JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. 1. The appeal is maintained by the appellant-State against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 2010, dated 30.10.2010, whereby the Court below has acquitted the respondent-accused (hereinafter referred as ‘the accused’), for the offences under Sections 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS’) and Section 419 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). 2. Briefly stating, as per the prosecution case, on 19.03.2010, HC Virender Singh alongwith HHC Kewal Krishan, Constable Mohammad Aslam, Constable Ram Parkash and Constable Rajesh Kumar was present at Ballupul near Hero Honda Agency in connection with patrolling. At about 4:30 p.m., the accused having Pithu of black colour on his back was seen coming towards Ballupul. On noticing the police party, the accused got perplexed and turned back and started running. On suspicion, he was overpowered by HC Virender Singh with the assistance of other police officials. Meanwhile, Pawan Kumar, son of Karam Chand, also arrived on the spot. In the presence of this witness as also other police officials, HC Virender Singh made inquiry and the accused disclosed his name as Vijay Kumar, son of Chaman Singh, resident of village Mugla, Tehsil and District Chamba. HC Virender Singh was suspicious that the accused was having narcotics, so the accused was apprised of his legal right to be searched before the Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. The accused gave his consent for search by the police present on the spot, as per memo Ex. PW-1/B. Thereafter, HC Virender Singh and other police officials and witness Pawan Kumar gave their search to the accused vide memo Ex. PW-1/A and then the search of the bag of the accused was carried out and the bag was found containing 100 strips containing 10 capsules each, total 800 capsules of Spasmocip plus, kept in a polythene envelope alongwith one carton box. 3. HC Virender Singh put the said capsules in the carton box and then bag was put in the polythene envelope, which was put in the bag and then the bag was parceled in piece of cloth and sealed with four seals of seal ‘A’ and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-1/C. Specimen of seal ‘A’, Ex. 3. HC Virender Singh put the said capsules in the carton box and then bag was put in the polythene envelope, which was put in the bag and then the bag was parceled in piece of cloth and sealed with four seals of seal ‘A’ and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-1/C. Specimen of seal ‘A’, Ex. PW-1/F, was taken separately and the seal ‘A’ after use was handed over to witness Pawan Kumar. NCB forms were filled in and rukka, Ex. PW-10/A, was prepared and sent to Police Station Sadar, Chamba, through Constable Ram Parkash, on the basis of which FIR, Ex. PW-8/A, was registered at Police Station Sadar, Chamba. Photographs of the spot, Ex. P6 to P8 were taken with the official camera. Site plan, Ex. PW-10/B, was prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded. The accused was arrested and was communicated about the grounds of arrest vide memo, Ex. PW-1/D, and his personal search was carried out vide memo Ex. PW-1/E. The accused desired to give information of his arrest to his brother Sanjay Kumar. Sanjay Kumar disclosed the name of the accused as Ajay Kumar. Ration card, Ex. PW-10/E, was obtained and it was revealed that the name of the accused was Ajay Kumar and he had wrongly disclosed his name as Vijay Kumar, so Section 419 of IPC was added in the FIR. The accused was brought to Police Station Chamba. The case property was produced before ASI/SHO Mukesh Kumar for the purpose of resealing, who resealed the parcel with seal ‘S’ and specimen of seal is taken, which is Ex. PW-9/B, and facsimile was taken on NCB form and reseal memo, Ex. PW-9/C, to this effect was prepared and the case property was thereafter deposited with MHC, who made an entry in the malkhana register, the abstract whereof is Ex. PW-7/A. The case property was sent to FSL vide RC, Ex. PW-7/B and report of FSL, Ex. PX, was obtained. Special report of this case, Ex. PW-5/A, was prepared and sent to S.P. Chamba. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined 11 witnesses. 5. The Learned Additional Advocate General has argued that persecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond doubt and the learned Court below on the basis of minor contradictions, which generally occur due to observation power of the witnesses, has acquitted the accused. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined 11 witnesses. 5. The Learned Additional Advocate General has argued that persecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond doubt and the learned Court below on the basis of minor contradictions, which generally occur due to observation power of the witnesses, has acquitted the accused. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of doubt and so the judgment of the Court below needs no interference. 6. PW-1, Constable Mohammad Aslam, one of the members of the raiding party has corroborated the prosecution story and has stated that on 19.03.2010 at about 4:30 p.m., accused appeared at Ballupul when they were present near Hero Honda Agency and on seeing the police party, he turned back and tried to flee, as such, he was overpowered and in the meantime, Pawan Kumar (PW-2) also appeared there. According to him, accused disclosed his name as Vijay and after completing codal formalities, the bag being carried by the accused was searched which was found containing a polythene bag having 100 strips, each containing eight capsules aggregating to 800 capsules of spasmocip plus. It has also been stated by him that one empty carton box was also recovered. Thereafter, all the capsules were put in the carton box which, in turn, was put in the bag which was parceled and sealed and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-1/C, which was signed by him, accused and witness Pawan Kumar. He also stated that NCB forms were also filled in on the spot, specimen of seal was taken and the seal after its use was handed over to Pawan Kumar. He also stated that rukka mark ‘A’ was prepared and sent to P.S. Chamba for registration of the case through constable Ram Parkash. Its copy was also sent to SP Chamba through the same constable and thereafter the accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted. In the cross-examination, he stated that they started from their office at 2:30 p.m. and via Sultanpur they reached at Parel at 3:30 p.m. and then they reached at Ballu bridge near Hero Honda agency at 4:15 p.m., which is at a distance of two kilo meters from Parel. In the cross-examination, he stated that they started from their office at 2:30 p.m. and via Sultanpur they reached at Parel at 3:30 p.m. and then they reached at Ballu bridge near Hero Honda agency at 4:15 p.m., which is at a distance of two kilo meters from Parel. It is quite strange that in order to cover a distance of less than 2 kilometers, time of 45 minutes was consumed. No explanation has come forward from him or other officials as to whey so much time was taken. His version is as that of other official witnesses, which is silent that they searched any vehicle, house etc. during said period. If so, it is apparent that he as also the other police officials have concealed some vital details from the Court regarding time and place. It is also claimed that adjacent to Hero Honda Agency, there are many shops and Maruti workshop besides a bus stoppage for the passengers towards Tissa and other adjoining areas, but it utterly surprising that no witness from the said shops, except Pawan, was associated at the time of nabbing the accused or searching the bag of the accused or to witness the recovery of the capsules. According to him, accused had tried to flee towards Ballu bridge and had covered a distance of 10-15 meters. It also cast a doubt about the veracity of this witness. Significantly, he stated that no witnesses were present when the accused was nabbed but 5 to 7 persons were sitting nearby. However, entire case file is silent about said 5-7 persons. His version is not consistent with regard to the time and place. He was under the influence of Investigating Officer. He has suppressed the vital details regarding his arrival at spot. Be it noted that independent witness Pawan Kumar has not supported the case of the prosecution. If so, the possibility of his deposing at the behest of Investigating Officer cannot be ruled out. In these circumstances, it is unsafe to believe him. 7. He has suppressed the vital details regarding his arrival at spot. Be it noted that independent witness Pawan Kumar has not supported the case of the prosecution. If so, the possibility of his deposing at the behest of Investigating Officer cannot be ruled out. In these circumstances, it is unsafe to believe him. 7. As per prosecution case, the accused appeared at Balu bridge having a bag on his shoulder and capsules were recovered therefrom which were parceled and sealed with seal ‘A’ and the seal ‘A’ after use was handed over to witness Pawan Kumar, but Pawan Kumar while appearing at PW-2 has categorically denied that the accused had appeared in his presence and capsules were recovered from him which were parceled and sealed or the seal after use was handed over to him. He was declared hostile but without any assistance. Though, PW-1 stated that proceedings were completed at the spot but this witness (PW-2) stated in the cross-examination that he signed all the papers opposite to his service station and proceedings were also completed there. The seal has not been produced by him. He has not been confronted with any receipt vide which seal was entrusted to him. Hence, his version also does not inspire confidence. PW-3, Constable Ram, Parkash who had also accompanied the Investigating Officer has supported the case but he too has not been able to show as to what was done by them in between 3:30 p.m. to 4:20 p.m. and why 50 minutes were consumed to reach Balu from Parel covering a short distance of two kilometers. This casts doubt about their presence at the spot. As per him, accused had been seen at a distance of 10-15 yards from the place where they were present and had run to a distance of 5-7 yards but PW-1 has put forth said distance as 20-22 meters and distance covered by accused was projected to be 10-15 meters by PW-1 whereas the Investigating Officer, PW-10, projected that accused had been seen at a distance of 15-20 feet. Once all of them were together, there was no occasion for any inconsistency in their statements and presence of inconsistency in the statements shows that accused had not been nabbed in the manner projected and entire case becomes doubtful. Once all of them were together, there was no occasion for any inconsistency in their statements and presence of inconsistency in the statements shows that accused had not been nabbed in the manner projected and entire case becomes doubtful. He is also under the influence of Investigating Officer and possibility of deposing at his instance cannot be ruled out. Hence, his version totally belies the version of the prosecution. 8. PW-2, Shri Pawan Kumar, has categorically denied that the accused had been apprehended in his presence and capsules were recovered from him, which were parceled and sealed and seal after use was handed over to him. PW-2 was declared hostile and cross-examined at length, but nothing has come out which could be considered in favour of the prosecution. PW-2 in his cross-examination has stated that he signed the papers opposite to his Service Station, but PW-1, Constable Mohammad Aslam, has stated that the proceedings were completed on the spot. This way, the statement of PW-1 also becomes doubtful. The accused is stated to have run before he was apprehended. This is not mere observation defect, but makes the prosecution witnesses unreliable regarding apprehension of the accused on the spot, as the distance given is 5 to 7 yards to 10 to 15 meters, the inconsistency in the statement of the witnesses shows that accused had not been nabbed as projected by the prosecution. 9. Constable Mohammad Aslam (PW-1) stated that the distance from Parel to Balu is 2 kms. PW-10, HC Virender Singh, stated that the case file was handed over to him at 8:25 p.m. at Balu and as per PW-9, SI Mukesh Kumar, the case property was produced before him at 8:45 p.m. The distance from Parel to Balu is less than 2 kms and to cover the said distance, about 45 minutes were taken and astonishingly, while coming to Police Station, PW-10, HC Virender Singh, and other police officials covered the distance of more than 5 kms and that too in just 20 minutes. The above fact casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story. 10. PW-8, Kuldeep Singh, stated that at 6:15 p.m. rukka was brought by witness Ram Parkash at Police Station, Chamba, and it took about 30 minutes for recording FIR and thereafter he handed over the file to Constable Ram Parkash. The above fact casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story. 10. PW-8, Kuldeep Singh, stated that at 6:15 p.m. rukka was brought by witness Ram Parkash at Police Station, Chamba, and it took about 30 minutes for recording FIR and thereafter he handed over the file to Constable Ram Parkash. If PW-10 reached the Police Station only in 20 minutes then certainly same time could have been taken by Constable Ram Parkash to reach at Balu Bridge from the Police Station. Meaning thereby, file should have been delivered to the Investigating Officer at 7:05 p.m. but the file was delivered at 8:25 p.m. So, to this effect, the version of prosecution witnesses do not offer any credible justification. 11. As per PW-10, HC Virender Singh, Hero Honda agency is adjoined by many shops on both the sides and there are two lanes of shops at Balu. He has stated that accused was spotted by him from a distance of 15-20 feet, which is in contrast to the versions of his subordinates. He has further submitted that many people had assembled there, but surprisingly, he did not associate anyone from the vicinity and no explanation qua non-association of independent witnesses has been given. PW-10 has stated that firstly arrest memo was prepared and accused was arrested at 8:20 p.m. thereafter jamatalashi memo was prepared and accused disclosed his name as Vijay. However, the perusal of said memo, Ex. PW-1/D&D, does not depict that accused initially disclosed his name wrongly or his name was Vijay Kumar, despite his claim that the accused agreed to convey the information qua his arrest to his brother Ajay and it is only after inquiry from his brother Ajay that he came to know that the accused has wrongly disclosed his name. Had there been any truth, this witness could have divulged more imperative aspects qua memos, Ex. PW-1/D and E, and would have written the name of accused as Ajay instead of Vijay. Therefore, the possibility of preparation of these memos other than the spot of occurrence cannot be ruled out or the accused was not nabbed on the spot or he was falsely implicated. PW-1/D and E, and would have written the name of accused as Ajay instead of Vijay. Therefore, the possibility of preparation of these memos other than the spot of occurrence cannot be ruled out or the accused was not nabbed on the spot or he was falsely implicated. PW-10, HC Virender Singh, has neither cited the brother of the accused, Ajay, as a witness nor any person from whom identity of the accused was ascertained as also the person who supplied the ration card of the accused. In the above enumerated circumstances, it becomes highly doubtful that accused impersonated as Vijay or wrongly mentioned his name. Therefore, possibility of accused being implicated falsely on mistaken identity cannot be ruled out. 12. In these circumstances, PW-2, Pawan Kumar, the only independent witness assumes importance, who has stated unequivocally that the person at the place was not accused and since the prosecution has failed to subject the accused to test identification and non-citing of the witnesses present on the spot, there is no reason to disbelieve PW-2. PW-2 did not support the prosecution to the extent that the seal was handed over to him and PW-11, Joginder, also did not utter a word that seal was given to him nor PW-9, Mukesh Kumar, stated that the seal was given to PW-11, Joginder, and the seals have not seen the light of the day. Therefore, the prosecution has also failed to prove that the case property, sealed with seals ‘A’ and ‘S’ alongwith specimen of seals ‘A’ and S’, was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. As per the prosecution, vide RC No. 49/10, HHC Ramjeewan, took the case property to Forensic Science Laboratory. Nothing has come on record that the specimen of seal ‘A’ and ‘S’ were also taken by him to Forensic Science Laboratory. In RC No. 49/10, Ex. PW-7/B, there is no reference that seal ‘A’ and ‘S’ were also entrusted to HHC Ramjeewan for being deposited at Forensic Science Laboratory with the case property. HHC Ramjeewan, stated that he has deposited the case property with ASI of Crime Branch at Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, however, the said ASI has neither been cited as a witness nor examined to complete the chain of evidence. Undoubtedly, as per the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, Ex. HHC Ramjeewan, stated that he has deposited the case property with ASI of Crime Branch at Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, however, the said ASI has neither been cited as a witness nor examined to complete the chain of evidence. Undoubtedly, as per the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga, Ex. PX, apparently the seals were intact and also tallied with the specimen of seals, but there is nothing on record that seals ‘A’ and ‘S’ were deposited at Forensic Science Laboratory. Thus, it cannot be safe to assume that the seals on the case property, which was examined by the Examiner at Forensic Science Laboratory, were intact and not tampered with. 13. The statements of police officials are not consistent to each other and are full of infirmities and contradictions, specimen of seals have not seen the light of the day and independent witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. The identity of the accused has not been proved. The witnesses, though present in plenty on the spot of occurrence, were not associated by the prosecution. 14. It has been held in K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non-consideration/misappropriation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 1 SCC 401 , has held that where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 16. The net result of the above discussion is that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons conclusively and beyond a shadow of doubt, as reasonable suspicion has occurred in the prosecution story. 17. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and discussion made above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. All the pending applications, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.