JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. State has appealed against the judgment dated 25.10.2010 of the learned Special Judge, Fast Track, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, passed in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2010, titled as State v. Jiwan Lal, challenging the acquittal of respondent Jiwan Lal (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who stands charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 1.9.2009, ASI Bhupinder Singh, HHC Hem Raj and Constable Bhagat Ram, left Ghiyagi for Sajwar. At about 3.30 p.m., accused, who was coming from opposite side, seeing the police party, got frightened and tried to flee away. On suspicion, he was apprehended and after informing him of his statutory rights and obtaining his consent vide Memo (Ex. PW-1/A), searched him. Though nothing was recovered from the body of the accused, but however, from the Pithu (Ex. P-2), opium, wrapped in polythene, was recovered. Upon weighment, it was found to be of 2 kgs. The same was sealed with seal impression 'H'. NCB form (Ex. PW-2/A) was filled on the spot. Ruka (Ex. PW-2/B was sent through Constable Sobha Ram (PW-1), on the basis of which FIR No. 129, dated 1.9.2009 (Ex.PW-5/A), under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, was registered at Police Station Banjar (Seraj), Kullu. File was taken back to the spot. With the completion of formalities, accused was arrested. Case property was produced before Inspector Lal Singh (PW-5), who resealed the same with five impressions of seal 'D'. Relevant columns of NCB form were also filled by Inspector Lal Singh. Thereafter, the case property was deposited in the Malkhana. MHC Uttam Chand (PW-6) sent the sample, through Constable Noor Din (PW-7) for chemical analysis to Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga and report obtained. Special report (Ex. PW-2/A) was also sent to the Dy. S.P. Nihal Chand, which was received in his office by HC Harbans Kumar (PW-3). 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. 3. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 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. 3. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and statement of the accused under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and the material on record, trial Court acquitted the accused of the charged offence. Hence, the present appeal by the State. 6. We have heard Mr. Vikram Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, on behalf of the State as also Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate, on behalf of 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. In Prandas Vs. 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 S. 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 S. 417, Criminal P.c. in an appeal from an order of acquittal has been stated in - Sheo Swarup and Others vs. The King-Emperor, AIR 1934 227 (Privy Council), 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 recognized in the administration of justice." 9. In the instant case, we find the police officials to have contradicted themselves, as also their testimonies to be contradicted by the material on record. 10. Sobha Ram (PW-1) admits to be a permanent resident of Banjar, having visited the place several times. He is conversant with the area and its topography. His version that at the place where the accused was apprehended, road goes uphill towards Jalori, stands materially contradicted by the spot map, wherein it is reflected the other way around. Also, direction of foot path is not correctly reflected in the spot map. His version that foot path is towards the eastern side is materially contradicted by the spot map, which depicts it on the western side. In fact, witness admits the spot map not depicting true position on the spot. Also, direction of foot path is not correctly reflected in the spot map. His version that foot path is towards the eastern side is materially contradicted by the spot map, which depicts it on the western side. In fact, witness admits the spot map not depicting true position on the spot. This renders genesis of the prosecution story of ASI Bhupinder Singh (PW-2) having visited the spot alongwith the police party, including PW-1, to be extremely doubtful. Not only that version of PW-1 of an electric transformer set up on the spot to have been contradicted by PW-2, according to whom neither there was any transformer nor any temple or water mill at the spot. 11. Sobha Ram admits that there is a Guest House of one Manohar Lal and that 40-50 persons reside in village Ghiyagi. Witness admits that the accused was apprehended after they had covered distance of 200 metres. Police party could have returned to Ghiyagi for carrying out search and seizure operations. According to Sobha Ram, he reached the Police Station, carrying ruka, in a jeep. To whom this vehicle belonged, whether any fare was paid or not, has not been so deposed by him. 12. According to ASI Bhupinder Singh (PW-2), no trace of any public path/road could be seen on the spot, which version stands contradicted materially by PW-1, who states that trace of road leads towards Sajwar Bridge. Further, according to PW-2, there were no houses nearby, which version also stands contradicted by PW-1, according to whom there were houses, where foreign nationals were residing. 13. Contradictions do not end here. It is not a case where police party had prior intimation of trafficking of any contraband substance. It has also not come on record that the area in question is prone to trafficking of contraband substance. It is also not on record that police party left Police Station, in connection with detection of crime of Narcotics. It is also not the case of prosecution that after the contraband substance was seized, scales were brought from third party. Prosecution wants the Court to believe that the police party was carrying I.O. Kit, in which scales were there. Now, there is nothing on record to substantiate such fact, except for the oral testimony of the police officials, in relation to which we also find there are material contradictions. Prosecution wants the Court to believe that the police party was carrying I.O. Kit, in which scales were there. Now, there is nothing on record to substantiate such fact, except for the oral testimony of the police officials, in relation to which we also find there are material contradictions. According to Sobha Ram, it was he who was carrying the I.O. Kit, whereas according to ASI Bhupinder Singh it was Constable Bhagat Ram who was carrying the same. Bhagat Ram has not been examined in Court. Why so? has not been explained. Bhupinder Singh categorically states that the accused did not carry out search of the I.O. Kit, which version stands contradicted by Sobha Ram, according to whom it was so done. Now why the accused was not allowed to the carry out the search, has not been explained by the Investigating Officer. 14. Further, Bhupinder Singh states that after the accused was arrested, his custody was not handed over to any person, which version stands completely belied and contradicted by Sobha Ram, who is categorical that accused was handed over to him. 15. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that the police party comprised of at least four police officials. In view of the contradictions, which we find to be material, rendering genesis of the prosecution story to be doubtful, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to have examined Hem Raj and Bhagat Ram, for they would have only corroborated version of either of the witnesses. Their non-examination in Court, to our mind, has become fatal. Record reveals that Bhagat Ram was given up as a witness, after recording of the testimony of Bhupinder Singh. 16. It is not a case of chance recovery. Accused was apprehended on suspicion. As has come in the version of PW-1, there were houses nearby, where people were residing. Now, why is it that police did not associate any person from the area in carrying out the search and seizure operations, has not been explained. Their non-examination, to our mind, has become fatal. 17. Further, prosecution has not disclosed the purpose of the police party for leaving village Ghiyagi towards Sajwar. 18. Now, why is it that police did not associate any person from the area in carrying out the search and seizure operations, has not been explained. Their non-examination, to our mind, has become fatal. 17. Further, prosecution has not disclosed the purpose of the police party for leaving village Ghiyagi towards Sajwar. 18. Hence, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence so as to prove that the accused was found in exclusive and conscious possession of 2 kgs of opium. 19. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the parties. 20. The accused has 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 Md. Ankoos and Others Vs. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., , 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 ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.