JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. 1. Assailing the judgment dated 25.5.2009, passed by learned Special Judge, Chamba, Division, Chamba, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 7 of 2009, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Rakesh Kumar, 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 rigorous imprisonment for two years, he has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 16.12.2008, police party headed by ASI Kuldeep Singh (PW-9), ASI Lal Singh, HC-Anirudh, Const. Yakub Mohammad (all not examined) and Const. Latif Mohammad (PW-1) were on a patrol duty on the Sidhkund – Mani Road in their official vehicle bearing No. HP48-0068, driven by Constable Neeraj Kumar (PW-2). At about 6.30 a.m. when they reached at a place known as Zero Point Bhamuie, they noticed that the accused who was carrying a bag, got frightened and trying to run away. On suspicion, PW-9 intercepted him. Further suspecting that the accused may be carrying some contraband substance, after apprising him of his legal right of being searched in accordance with law, accused, who consented to be searched by the police party vide memo (Ext. PW-1/A), was searched. From the bag (Ext.P-2), charas (Ext. P-4) wrapped in a polythene bag (Ext. P-3) in the shape of sticks and balls was recovered. Upon weighment it was found to be 3.8 kilograms. Two samples of 25 grams each were drawn and sealed with seal impression-A. Remaining bulk parcel was also sealed with the same seal impression. Specimen of seal impression (Ext.PW-1/C) was taken. NCB forms (Ext.PW-8/C), in triplicate, were filed up on the spot and contraband substance seized vide memo (Ext. PW-1/B). ASI-Kuldeep Singh sent Ruka (Ext. PW-9/A) through Constable Neeraj Kumar (PW-2), on the basis of which ASI Dharam Pal (PW-8) registered F.I.R. No. 258/2008, dated 16.12.2008 (Ext. PW-8/A) at Police Station Sadar, District Chamba, H.P., under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act. File was taken back to the spot and accused arrested. Necessary investigation was also conducted and completed on the spot. PW-9/A) through Constable Neeraj Kumar (PW-2), on the basis of which ASI Dharam Pal (PW-8) registered F.I.R. No. 258/2008, dated 16.12.2008 (Ext. PW-8/A) at Police Station Sadar, District Chamba, H.P., under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act. File was taken back to the spot and accused arrested. Necessary investigation was also conducted and completed on the spot. Case property along with the NCB forms was handed over to ASI-Dharam Pal (PW-8) who resealed the same with his seal impression-H, whereafter it was deposited with MHC-Kailash Chand (PW-4) in the maalkhana. Sample was sent for chemical analysis to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga through Constable Prabhat Chand (PW-5) and report (Ext. PX) received and taken on record. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. recorded, in which he took plea of innocence and false implication. In defence accused also examined Dinesh Kumar (DW-1) as his witness. 5. Appreciating the material on record, including the testimonies of the witnesses, trial Court convicted the accused for the charged offence and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal. 6. We have extensively heard learned counsel appearing on both the sides and perused the record. 7. 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. In order to establish its case, beyond reasonable doubt, prosecution has referred to and relied upon the testimonies of police officials namely ASI Kuldeep Singh (PW-9), Const. Latif Mohammad (PW-1), Constable Neeraj Kumar (PW-2), MHC-Kailash Chand (PW-4) and Constable Prabhat Chand (PW-5). 8. 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 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 overzealousness to an extent of his involving innocent people, in that event, no credibility can be attached to the statement of such witness. 9. 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. 10. 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. Such reliable and trustworthy statement can form the basis of conviction. [See : Govindaraju alias Govinda vs. State by Srirampuram Police Station and Another, (2012) 4 SCC 722 ; Tika Ram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 15 SCC 760; Girja Prasad vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 7 SCC 625 ) and Aher Raja Khima vs. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956]. 11. Apex Court in Tahir vs. 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." 12. In view of the aforesaid statement of law, we shall now examine the testimony of police officials. 13. ASI-Kuldeep Singh states that on 16.12.2008 at about 6.30 a.m. when he reached Zero Point Bhamuie, he saw the accused carrying a bag. When accused tried to flee away he was apprehended and disclosed his name and address. The Investigating Officer identifies the accused to be the very same person. He further states that the accused, who was apprised of his statutory right, opted to be searched by him vide memo (Ext. PW1/A). Before conducting search and seizure operations, he also got himself searched from the accused. On search, from the bag (Ext. P-2), so carried by the accused, charas (Ext. P-4), in the shape of sticks and balls, wrapped in a polythene bag (Ext.P-3), was recovered. With the scale carried by him in the investigating kit, contraband substance was weighed and found to be 3.8 kilograms. On search, from the bag (Ext. P-2), so carried by the accused, charas (Ext. P-4), in the shape of sticks and balls, wrapped in a polythene bag (Ext.P-3), was recovered. With the scale carried by him in the investigating kit, contraband substance was weighed and found to be 3.8 kilograms. He drew two samples of 25 grams each and sealed it with seal impression-A. Also remaining bulk parcel was sealed with the very same seal impression. He sent ruka (Ext. PW-9/A) to the police station through Constable Neeraj Kumar. Upon receipt of the case file, on the spot, he completed the necessary formalities. NCB forms were prepared on the spot. After arresting the accused he handed over the case property as also the NCB forms to ASI Dharam Pal who resealed the parcels with his own seal impression-H. 14. We find version of this witness to be materially corroborated by Constables Latif Mohammad (PW-1) and Neeraj Kumar (PW-2), whose testimonies remain unimpeached in their cross examination. 15. Learned counsel invites our attention to the contradictions in the testimonies of police officials who conducted the search and seizure operations. Much emphasis is on non association of independent witnesses. We find the same not to be material at all, rendering genesis of the prosecution story, in any manner, to be doubtful. ASI Kuldeep Singh has clarified that before the police party left the police station, entry of departure was made in the Daily Diary Register. Even on return it was so done. He clarifies that no independent witness could be associated for carrying out the search and seizure operations as none were available on the spot. Significantly it has come in the testimony of the witnesses that till such time the police party remained on the spot, neither any vehicle nor any person passed by. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the place of occurrence of the incident is not an urban area, but the remotest corner of the state, which in fact is lonely and without much habitation. PW-9 further clarifies that the nearest residential house was at a distance of more than one and a half to two kilometers from the spot. 16. Significantly there is no contradiction with regard to the place and time of recovery of the contraband substance. 17. PW-9 further clarifies that the nearest residential house was at a distance of more than one and a half to two kilometers from the spot. 16. Significantly there is no contradiction with regard to the place and time of recovery of the contraband substance. 17. Contradictions, brought to our notice, pertain only to the manner in which the search and seizure operations were carried out. According to Const. Latif Mohammad (PW-1) search operations were carried out without the help of any artificial light as there was enough natural light, whereas, according to Const. Neeraj Kumar (PW-2) search light was used by them. Evidently this issue stands settled by ASI Kuldeep Singh, who in his deposition, has clarified that on 16.12.2008 at 6.30 a.m. it was not pitch dark as at that time there was enough light. He further clarifies that light of the vehicle was used to conduct the proceedings. 18. It be only observed that accused was apprehended and proceedings took place just at the break of dawn when there is enough natural light. In the hills prior to rising of the sun there is ample natural light. Thus police party carried out the proceedings at the time when though there was enough natural light, also used artificial light on the spot. Accused was apprehended at 6.30 a.m. and it took some time for the police to interrogate, and then carry out search and seizure operations on the spot. Possibly when the accused was apprehended it was dark but at the time when he was searched and papers prepared, day had broken and there was enough natural light for the police to have conducted the investigation. 19. On the question of link evidence, learned counsel points out that there is contradiction in the testimonies of police officials with regard to the number of seals affixed on the sample. Having perused the material on record, we find this contradiction not to be fatal at all, for it stands clarified by ASI Dharam Pal and ASI Kuldeep Singh that they affixed their own seals bearing seal impressions “A” and “H” respectively. From the testimony of MHC-Kailash Chand (PW-4), it is evidently clear that the contraband substance deposited with him bore such seals. In the NCB forms, as also report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, there is reference of seal impressions “A” and “H”. From the testimony of MHC-Kailash Chand (PW-4), it is evidently clear that the contraband substance deposited with him bore such seals. In the NCB forms, as also report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, there is reference of seal impressions “A” and “H”. The difference is only with regard to the number of seals. Whether it is three or four. This, in our considered view, would not render the prosecution case to be doubtful at all. The difference is only of one seal and benefit of loss of memory can be given to the police officials, more so, when their testimonies were recorded after some time. 20. In the instant case non-production of the seal in Court, which was handed over to HC-Anirudh, cannot be said to be fatal for there is no doubt with regard to the impression of seal so put by different police officials. 21. Even by way of link evidence, we find the prosecution case to have been established on record. MHC Kailash Chand (PW-4) with whom the case property was deposited, as also Constable Prabhat Chand (PW-5) who took the sample parcel to the Forensic Science Laboratory, have categorically deposed that so long the parcel remained with them, it was kept in safe custody and not tampered with. 22. Entry recorded in the maalkhana register stands proved vide document (Ext.PW-4/A) and report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ext. PX) conclusively establishes the sealed sample, so recovered from the conscious possession of the accused, to be contraband substance. 23. It is next urged that there is difference in the weight of the sample so sent by the police for chemical analysis. Difference is not substantial. It is of three and a half grams only, which is explainable from the testimony of ASI Kuldeep Singh, who has clarified that the weighing scale kept by him was traditional and not electronic. 24. Through the testimony of ASI Kuldeep Singh it also stands proved that accused was apprised of his statutory right of being searched and was also informed of grounds of his arrest. Significantly at no point in time did the accused raise any protest against his false implication. 25. In the instant case prosecution has been able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, recovery of contraband substance from the conscious possession of the accused. Significantly at no point in time did the accused raise any protest against his false implication. 25. In the instant case prosecution has been able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, recovery of contraband substance from the conscious possession of the accused. In this backdrop, in our considered view, accused failed to discharge the statutory burden so laid upon him. 26. His defence that upon his refusal to furnish information of the persons dealing in drugs, police falsely implicated him, cannot be said to have been established on record by leading credible evidence. The only witness examined by accused is Dinesh Kumar (DW-1) who sates that Zero Point Bhamuie is about 200 feet from village Bhamuie where eight – nine families reside and during winters, day breaks at 7.30 a.m. But then witness clarifies by stating that such version is only on the basis of guess work and estimation. It is not the case of the accused that any of the police officials were harbouring any hostility towards him. Why would they falsely implicate him in a case of such like nature? Special Report (Ext. PW-6/B) was sent to the superior officer. 27. 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 accused was carrying contraband substance i.e. charas weighing 3.8 kilograms. 28. 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 applications, if any. Records of the Court below be immediately sent back.