by the accused that possession was not conscious in the logical legal backdrop of Sections 35 and 54 of the Act. 32. Thus, the accused has failed to discharge the statutory burden. 33. Accused wants the Court to believe that on the day of the incident, he was traveling a bus, which was checked at Luhri and the police made him deboard the same on the pretext that Charas found in the polythene bag belonged to him. This was witnessed by Dinesh Kumar (DW-1), who states that accused had twice travelled in his taxi. He wants the Court to believe that he knew the accused. He states that on 16.10.2005, accused, who was travelling in Karana- Chandigarh Bus, was made to deboard the same at Luhri. Accused was saying that the polythene bag so carried by the police did not belong to him. 34. His version of the accused having travelled in his taxi does not inspire confidence. He does not even know the accused. He is not familiar with his name, parentage or address. He is not aware the dates of such travel. He is neither his associate or regular client. Accused hails from the State of Haryana. This witness is a resident of Ani and at the relevant time what was he doing at Luhri remains unexplained by him. Testimony of the witness cannot be said to be worthy of credence and inspiring in confidence; hence, not believable. 35. In this view of the matter, we do not find findings of conviction returned by the trial Court to be perverse, illegal or erroneous. Hence, the appeal filed by the accused, assailing his conviction and sentence only merits dismissal. 36. While sentencing the accused, trial Court referred to and relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in Ram Lal (supra). Similar view was taken by this Court in Sunil Kumar v. State of H.P., HLJ 2010 HP 207. Hence, the appeal filed by the accused, assailing his conviction and sentence only merits dismissal. 36. While sentencing the accused, trial Court referred to and relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in Ram Lal (supra). Similar view was taken by this Court in Sunil Kumar v. State of H.P., HLJ 2010 HP 207. However, correctness of ratio of law laid down therein, came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in State of H.P. v. Mehboon Khan, Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) (FB) 900. While taking note of various decisions rendered by the Courts of the land, as also reports of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, including Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, the Bench held such view not to be legal and sustainable. The Court categorically held that there is no legal requirement of the presence of particular percentage of resin to be there in the sample and the presence of the resin in purified or crude form is sufficient to hold that the sample is that of Charas. The law laid down by the Division Bench in Sunil's case to the effect that 'for want of percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol or resin contents in the samples analyzed, the possibility of the stuff recovered from the accused persons being only Bhang i.e. the dried leaves of cannabis plant, possession of which is not an offence, cannot be ruled out', was not held to be a good law and any such interpretation being legally impossible. The percentage of resin contents in the stuff analyzed is not the determinative factor of the nature of quantity, small or commercial. The Court further held that if in the entire stuff recovered from the accused, resin of cannabis is found to be present on scientific analysis, whole of the stuff is to be taken for determining the quantity to be small, above small but less than commercial/or commercial. 37. In view of the declaration of law, it cannot be said that the contraband substance, which was recovered from the accused, was not of commercial quantity. 38. Under these circumstances, appeal filed by the State for enhancement of sentence requires to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. 37. In view of the declaration of law, it cannot be said that the contraband substance, which was recovered from the accused, was not of commercial quantity. 38. Under these circumstances, appeal filed by the State for enhancement of sentence requires to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. Hence, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years, which is minimum punishment prescribed under the Act, and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- which is minimum amount specified under the Act. Failure to pay the amount of fine shall further entail simple imprisonment for a period of one year. 39. Accused has already served the sentence, so imposed by the trial Court and may not be in judicial custody. He is directed to forthwith surrender to serve the remaining sentence and pay fine. Both the appeals stand disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.