JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. 1. Assailing the judgment dated 1.7.2014, passed by learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 2/3 of 2010, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surender Kumar and another, whereby respondents- accused stand acquitted, 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 2.10.2009 police party comprising ASI Ram Saran (PW-1), HC Madan Lal (PW-2), Constables Yash Pal, Ram Pal and Sanjiv Kumar (all not examined) and headed by SI Chaman Lal (PW-11) had set up a naaka at a place known as Sungal on National Highway No. 21. At about 12.15 p.m. accused came on a scooter bearing registration No. HP 31 1764 from the Ghagus side. Seeing the police party accused Surender Kumar stopped the scooter and along with pillion rider Jiwan Kumar ran away from the spot after parking the same on the road. Noticing the same, police party apprehended the accused and checked the scooter. From the netted basket, one polythene envelop containing charas was recovered. HC Madan Lal brought scale and weights from the shop of Rattan Chand (PW-3) and upon weighment, contraband substance was found to be 800 grams. In the presence of police officials, SI Chaman Lal sealed the same with seal impression-T and took into possession vide recovery memo (Ext.PW-1/B). The seal after its use was handed over to ASI Ram Saran. SI Chaman Lal filled up the NCB form (Ext. PW-9/A), in triplicate, on the spot. Thereafter, HC Madan Lal took Ruka (Ext. PW-2/A) which led to registration of F.I.R. No. 281 of 2009, dated 2.10.2009 (Ext. PW-6/A), at Police Station Sadar Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, against the accused, under the provisions of Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by Shyam Lal (PW-6). HC Madan Lal brought the case file back to the spot and accused were arrested. Information of their arrest was furnished to the persons of their choice. SI Chaman Lal deposited the contraband substance with MHC Dalip Kumar (PW-9) who deposited the same in the maalkhana. The contraband substance was sent through HHC Barfi Ram (PW-7) to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga and report of the chemical analyst (Ext. PW-11/B) obtained by the police. Special Report (Ext. SI Chaman Lal deposited the contraband substance with MHC Dalip Kumar (PW-9) who deposited the same in the maalkhana. The contraband substance was sent through HHC Barfi Ram (PW-7) to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga and report of the chemical analyst (Ext. PW-11/B) obtained by the police. Special Report (Ext. PW-4/A) was carried by HHC Ram Pal (PW-5) and received in the office of Superintendent of Police by Constable Rajesh Kumar (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. 3. Accused were charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined eleven 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. Though accused had expressed the desire of leading evidence, however, record reveals that no evidence in defence was led by them. 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. R.S. Verma, learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr. Kush Sharma, learned Dy. Advocate General on behalf of the State as also Mr. Varun Rana, learned Advocate, on behalf of respondent No. 1. 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. Undisputedly, prosecution has not examined any independent witness. Recovery was also not effected from the conscious possession of the accused in the presence of any independent witness. 10. In order to establish its case, beyond reasonable doubt, prosecution has referred to and relied upon the testimonies of police officials namely ASI Ram Saran (PW-1), HC Madan Lal (PW-2) and SI Chaman Lal (PW-11). 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 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. 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. 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 217 ]. 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. 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. In the instant case the genesis of the prosecution story of the police party comprising of ASI Ram Saran, HC Madan Lal and SI Chaman Lal having left the police station for traffic checking duty and setting up naaka appears to be doubtful. Presence of ASI Ram Saran on the spot appears to be doubtful. He is not certain about the exact location of the spot where the naaka was set up. He is not sure of the time when HC Madan Lal left the spot with ruka. He does not remember the name of the S.H.O. 16. That apart, we find that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of the police officials. 17. SI Chaman Lal (PW-11) states that on 2nd October, 2009, after recording entry in the daily diary (Ext. PW-8/A), police party left the police station and set up a naaka. At about 12.15 p.m. scooter driven by accused Surender Kumar on which co-accused Jiwan was sitting as a pillion rider was seen coming from Ghagus side. Seeing the police party accused stopped the scooter, parked it and ran away from the spot. However, on suspicion police party nabbed them. In the scooter accused had kept the contraband substance concealed in an envelop which was recovered by the police in the presence of police officials. Weighing scale and weights were brought by HC Madan Lal and upon weighment the recovered charas was found to be 800 grams. He filled up the NCB form on the spot and sent the ruka to the police station through HC Madan Lal. When the file was brought back from the police station, accused were arrested and information supplied to the desired persons. The contraband substance was entrusted to MHC Dalip Kumar (PW-9). Investigation revealed that Sh. Desh Raj (PW-10), registered owner, had sold the scooter to accused Surender Kumar. When the file was brought back from the police station, accused were arrested and information supplied to the desired persons. The contraband substance was entrusted to MHC Dalip Kumar (PW-9). Investigation revealed that Sh. Desh Raj (PW-10), registered owner, had sold the scooter to accused Surender Kumar. Special report was sent to the superior officer and after obtaining report of chemical analyst, challan was presented in Court for trial. 18. ASI Ram Saran (PW-1), HC Madan Lal (PW-2), have tried to corroborate such version. 19. However, close scrutiny of the testimonies of these witnesses would reveal that there are material contradictions, which as discussed herein below, would render the prosecution case to be extremely doubtful. The veracity of the statements of the witnesses stands shattered: (i) ASI Ram Saran (PW-1) states that the police party reached the spot at 12.15 p.m. whereas according to SI Chaman Lal (PW-11) it was at about 11.45 a.m. (ii) According to PW-1 naaka was set up at a place which was visible from more than 100 meters on both the sides. Whereas, according to PW-11 it was visible only up to 50 60 meters. (iii) According to PW-11 vehicles were challaned under the Motor Vehicles Act which version stands belied by PW-1 according to whom it was not so done. (iv) According to PW-11, the accused persons refused to divulge information with regard to the source of charas. Whereas, according to PW-1 and PW-2 no such interrogation ever took place. (v) PW-2 states that he reached the police station at 1.40 p.m. and after registration of the F.I.R. and preparation of the case file, which took about 45 minutes, left the police station at 3.15 p.m. which version stands contradicted by PW-11 according to whom HC Madan Lal (PW-2) reached the spot along with the case file (after registration of F.I.R.) at about 3.00 3.15 p.m. (vi) It has come on record that police party did not have any vehicle and HC Madan Lal travelled in a private bus. He does not disclose the number of the bus nor the fare which he paid. As such, his version of travelling by a private bus or returned to the spot in the like manner does not inspire confidence at all. He does not disclose the number of the bus nor the fare which he paid. As such, his version of travelling by a private bus or returned to the spot in the like manner does not inspire confidence at all. Now if HC Madan Lal had reached the spot at about 3.15 p.m., and as is so admitted by the police officials that all proceedings stood completed prior thereto, then what was the occasion for the police to have remained on the spot up till 4.30 p.m., for it is not the case of the police that after accused were arrested certain other vehicles were checked. This aspect only fortifies the defence taken by the accused as is so disclosed and probablized by prosecution witness Rattan Chand (PW-3) that in fact police had found the contraband substance from the naala and the accused who were students, stood falsely implicated. (vii) HC Madan Lal (PW-2) states that he left the police station at 3.15 p.m., whereas, SI Chaman Lal (PW-11) states that Madan Lal reached the spot along with the case file at about 3.00 3.15 p.m. (vii) HC Madan Lal (PW-2) states that he reached the police station at about 1.40 p.m. and left after 40 45 minutes, whereas, Shyam Lal (PW-6) has stated that PW-2 reached the police station with the rukka at 2.30 p.m. and left after 15 20 minutes which is a material contradiction and is fatal to the prosecution case. (viii) There is also contradiction in the testimonies of ASI Ram Saran (PW-1), HC Madan Lal (PW-2), SI Chaman Lal (PW-11) and Shyam Lal (PW-6) as to whether the NCB forms were sent along with the ruka or not. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-11 did not say that NCB forms were also sent to the police station along with the ruka, but PW- 6 states that PW-2 came with NCB forms and perhaps handed it over to the MHC. 20. These contradictions render the prosecution case highly improbable and doubtful. 21. There is yet another reason for disbelieving the prosecution story. According to SI Chaman Lal the contraband substance was sealed with seal impression-T which was handed over to ASI Ram Saran. In the instant case the original seal has not been produced in court. 20. These contradictions render the prosecution case highly improbable and doubtful. 21. There is yet another reason for disbelieving the prosecution story. According to SI Chaman Lal the contraband substance was sealed with seal impression-T which was handed over to ASI Ram Saran. In the instant case the original seal has not been produced in court. In the given facts and circumstances, in the light of the ratio of law laid down in Mohammad Rafik v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2014 (3) Him. L.R. (DB) 1391, non production of the original seal renders the production case to be doubtful. 22. Noticeably, as already observed, in the instant case no independent witness was associated or examined by the police. Failure thereof, was sought to be explained by deposing that though vehicles were stopped, however, occupants thereof refused to associate themselves in the investigation. This version we do not find to be inspiring in confidence for the reason that police party was in uniform and did not take any action against such of those persons who were asked to associate themselves during investigation. After all the place where naaka was set up is a busy road and shops were nearby from where anyone could have been easily associated during search and seizure operations. Police did visit the spot of Rattan Chand for obtaining weights and scale. Even he could also have been associated in the investigation. 23. We further find that all the three NCB forms are not part of the record. SI Chaman Lal admits that two of such forms are not on record and no explanation is forthcoming for the same. He admits that columns No. 1 to 11 of the NCB form stood filled up by him on the spot and this was prior to the ruka being sent to the police station. Now if this were so, then how is it that number of the F.I.R. is recorded in the NCB form. Perusal thereof, reveals that all the columns including column No. 1, is scribed and filled up in the same ink and flow of hand. It appears to have been written at the same time by the same person and in the same flow of hand. Thus the possibility of the documents having been prepared at the police station cannot be said to be ruled out. 24. It appears to have been written at the same time by the same person and in the same flow of hand. Thus the possibility of the documents having been prepared at the police station cannot be said to be ruled out. 24. Even with regard to the information having been furnished to the superior officer, we do not find the prosecution version to be credible. The register maintained in the office of the Superintendent of Police whereby daily daak is received has not been produced nor is there any entry of the said report in the ordinary register. 25. We do not find prosecution to have proved its case, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing piece of evidence with regard to the recovery of contraband substance from joint, conscious and exclusive possession of the accused. Contradictions in the statements of the police officials are glaring, material and relevant, totally shaking the edifice of the prosecution story. Testimony of police officials, uninspiring in confidence, does not prove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. 26. 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. 27. 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.