JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. Assailing the judgment dated 30.4.2011, passed by learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 11 of 2010, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Chainka Ram & another, whereby appellant-accused stands convicted for having committed an 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 10 years and pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, he has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 14.1.2010, at about 1.35 p.m. police party headed by Inspector Brij Mohan Sharma (PW-7), comprising of Constable Yog Raj (PW-1), HC-Ashok Kumar (PW-5), HC-Deep Kumar (PW-6), HC-Avinder Singh (not examined) and HHG-Sudershan left Police Station Tissa on a patrol duty, in connection with detection of crime. At about 3.45 p.m., when they reached at a place known as Maseu Naala, they saw two persons coming from Himgiri side. Seeing the police party, they got perplexed and tried to flee away but were apprehended by the police officials. On query, both disclosed their names as Chainka Ram (appellant herein) and Sanju Kumar (co-accused), respectively. Suspecting that they might be carrying some contraband substance, after apprising them of their legal right of being searched in accordance with law, both the accused, who consented to be searched by the police party vide memo (Ext. PW-5/A), were searched. Though from personal search nothing incriminating was recovered but however, from the sack so carried by Chainka Ram, charas in the shape of sticks was recovered, which upon weighment was found to be of 16.2 kilograms. The sack was sealed with five seals of seal impression – P. Specimen of seal impression (Ext. PW-5/C) was taken on a piece of cloth. NCB forms (Ext.PW-4/F), in triplicate, were filled up on the spot and contraband substance seized vide memo (Ext. PW-5/D). Inspector Brij Mohan Sharma sent Ruka (Ext. PW-2/A) through HC-Deep Kumar (PW-6), on the basis of which HC-Madan Lal (PW-4) registered F.I.R. No. 8/2010, dated 14.1.2010 (Ext. PW-4/A) at Police Station Tissa, Distt. Chamba, H.P., under the provisions of Sections 20 and 29 of the Act. PW-5/D). Inspector Brij Mohan Sharma sent Ruka (Ext. PW-2/A) through HC-Deep Kumar (PW-6), on the basis of which HC-Madan Lal (PW-4) registered F.I.R. No. 8/2010, dated 14.1.2010 (Ext. PW-4/A) at Police Station Tissa, Distt. Chamba, H.P., under the provisions of Sections 20 and 29 of the Act. Necessary investigation was also conducted and completed on the spot. Also accused were arrested. Case property along with the NCB forms was handed over to HC-Madan Lal (PW-4), also officiating as MHC at the police station, who kept the same in the maalkhana. Special Report (Ext. PW-2/B) was sent to the superior officer which was received in the office of the Superintendent of Police Chamba by HC-Subhash Sharma (PW-2). For Chemical analysis, Const. Som Parkash (PW-3) took the parcel along with NCB forms and deposited the same at the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga. Report (Ext. PX) so received was taken on record. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused Chainka Ram (appellant herein) was charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Section 20 and 29 of the Act and his co-accused Sanju Kumar was charged for having committed an offence punishable under 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 as many as seven witnesses and statements of both the appellant-accused as also his co-accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded, in which appellant took the following defence: “I am innocent. I alongwith my son were picked up by the police from our home and taken to Tissa where a false case was planted.” In defence he also examined Jaram Singh (DW-1), Sudershan Kumar (DW-2) and Amar Singh (DW-3), as witnesses. 5. Appreciating the material on record, including the testimonies of the witnesses, trial Court found the prosecution not to have proved the charge so framed under Section 29 of the Act, as such, both the appellant as also co-accused were acquitted. However, appellant Chainka Ram was found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act and thus sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal. 6. We have extensively heard learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the record. 7. However, appellant Chainka Ram was found guilty of having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act and thus sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal. 6. We have extensively heard learned counsel appearing on both sides and perused the record. 7. Learned Additional Advocate General, under instructions, has clarified that no appeal either stands filed or is sought to be filed against the judgment of acquittal of the other accused person. Also finding qua acquittal of appellant, with respect to other charge, is also not assailed. 8. Before us, Mr. Ajay Chandel, learned counsel for the appellant has made the following submissions: (i) Testimony of police officials being contradictory in nature, renders the genesis of the prosecution case to be doubtful. In any event their version stands belied by a member of the raiding party who was so examined in defence as DW-2; (ii) Record reveals that though police had prior information, yet they did not take any action under Section 42 of the Act, rendering the prosecution case to be fatal; (iii) Prosecution version of having searched the accused only after complying with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, is not borne out from the record; and (iv) In view of the law laid down by this Court in Cr. Appeal No. 178 of 2012, titled as Pawan Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, accused is liable to be acquitted even with regard to the charge so framed under Section 20 of the Act. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, learned Addl. Advocate General has supported the judgment for the reasons set out therein. 10. Undisputedly, prosecution has not examined any independent witness. Recovery was also not effected from the conscious possession of the appellant in the presence of any independent witness. In order to establish its case, beyond reasonable doubt, prosecution has referred to and relied upon the testimonies of police officials namely Constable Yog Raj (PW-1), HC-Ashok Kumar (PW-5), HC-Deep Kumar (PW-6) and Inspector Brij Mohan Sharma (PW-7). 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. 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. 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. 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. In view of the aforesaid statement of law, we shall now examine the testimony of police officials. 16. Inspector Brij Mohan Sharma (PW-7) categorically states that in his officiating capacity as the Station House Officer of Police Station Tissa, on 14.1.2010, he along with police party comprising HC-Ashok, HC-Avinder Singh, Const. Yog Raj, Const. Deep Kumar and HHG Sudershan left towards Nakrod and Himgiri area in connection with patrol duty. Entry (Ext. PW-4/G) was made in the record. At about 3.45 p.m., when police party reached at Maseu Naala, both the accused were seen coming from Himgiri side. Seeing the police party, accused got frightened and were nabbed. Accused Chainka Ram was carrying a ‘boru’ (sack) on his shoulder. Entry (Ext. PW-4/G) was made in the record. At about 3.45 p.m., when police party reached at Maseu Naala, both the accused were seen coming from Himgiri side. Seeing the police party, accused got frightened and were nabbed. Accused Chainka Ram was carrying a ‘boru’ (sack) on his shoulder. Suspecting that they may be carrying some contraband substance, he apprised the accused of their legal rights of being searched in accordance with the provisions of law. After obtaining their consent (Ext. PW-5/A), accused were searched. Prior thereto, police officials also gave their personal search to the accused vide memo (Ext.PW-5/B). From the ‘boru’ which Chainka Ram was carrying, charas in the shape of sticks was recovered. The same was weighed with the help of scale and weights so carried by the witness in the investigating kit and found to be 16.2 kilograms. Charas so recovered was packed in the same ‘boru’ and sealed with five impressions of Seal-P, sample of which was also taken on a piece of cloth (Ext. PW-5/C). Relevant columns of the NCB form (Ext. PW-4/F) were filled up and seal handed over to HC-Ashok Kumar. He sent ruka (Ext. PW-7/A) through Const. Deep Kumar. With the registration of F.I.R., further proceedings were completed on the spot. Accused were arrested vide memos (Ext. PW-5/E and 5/F). The sample seals, NCB forms as also the sealed contraband substance were handed over to the MHC. He also sent special report (Ext. PW-2/B) through HHG-Sanjay Kumar to the superior officer. Report (Ext. PW) of the State Forensic Science Laboratory was also taken on record. In our considered view, witness has withstood the test of cross examination. His testimony cannot be said to be false, unbelievable or to have been impeached in any manner. He is the Station House Officer of the police station. At all times he complied with all the statutory provisions. 17. Significantly testimony of Inspector Brij Mohan Sharma stands corroborated by Constable Yog Raj (PW-1), HC-Ashok Kumar (PW-5) and HC-Deep Kumar (PW-6). From the conjoint reading of their testimonies prosecution case cannot be said to be rendered doubtful. Their testimonies are natural, cogent and consistent. 18. Contradictions, in our considered view, are minor. They are with regard to the exact time, which the police party spent in conducting the search and seizure operations. From the conjoint reading of their testimonies prosecution case cannot be said to be rendered doubtful. Their testimonies are natural, cogent and consistent. 18. Contradictions, in our considered view, are minor. They are with regard to the exact time, which the police party spent in conducting the search and seizure operations. Whereas according to Inspector Brij Mohan Sharma it took them 15 – 20 minutes to weigh the charas, HC-Deep Kumar states the time to be one and a half hour. Variation in time, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be substantial rendering the prosecution case to be doubtful. Benefit of loss of memory has to be given to the witnesses. In any event, on the material aspect of recovery of the contraband substance from the conscious possession of the accused, there is no contradiction. All the witnesses universally state that appellant herein was carrying the ‘boru’ from which contraband substance in question was recovered. No doubt these witnesses have proved presence of co-accused Sanju on the spot, but then trial Court has acquitted him of the charge of abetment and conspiracy. With respect to the said charge nothing was stated by the witnesses. It is not as though they have falsely deposed in Court. In the instant case, charge under Section 20 of the Act stands conclusively proved against the present appellant. 19. The witnesses have explained that so long as they remained on the spot, none else met them. From the testimony of Inspector Brij Mohan Sharma it has come on record that the place in question is in a remote area and only vehicles of N.H.P.C. (which has set up a Hydro Electric Power Project in this remote corner of the State), ply there. It stands clarified that even at that time no vehicle passed by. Thus there was no question of associating any independent witness for carrying out search and seizure operations. The witnesses have also disclosed that scale and weights were kept in the I.O. Kit. 20. We find that the incident in question was immediately reported to the superior authority as is evident from the testimony of HC-Suhash Sharma (PW-2) who categorically states that Special Report (Ext. PW-2/B) was promptly placed before the Superintendent of Police, Chamba. 21. Police party, as has come on record, did not have any definite information of the accused dealing in the trade of contraband substance. PW-2/B) was promptly placed before the Superintendent of Police, Chamba. 21. Police party, as has come on record, did not have any definite information of the accused dealing in the trade of contraband substance. Recovery was not effected from the house of the accused or any enclosed place. It is a case of chance recovery. By chance, accused were seen by the police party and on suspicion apprehended. This was when accused became perplexed and tried to run away. Thus there is no infraction of any provisions of the Act. 22. From memo (Ext. PW-5/A) it is evident that appellant was informed of his statutory right of being searched by a Magistrate, Gazetted Officer or police officials present on the spot. Accused consented to be searched by the S.H.O., who was otherwise duly authorized to do so. Appellant Chainka Ram, being illiterate put his thumb impression on the memo. It stands explained by the police officials that he was explained the contents of the consent memo. Though such fact is not so recorded therein, but is established from uncontroverted testimonies of police officials. In any event, non compliance of Section 50 of the Act, would in no manner render the prosecution case to be fatal for it is not a case of personal search but recovery effected from the ‘boru’ carried by the appellant. 23. We find the defence of the accused not to have been probablized at all, nor can it be said that testimonies of prosecution witnesses stand belied and/or controverted by defence witness Sudershan Kumar (DW-2). 24. Record reveals that Const. Omkar Singh and HHG Sudershan Kumar were given up by the prosecution for their testimonies would have been repetitive in nature. However, Sudershan Kumar (DW-2) stands examined in Court as a defence witness. Careful reading of his testimony reveals and uncontrovertedly establishes the following facts: (i) Accused were nabbed at Maseu Naala. This was on 14.1.2010 at 3.45 p.m.; (ii) At that time witnesses HC-Ashok Kumar (PW-5), HC-Avinder, Constable Yog Raj (PW-1) and Deep Kumar (PW-6) were present; (iii) Appellant Chainka Ram and his co-accused Sanju were coming from Himgiri side; (iv) Accused were not nabbed on the road but at a place which was on a walking trail of 2 k.m.; and (v) At that time Chainka Ram was carrying a ‘boru’. In fact he corroborates the prosecution witnesses, rendering the defence taken by the accused to be false. In the teeth of this admission so made by him, his version, that all proceedings were completed at Police Station Tissa where accused were brought, is uninspiring in confidence, more so, when he admits that he remained present outside the police station and was not aware of any proceedings which took place inside. On the question of recovery proceedings we are inclined to rely upon the testimony of police officials. 25. Through the testimony of Jaram Singh (DW-1), appellant wants the court to believe that on 14.1.2010 police party came in a vehicle and forcibly took away the appellant and his son (co-accused) from village Shimni. We do not find this version to be inspiring in confidence. He is the vice president of the very same gram panchayat and wants the court to believe that though he had come to Chamba to report the matter to the Superintendent of Police but since the officer was not present, he could not do so. After all, Superintendent of Police is not the only person with whom report could be lodged. He could have conveniently reported the matter to the police at Police Station Tissa, Sub Divisional Magistrate Chamba or any other officer. Also it is not his specific case that it is the police or the police officials so examined in court who forcibly took away the accused from village Shimni. He simply states that three persons in plain clothes, came in a vehicle (white commander) and took away the accused. Neither he is aware of their identity nor does he know the number of the vehicle. Thus this witness, in no manner, probablizes the defence of the accused. 26. Testimony of Amar Singh (DW-3) is to similar effect. Even he could not state as to who were the persons who took the accused from village Shimni. He is not aware of the number of the vehicle. Also he did not report the matter to anyone. 27. Significantly even the appellant did not protest his alleged forcible arrest at the time when he was produced before the Court. 28. We find the prosecution case to have been established even by way of link evidence. He is not aware of the number of the vehicle. Also he did not report the matter to anyone. 27. Significantly even the appellant did not protest his alleged forcible arrest at the time when he was produced before the Court. 28. We find the prosecution case to have been established even by way of link evidence. MHC (PW-4) categorically states that after receiving the contraband substance as also the NCB forms, he recorded entry in the maalkhana register (Ext.PW-4/C). Alongwith the road certificate (Ext. PW-4/D) the seized parcel was handed over to Constables Som Parkash and Omkar Singh to be deposited at the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga. Such version stands corroborated by Som Parkash who is categorical that so long as the parcel remained with him, it was intact and not tampered with. It was deposited in the laboratory. From the NCB form (Ext. PW-4/F) as also report of F.S.L. Junga (Ext. PX) it is apparent that the parcel contained the seals of impression-P and the contraband substance was extract of cannabis and sample of Charas. 29. In Pawan Kumar (supra), the Court has not laid down the law that if the accused or a co-convict is acquitted under Section 29, he must, under all circumstances, be also acquitted in relation to an offence, punishable under Section 20 of the Act. Charges framed under the provisions of Sections 20 and 29 are different, distinct and separate. 30. Thus, from the material placed on record, it stands established by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence that contraband substance i.e. charas weighing 16.2 kilograms was recovered from the conscious possession of Chainka Ram who in no manner has rebutted the statutory presumption. 31. For all the aforesaid reasons, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence placed on record by the parties. There is no illegality, irregularity, perversity in correct and/or in complete appreciation of the material so placed on record by the parties. Findings of conviction cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any. Records of the Court below be immediately sent back.