JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. - State has appealed against the judgment dated 1.5.2010 of the learned Special Judge, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, passed in Sessions Trial No. 40 of 2009, titled as State of H.P. v. Gauri Dass alias Goru Dass, challenging the acquittal of respondent Gauri Dass (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who stands charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, and Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the N.D.P.S. Act). 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 29.9.2009, when ASI Karan Singh (PW-8), alongwith HC Madho Ram (PW-2), Constable Yakub Mohammed (PW-1), Constable Ghinder Dutt (PW-3), was on patrol/checking duty at Sillagharat, at about 3.30 p.m., when they received secret information that accused was dealing in an illicit trade of liquor. Ruka (Ex.PW-8/A) was sent to Police Station, Sadar (Chamba), through Constable Ghinder Dutt, on the basis of which FIR No. 231, dated 29.9.2009 (Ex. PW-8/B), under the provisions of Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, was registered there. Independent witness Hitesh Kumar (PW-10) was associated by ASI Karan Singh and shop of the accused was searched. Seven bottles of country liquor labeled 'Una No. 1' and three bottles of foreign liquor labeled 'Aristocrat', placed in a gunny bag, were recovered. Also from the counter, charas in the shape of sticks was recovered, which upon weighment was found to be of 200 grams. Charas and the alcohol were sealed separately with seal impression 'K' and taken into possession vide Memo (Ex. PW-1/A). NCB form (Ex. PW-8/F) was filled up in triplicate. With the completion of formalities, accused was arrested on the spot. Contraband substance was produced before SI Atma Ram (PW-7), who resealed the same by affixing three seals of impression 'A'. Special report (Ex.PW-8/H) was also sent to the superior Officers. Contraband substance, i.e. charas, was sent for chemical analysis to the FSL, through Constable Madan Singh (PW-5) and report (Ex. PW-8/G) obtained. Similarly, Alcohol was also sent for chemical analysis and report (Ex.PW-8/J) obtained. With the completion of investigation, which prima facie revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, challan was present in the Court for trial. 3. Contraband substance, i.e. charas, was sent for chemical analysis to the FSL, through Constable Madan Singh (PW-5) and report (Ex. PW-8/G) obtained. Similarly, Alcohol was also sent for chemical analysis and report (Ex.PW-8/J) obtained. With the completion of investigation, which prima facie revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, challan was present in the Court for trial. 3. Accused was charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, and Section 20 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 ten 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 offences. Hence, the present appeal by the State. 6. We have heard Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, learned Additional Advocate General, on behalf of the State as also Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, 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. 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 that independent witness Hitesh Kumar (PW-10), who was also serving with the State Home Guards, has not supported the prosecution case at all. He was extensively cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, but nothing fruitful could be elicited from his testimony. Undisputedly, he is not a local resident. Through his testimony, it has come on record that there are 10-12 shops in the village, yet why no local person was associated as an independent witness, has not come on record. Be that as it may, witness admits that he was called by the police and asked to sign certain papers. He categorically denies any search and seizure operations having been carried out in his presence. Thus, two views have emerged on record. 10. The apex Court in Lal Mandi Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1995 SC 2265 , has held that in an appeal against conviction, the appellate Court is duty bound to appreciate the evidence on record and if two views are possible on the appraisal of evidence, benefit of reasonable doubt has to be given to an accused. 11. From the testimony of Constable Yakub Mohammed (PW-1), the fact as to whether police actually visited the spot and effected recovery appears to be doubtful. He does not know the topography of the area or as to whether the village is on the upper side or lower side of the road. He does not know the exact location of the village. 12. With regard to exact time which took place in completing the search and seizure operations, we find there is variation and contradictions rendering the story to be doubtful. According to PW-1, police completed formalities in 1-1 1/2 hour, and according to HC Madho Ram (PW-2), it was so done in 3-3 1/2 hours, whereas according to the Investigating Officer, it took 2-2 1/2 hours. Also, PW-1 admits that there are 5-6 shops adjoining to the shop of the accused, which fact stands categorically denied by PW-2. 13. According to PW-1, police completed formalities in 1-1 1/2 hour, and according to HC Madho Ram (PW-2), it was so done in 3-3 1/2 hours, whereas according to the Investigating Officer, it took 2-2 1/2 hours. Also, PW-1 admits that there are 5-6 shops adjoining to the shop of the accused, which fact stands categorically denied by PW-2. 13. It has come on record through the testimony of the police officials, present on the spot, that they did not know Hitesh Kumar personally nor were they aware about his credentials, then why is it that he alone was associated and no other shop-keeper or resident of the area associated during the search and seizure operations. It is not a case of chance recovery, but of prior information. There was enough time for the Investigating Officer to have associated such persons from the spot. This further renders the prosecution case to be doubtful. 14. Even by way of link evidence, we find the prosecution case to be doubtful. The seal with which the case property was sealed was not produced in the Court, as is so admitted by Constable Deepak Kumar (PW-4). Why so? has not been explained. Also, Road Certificate, vide which the contraband substance was taken for chemical analysis, has not been produced on record. Version of MHC Pawan Kumar (PW-6) of having also sent the sample containing liquor, vide very same Road Certificate, appears to be an improvement, as it was not so recorded in his statement Mark DA. 15. 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 has committed the charged offences. 16. 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., (2010) 1 SCC 94 , 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.