JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. 1. Assailing the judgment dated 28.8.2008, passed by learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, Distt. Kullu, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 34 of 2007, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Vimal Kumar & another, whereby respondents-accused stand acquitted for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), 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 8.11.2006 police party headed by SI Ram Karan (PW-2), comprising of HC Rajender Singh (PW-1), HC Yogender Singh, HHC Tek Chand and Constables Guddu Ram and Om Chand (all not examined) were on patrol duty at place Pagal - nullah. At about 5.45 p.m. vehicle Maruti van bearing registration No. UP 14P 6479, which was coming from Sainj side, on signal was stopped. Accused Vimal Kumar was sitting in the van whereas accused Sunil Kumar was on the wheels. By associating independent witnesses Parshottam Singh (PW-7) and Mohar Singh (not examined), on suspicion, the vehicle was checked from which charas weighing 1 k.g. and 250 grams was recovered. Two samples of 25 grams each were drawn and along with the bulk parcel sealed with seal impression-T and seized vide memo (Ext. PB). Ruka (Ext. PG) sent through Constable HC Rajender Singh (PW-1), led to registration of F.I.R. No. 120 of 2006, dated 8.11.2006, (Ext. PN) by MHC Chaman Lal (PW-3) at Police Station Banjar, Distt. Kullu, H.P., against the accused under the provisions of Section 20 read with Section 29 of the Act. With the completion of proceedings on the spot, including filling up of NCB form, in triplicate (Ext. PC) and arrest of the accused, case property was deposited with MHC Chaman Lal (PW-3) in-charge of the Maalkhana. Constable Balbir Singh (PW-4) took the sample for chemical analysis to the Central Forensic science Laboratory at Chandigarh and report (Ext. PM) issued by Dr. R. S. Verma (PW-6) taken on record by the police. Special report (Ext. PL) was received by Subhash Chand (PW-5) in the office of Superintendent of Police, Kullu. Constable Balbir Singh (PW-4) took the sample for chemical analysis to the Central Forensic science Laboratory at Chandigarh and report (Ext. PM) issued by Dr. R. S. Verma (PW-6) taken on record by the police. Special report (Ext. PL) was received by Subhash Chand (PW-5) in the office of Superintendent of Police, Kullu. With the completion of investigation, which prima facie revealed complicity of both the accused persons in the alleged crime, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused were charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 read with Section 29 of the Act, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined seven witnesses and statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were also recorded, in which they took plea of innocence and false implication. No evidence in defence was led by the accused. 5. Court below acquitted both the accused for the reason that prosecution could not prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the present appeal. 6. We have heard Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Addl. A.G. and Mr. J. S. Guleria, learned Asstt. A.G., on behalf of the State as also Mr. Vinay Thakur, learned counsel for the accused. We have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. Having done so, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice. 7. It is a settled principle of law that acquittal leads to presumption of innocence in favour of an accused. To dislodge the same, onus heavily lies upon the prosecution. Having considered the material on record, we are of the considered view that prosecution has failed to establish essential ingredients so required to constitute the charged offence. 8. 7. It is a settled principle of law that acquittal leads to presumption of innocence in favour of an accused. To dislodge the same, onus heavily lies upon the prosecution. Having considered the material on record, we are of the considered view that prosecution has failed to establish essential ingredients so required to constitute the charged offence. 8. In Prandas v. The State, AIR 1954 SC 36 , Constitution Bench of the apex Court, has held as under: "(6) It must be observed at the very outset that we cannot support the view which has been expressed in several cases that the High Court has no power under Section 417, Criminal P.C., to reverse a judgment of acquittal, unless the judgment is perverse or the subordinate Court has in some way or other misdirected itself so as to produce a miscarriage of justice. In our opinion, the true position in regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code in an appeal from an order of acquittal has been stated in - 'Sheo Swarup v. Emperor', AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) at pp.229, 230 (A), in these words: "Sections 417, 418 and 423 of the Code give to the High Court full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, 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. To state this, however, is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of the appeal should and will act in accordance with rules and principles well known and recognised in the administration of justice." " 9. In the instant case, we find that not only independent witness Purshotam Singh (PW-7) but even police official HC Rajender Singh (PW-1) has not supported the prosecution. They were declared hostile and extensively cross-examined, but nothing fruitful could be elicited from their testimonies. HC Rajender Singh was declared hostile on the point of identity of the accused whereas Purshatam Singh states that no recovery and seizure operations took place in his presence and police made him sign the documents at the police station. The statement with which he was confronted was never signed by him. Crucially Purshotam Singh is not a local resident of the area. Police made no endeavour of associating any respectable person of the area in carrying out the search and seizure operations, for it has come in the testimony of HC Rajender Singh that office of the Tehsildar was just close by. The alleged recovery took place on 8.11.2006 at about 5.45 p.m. It is not the case of the prosecution that by that time, entire office had closed down and none else was available. 10. It is a settled proposition of law that merely because a witness has turned hostile, his entire evidence cannot be termed to be unworthy of credence. It is for the Court to consider, whether as a result of contradiction, witness stands fully discredited or part of his testimony can still be believed. If the credit of a witness is not fully shaken, Court can rely upon that part of the testimony which appears to be creditworthy. But in the instant case there is nothing, worthy of credence, in favour of the prosecution. From the testimony of independent witness, version different than the one which prosecution wants the court to believe, has emerged. 11. It is also a settled proposition of law that sole testimony of police official, which if otherwise is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other 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. 11. It is also a settled proposition of law that sole testimony of police official, which if otherwise is reliable, trustworthy, cogent and duly corroborated by other 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 the success of the case. It is only when his interest in the success of the case is motivated by over-zealousness 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. 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. 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 SC 87 ]. 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. 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. 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., (2007) 13 SCC 102 ; 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. v. State of A.P., (2009) 16 SCC 98 ; and Ram Singh alias Chhaju v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 445 ). 16. In Sheo Swaroop and 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 ). 16. 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...." 17. 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." 18. 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) 19. At this juncture, it be observed that prosecution has not examined other independent witness Mohar Singh, who was given up for having been won over by the accused. Now, there is nothing on record to even prima facie establish such fact. Presence of independent witnesses on the spot appears to be extremely doubtful. 20. In Gurmej Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 75, the apex Court held that dropping a witness on the specious plea that he was won over without laying the foundation therefor is generally to be frowned upon. But each case has to be considered on its separate facts. 21. In State of Rajasthan v. Om Parkash (2002) 5 SCC 745 , the Apex Court held as under:- "14. In State of H.P. v. Gian Chand [2000(1) SCC 71] Justice Lahoti speaking for the Bench observed that the Court has first to assess the trustworthy intention of the evidence adduced and available on record. If the court finds the evidence adduced worthy of being relied on then the testimony has to be accepted and acted on though there may be other witnesses available who could have been examined but were not examined." 22. Significantly except for SI Ram Karan (PW-2) no other police official stands examined in Court. Examination of other police officials would have only rendered support to the version of SI Ram Karan, which we do not find to be beyond doubt. 23. Even HC Rajender Singh is not sure on the point of recovery of exact quantity of the contraband substance. Further, his version of having left police station Banjar in connection with traffic checking duty is uninspiring in confidence and not supported by any corroborative evidence. 24. 23. Even HC Rajender Singh is not sure on the point of recovery of exact quantity of the contraband substance. Further, his version of having left police station Banjar in connection with traffic checking duty is uninspiring in confidence and not supported by any corroborative evidence. 24. 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 to the effect that both the accused persons conspired with each other to transport 1 k.g. and 250 grams of charas in maruti van bearing No. UP 14P 6479 in contravention of the provisions of the Act. 25. The Court below, in our considered view, has correctly and completely appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. It cannot be said that the judgment of trial Court is perverse, illegal, erroneous or based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of material on record resulting into miscarriage of justice. 26. 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 v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 SCC 94 , since it cannot be said that the Court below 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. For all the aforesaid reasons, present appeal, devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Records of the Court below be immediately sent back. Appeal Dismissed.