JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. This appeal has been filed by the State against judgment of acquittal passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Chamba, District Chamba in Sessions Trial No. 11/2007/06 dated 26.04.2007 vide which, the accused has been acquitted of the charge of having committed an offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. The case of the prosecution was that on 17.03.2006, a police party comprising of ASI Abhey Singh, Incharge Police Post, Banikhet, HC Roop Singh, Constable Mazid Mohammad, Constable Sanjay Kumar, Constable Vikas Dhawan and Constable Kamal Kishor was on nakabandi and traffic checking duty at Mail Road Chowk near Nanikhud at around 4:00 p.m. S/Shri Ranjeet Singh and Harbans Lal were also present there. They also joined the said police party. Further story of the prosecution is that at around 4:00 p.m., the accused who had hung a bag on his right shoulder came from Mail Road side towards Nanikhud and on seeing the police party, he (accused) got perplexed and tried to turn back. On suspicion that he might be carrying something illegal, ASI Abhey Minhas (PW-7) stopped him for checking. The accused disclosed his name as Shashi Pal and the bag which the accused was carrying was opened for checking. A polythene lifafa having charas in the shape of sticks was recovered from the said bag. ASI Abhey Minhas (PW-7) immediately deputed PW-2 Constable Mazid Mohammad and Harbans Lal to bring the weights and scale at the spot, who brought the same and thereafter, the charas which was recovered from the accused was weighed which turned out to be 2 Kgs. From the said recovered charas, two samples of 25 grams each were separated and the sample parts of the charas were put into two empty boxes of four square cigarettes which were then wrapped and sealed by affixing seal impression ‘C’. The remaining/bulk charas weighing 1.950 Kgs. was put in the same polythene lifafa which was recovered from the accused and then it was put in the same bag which was recovered from the accused. The same was also wrapped and sealed by affixing seal impression ‘C’. The specimen impression Ex. P3 of the seal used was taken separately on a piece of cloth and the seal after its use was handed over to Shri Ranjeet Singh. The same was also wrapped and sealed by affixing seal impression ‘C’. The specimen impression Ex. P3 of the seal used was taken separately on a piece of cloth and the seal after its use was handed over to Shri Ranjeet Singh. The parcels of charas were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW7/A in the presence of witnesses. The same was read over to them by PW-7, ASI Abhey Minhas and after admitting its contents to be correct, the said memo was signed by the accused and the witnesses. Copy of the recovery memo was supplied to the accused free of cost. Thereafter, ASI Abhey Minhas (PW-7) wrote ruqua Ex. PA and sent it through Constable Kamal Kishore (PW-3) to Police Station, Dalhousie for registration of FIR. On the said basis, FIR Ex.-PC was registered against the accused. Copy of ruqua which is Ex. PK was also dispatched by PW-7 to Superintendent of Police, Chamba through Constable Vikas Dhawan. Thereafter, PW-7 handed over the accused alongwith the case property and documents relating to the said case to HC Roop Singh (PW-9) vide inventory Ex.-PB for carrying out further investigation in the matter. Site map Ex. PW9/A was prepared by PW-9 Head Constable Roop Singh showing the place of recovery and arrest. The accused was informed about grounds of his arrest vide memo Ex. PW9/C. Jamatalashi of the accused was conducted by Head Constable Roop Singh PW-9 vide memo Ex. PW9/D and then the parcels of charas were produced before SI/Additional SHO Swaru Ram for resealing. SI Swaru Ram (PW-4) resealed the same vide memo Ex. PD and thereafter deposited the case property with MHC Ramesh Chand of Police Station after preparing reseal memo Ex. PD. One part of the sample alongwith relevant documents was sent by the police to the Composite Testing Laboratory, Kandaghat for analysis. Report of the Chemical Examiner was obtained and the said report for the trial of the accused was submitted in the Court. 3. As a prima facie case was found against the accused, he was charged under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution in all examined nine witnesses. 3. As a prima facie case was found against the accused, he was charged under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution in all examined nine witnesses. PW-1 Ranjeet Singh who was an independent witness of the prosecution and who according to the prosecution was the witness to recovery stated in the witness box that in the month of March, 2005, he was called by the police. The police had come to his shop in Nanikhud and nothing transpired in his presence. He was declared hostile and in his cross-examination, he refuted the entire story of the prosecution and maintained that nothing had happened in his presence and that the accused was neither apprehended in his presence not any charas was recovered from the bag of the accused in his presence. According to him, his signatures were taken on the document in the shop. 5. PW-2 Constable Mazid Mohammad stated in his deposition that on 17.03.2006, he alongwith ASI Abhey Minhas and other police officials was on patrol and traffic checking duty at Nanikhud mail road. At about 3:45 p.m., ASI Abhey Minhas was talking to independent persons and in the meanwhile, one person came from Mail road side, on whose right shoulder, a bag was hanging. When he saw police party, he turned back and on the basis of suspicion, that man was stopped for checking. On being asked, he disclosed his name as Shashi Pal (accused) and bag which the accused was carrying was opened and checked. During search, a polythene lifafa having charas was found in the bag. Thereafter, he alongwith Harbans Lal went to a shop to bring the weights and scale. He brought the weights and scale, whereafter the charas was weighed, which was 2 kgs. In his cross-examination, he has stated that Ranjeet Singh and Harbans Lal reached at the spot after about five minutes and the naka was laid at around 3:00 p.m. He had stated that he does not know Ranjeet Singh. He has further deposed that ASI Abhey Singh caught hold of the accused and bag of the accused was searched in the presence of the witnesses. He has also stated that no villager except Ranjeet Singh and Harbans Lal were on the spot. He has further deposed that ASI Abhey Singh caught hold of the accused and bag of the accused was searched in the presence of the witnesses. He has also stated that no villager except Ranjeet Singh and Harbans Lal were on the spot. He has further stated in his cross examination as under: “Firstly, the consent memo for searching the person of the accused was prepared and, thereafter, his bag was searched. This fact was even mentioned in the seizure memo Mark ‘A’.” 6. PW-3 Kamal Kishor has reiterated the story of the prosecution about the apprehension of the accused and charas being recovered from him. He has deposed that the parcels of the charas were taken into possession and recovery memo was prepared and thereafter, ASI Abhey Singh wrote the ruqua Ex. PA and gave it to him. He took ruqua to Police Station, Dalhousie and handed over to MHC in Police Station. Thereafter, the FIR was registered and the case file was handed over to him by MHC and he returned to the spot alongwith the case file and handed over it to HC Roop Singh. In his cross-examination, he has stated that Ranjit Singh and Harbans Lal were having a stroll nearby and they were called by ASI Abhey Singh and then they joined the police party. He has further stated that no option under Section 50 of the Act was extended to the accused by ASI Abhey Sigh before searching the bag of the accused. He has also deposed that consent memo was prepared on the spot and before searching the bag of the accused, ASI Abhey Singh did not give his personal search to any of the witnesses. He has also stated that no document was prepared in his presence. 7. PW-4 Swaru Ram has deposed that on 17.06.2006, ruqua Ex. PA was received in the Police Station through Constable Kamal Kishor and he made an endorsement Ex. PB on ruqua and registered FIR Ex. PC on its basis. He has also deposed that on the same day, HC Roop Singh produced a big parcel and two small parcels of charas duly sealed with seal impression ‘C’ with him. These parcels were resealed by him by affixing the seal impressions ‘S’. Memo Ex. PD in this regard was prepared and resealing was done in the presence of MHC Ramesh Chand. These parcels were resealed by him by affixing the seal impressions ‘S’. Memo Ex. PD in this regard was prepared and resealing was done in the presence of MHC Ramesh Chand. The specimen impression of the seal used by him was taken on the piece of cloth Ex. P3. The same after its use was handed over to HC Ramesh Chand and the case property was also deposited by him with MHC Ramesh Chand of Police Station, Dalhousie to keep it in malkhana in safe custody. 8. PW-5 HC Ramesh Chand has stated that he was posted as MHC in Police Station, Dalhousie. On 17.03.2006, a big parcel and two small parcels alongwith NCB forms were produced by HC Roop Singh before SI Swaru Ram for resealing purpose. Sample seal was also produced by HC Roop Singh and the parcels of charas were resealed by SI Swaru Ram by affixing seal impression ‘S’ in his presence. He has stated that memo Ex. PD bears his signatures as a witness. He has also deposed that thereafter the case property was deposited with him by SI Swaru Ram. On 18.03.2006, one part of the sample alongwith NCB form and sample seal as well as the copy of the recovery memo were sent by him vide RC No. 32/06 through Constable Tilak Raj to CTL, Kandaghat for chemical test. On his return to the Police Station, Constable Tilak Raj handed over the copy of the RC to him. During the period, the case property remained in his possession, the same remained intact. 9. PW-6 Constable Naresh Kumar has deposed that on 17.03.2006, Constable Vikas Dhawan had brought a copy of the ruqua to the office of Superintendent of Police, Chamba and he placed it before Additional Superintendent of Police. Thereafter, Additional Superintendent of Police signed the same after going through the same and the copy of the said ruqua Ex. PK was given to him by the Addl. Superintendent of Police. He has also deposed that on the next day, i.e. 19.03.2006, special report Ex. PL was received in the office through Constable Vikas Dhawan, which was also placed by him before the Addl. Superintendent of Police and the Addl. Superintendent of Police after going through the special report, signed it and gave it back to him. 10. Superintendent of Police. He has also deposed that on the next day, i.e. 19.03.2006, special report Ex. PL was received in the office through Constable Vikas Dhawan, which was also placed by him before the Addl. Superintendent of Police and the Addl. Superintendent of Police after going through the special report, signed it and gave it back to him. 10. PW-7 ASI Abhey Minhas has reiterated the story of the prosecution with regard to the apprehension of the accused and the recovery of charas from him. He has also deposed in the Court about the preparation of ruqua, the manner in which the recovered charas was weighed and sealed and handing over of the necessary documents to the accused, search and seizure memos etc. In a nut-shell, in his deposition, he has narrated the entire incident which took place at the spot and all the actions taken by him at the spot on the recovery of charas from the accused person. In his cross-examination, he has stated that; “S/Shri Ranjeet Singh and Harbans Lal are the local persons. They were not called by him. When they saw that the police officials have laid the Naka, they came of their own and joined them. There are 8-10 other shops near the shops of S/Shri Ranjeet Singh and Harbans Lal. The accused was caught by them on the bifurcation of Mail road and main Chamba-Pathankot road. No notice under Section 50 of the Act was given to the accused as the recovery was effected suddenly/perchance. When the bag of the accused was searched, Constable Mazid Mohammad and Constable Kamal Kishor were present there.” 11. PW-8 Constable Tilak Raj has deposed that on 18.03.2006, MHC Ramesh Chand has handed over a sample part of the charas sealed with seal impressions ‘C’ and ‘S’, copy of FIR, NCB form and the copy of the recovery memo vide RC No. 32/06 to him, which he deposited in CTL, Kandaghat on 20.03.2006 and on his return to the Police Station, the RC was handed over by him to MHC. He has further deposed that during the period the case property remained in his possession, the same remained intact. 12. He has further deposed that during the period the case property remained in his possession, the same remained intact. 12. PW-9 HC Roop Singh has also reiterated the story of the prosecution with regard to the apprehension of the accused and the manner in which the recovery of the charas was made from him and the procedure which was thereafter followed by the police party. In his cross-examination, he has stated as under: “The shops of S/Shri Ranjeet Singh and Harbans Lal are about 200-300 metres away from the spot. They were not called by anyone. They were coming from Mail side and were joined in the police party.” He has also deposed that though the vehicles were checked by them, but no vehicle was challaned under the Motor Vehicles Act. 13. On the basis of the material which was placed on record by the prosecution, the learned trial Court concluded that having regard to the entire evidence on record and keeping in view the infirmities in the chain of link evidence, major contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and serious snag in the filling of NCB form as well as independent witness having not supported the prosecution case on material particulars, it can safely be concluded that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond any shadow of doubt and, as such, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt and accordingly, learned trial Court acquitted the accused by giving him benefit of doubt. 14. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the State has preferred the present appeal. 15. Learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court whereby it had acquitted the accused by giving him benefit of doubt was not sustainable in the eyes of law. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the accused and there was no break in the chain commencing from the moment the accused was apprehended by the police party and ending with the report of the Chemical Analyst of C.T.L., Kandaghat, where the samples of the charas recovered from the accused were analyzed. According to him, the discrepancies, if any, were minor and further it was not as if the case of the prosecution could have been believed only if the same has been supported by the independent witnesses in each case. Mr. Chauhan argued that it is settled principle of law that the case of the prosecution can be believed even in the absence of independent witnesses, if the same inspires confidence. According to him, in the present case, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses inspired confidence and there was no contradiction in the testimonies of police witnesses. The police party, as per him, followed the procedure prescribed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and keeping in view the fact that all the procedural regularities were followed in the present case and it stood proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the learned trial Court had erred in acquitting him by concluding that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, he prayed that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court be set aside and the accused be convicted for an offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 16. Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned Advocate was requested by this Court on 16.05.2016 to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that in the present case there were major discrepancies borne out from the record as far as the case of the prosecution was concerned. He submitted that it cannot be said that there was any infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. Thus, according to him, judgment of the trial Court did not warrant any interference. 17. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General and learned Amicus Curiae and also gone through the records of the case as well as the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. 18. According to the prosecution, the accused was apprehended in the presence of two independent persons, namely Ranjeet Singh and Harbans Lal. Both of them were witnesses to the recovery, which was effected from the accused as per the story of the prosecution. 18. According to the prosecution, the accused was apprehended in the presence of two independent persons, namely Ranjeet Singh and Harbans Lal. Both of them were witnesses to the recovery, which was effected from the accused as per the story of the prosecution. Out of these two witnesses, Harbans Lal has not been produced in the witness box and Ranjeet Singh has not supported the story of the prosecution at all. According to PW-1 Ranjeet Singh, no recovery whatsoever was effected by the police in his presence nor the accused was apprehended in his presence as alleged by the prosecution. Thus, this independent witness has rendered the entire story of the prosecution unbelievable in view of the fact that he was the witness to the recovery of charas and the factum of his having refuted the recovery in his presence makes the entire case of the prosecution highly doubtful. Now, it is in this background that we have to see the statements of the police witnesses as to whether they inspire any confidence or not and whether the accused can be convicted solely on the basis of the testimonies of police officials. 19. A perusal of the statements of three important witnesses, i.e. PW-2 Constable Mazid Mohammad, PW-3 Kamal Kishor and PW-7 ASI Abhey Minhas demonstrate that there are major contradictions in the statements of these witnesses with regard to the manner in which the accused was apprehended and with regard to the manner in which his search was conducted. 20. PW-2 Constable Mazid Mohammad in his cross-examination has stated that consent memo for searching the person of the accused was prepared and thereafter his bag was searched. He has further stated that they had laid naka at about 3:00 p.m. and Ranjeet Singh and Harbans Lal reached there after about five minutes and they remained at the spot from 3:05 p.m. till the time the accused reached there. PW-3 Kamal Kishor in his cross-examination has deposed that Ranjeet Singh and Harbans Lal were called by ASI Abhey Singh and they then joined the police party. He has further deposed that no option under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was extended to the accused by ASI Abhey Singh before searching the bag of the accused. He has further deposed that no option under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was extended to the accused by ASI Abhey Singh before searching the bag of the accused. He further deposed that consent memo was prepared on the spot and before searching the bag of the accused, ASI Abhey Singh did not give his personal search to any of the witnesses. PW-7 ASI Abhey Minhas has deposed that Ranjeet Singh and Harbans Lal were not called by him. He has also stated that no notice under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was given to the accused as the recovery was effected suddenly/ perchance. 21. Now a perusal of the testimonies of these three witnesses when read in harmony demonstrates that there are major contradictions between them in the manner in which the accused was apprehended and search was made as well as with regard to the manner in which Harbans Lal and Ranjeet Singh were associated by the police party. These factors undoubtedly cloud the truthfulness of the version of the prosecution coupled with the fact that Harbans Lal has not been produced in the witness box and Ranjeet Singh has turned hostile and denied the entire version of the prosecution. Thus, it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 22. Besides this, there are other major discrepancies in the case of the prosecution. PW-2 Constable Mazid Mohammad and PW-3 Kamal Kishor have stated that the consent memo was prepared, whereas ASI Abhey Singh has denied having given option to the accused, as according to him, it was a case of chance recovery. ASI Abhey Singh (PW-7) has stated that the original and two other copies of the recovery memo were handed over by him to HC Roop Singh as per inventory Ex. PW-7/B and recovery memo as well as ruqua were got written by him from Constable Mazid Mohammad while inventory was written by HC Roop Singh. However, when HC Roop Singh appeared in the witness box, he has contradicted the said points by stating that original and three copies of the recovery memo and four sample seals were handed over to him by ASI Abhey Singh. However, when HC Roop Singh appeared in the witness box, he has contradicted the said points by stating that original and three copies of the recovery memo and four sample seals were handed over to him by ASI Abhey Singh. If that is so, it is not understood as to how the original and three copies of recovery memo were received by HC Roop Singh when the first I.O ASI Abhey Singh has handed over only original and two copies of the memo. ASI Abhey Singh has stated that he has filled in all the columns of NCB form Ex. PE on the spot. He has also stated that he reached Mail road chowk near Nanikhud on 17.03.2006 at around 4:00 p.m. However, a perusal of NCB form Ex. PE reveals that column Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 were filled in by one person while column No. 5 was filled in by MHC who has mentioned the dispatch No. 32/06 dated 18.03.2006. HC Ramesh Chand (PW-5), the then MHC Police Station, Dalhousie while appearing in the Court has not stated about the said column having been filled up by him. If the version of ASI Abhey Singh (PW-7) is to be believed, then it is not understood as to how in the column of the NCB form FIR number could have also been filled in by him at the spot when the FIR was obviously not yet registered at the time when he filled the said form at the spot. This also creates major doubt with regard to the fairness in which the investigation has been carried out by the police. 23. All these aspects of the matter have also been gone into in detail by the learned trial Court and in fact, learned trial Court has also concluded that even the link evidence as demonstrated by the prosecution was highly doubtful in nature. We are also of the considered view that the findings arrived at in this regard by the learned trial Court are correct findings and indeed the link evidence in this case is of highly doubtful nature. 24. We are also of the considered view that the findings arrived at in this regard by the learned trial Court are correct findings and indeed the link evidence in this case is of highly doubtful nature. 24. As is evident from the above discussion, it is apparently clear that there is neither any infirmity nor any perversity in the judgment passed by the learned trial Court vide which, it has acquitted the accused of charge under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1085. According to us, the prosecution in the present case has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. 25. Not only the independent witnesses/witness of recovery has turned hostile, even the statements of police officers taken independently, do not inspire confidence and do not prove beyond any reasonable doubt that indeed the accused was guilty of the offence which was alleged against him. 26. Therefore, in our considered view, the learned trial Court has rightly concluded that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused and has rightly acquitted the accused of the offence alleged against him. We uphold the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and dismiss the present appeal being without any merit. 27. We place on record our appreciation for the Learned Amicus Curiae who has very ably assisted the Court in the adjudication of the present appeal.