JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is instituted against Judgment dated 28.9.2015 rendered by the learned Special Judge-I, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Sessions Trial No. 53/2014. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 3.1.2014, pursuant to the departure report Ext. PW-1/A, recorded by HHC Narender Pal (PW-1), HC Vijay Singh, (PW-6) was on patrolling duty towards Manali Bazaar along with Constable Mahesh Kumar (PW-8), HC Mohar Singh (PW-5) and Constable Sanjay Kumar. After patrolling in Manali Bazaar, the police party went to Van Bihar, Manali. While returning through footpath at about 6.30 PM, accused was noticed coming from the opposite direction with a rucksack (Pithu) Ex. P2., Accused on seeing the police threw the said bag, turned back and started fleeing. Police party apprehended the accused. Accused disclosed his identity. Police brought the accused to the very place where the bag was lying. The place, where accused was apprehended, was an isolated place. HC Vijay Singh (PW-6) associated HC Mohar Singh (PW-5) and Constable Sanjay in the investigation and conducted search of the bag, Ext. P2 in their presence. On search, round, stick and chocolate shaped Charas Ext. P6, wrapped in plastic wrappers Ext. P7, kept in a carry bag, Ext. P3, on which ‘Oswal’ was inscribed, was recovered. In the said carry bag, Ext. P3, a small plastic packet, Ext. P4 containing smack Ext. P5 was also recovered. Recovered Charas and smack was weighed with the help of electronic weighing machine. Charas weighed 3 kg and smack weighed 20 grams. HC Vijay Singh (PW-6) put the packet containing smack in the same carry bag Ext. P3, which was containing Charas, Ext. P6 and thereafter, the bag was put in the same rucksack, Ext. P2 and then parceled up in a cloth parcel Ext. P1, which was sealed with nine seal impressions of ‘T’ and sample of seal ‘T’ was obtained separately, one of which is Ext. PW-2/D and handed over the seal to HC Mohar Singh. Case property was taken into possession vide recovery-cum-seizure memo Ext. PW-5/B. Rukka was sent by the IO through HC Mohar Singh, on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW-2/A was registered by SI Mathru Ram (PW-2), who on the registration of FIR made endorsement Ext. PW-2/B on the Rukka Ext. PW-8/A. Site plan Ext. PW-8/B was prepared. Case property was taken into possession vide recovery-cum-seizure memo Ext. PW-5/B. Rukka was sent by the IO through HC Mohar Singh, on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW-2/A was registered by SI Mathru Ram (PW-2), who on the registration of FIR made endorsement Ext. PW-2/B on the Rukka Ext. PW-8/A. Site plan Ext. PW-8/B was prepared. Case property was produced before SI Mathru Ram, who resealed the parcel of case property Ext. P1 with six seal impressions of seal ‘M’. He filled in the relevant columns of NCB I form, Ext. PW-2/D and embossed seal ‘M’ on it and drew sample of seal ‘M’ which is Ext. PW-2/C. He deposited the case property with HC Vivek Kumar (PW-3), who made necessary entries in the register No. 19 of the Malkhana. HC Vijay Singh entrusted the case property to HC Mahesh (PW-8) along with relevant documents vide RC Ext PW-3/C and docket Ext PW-3/B for chemical analysis at FSL Junga and he deposited the same with FSL Junga no 6.1.2014. Report of the FSL is Ext PW-6/C. Investigation was completed and Challan was put up in the Court after completing all codal formalities. 3. Prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused was also examined under Section 313 CrPC. His case was that of denial simpliciter. Accused was convicted and sentenced as noticed herein above. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate, argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused. 5. Mr. M.A. Khan, Additional Advocate General, has supported the judgment of conviction dated 28.9.2015. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 7. SI Mathru Ram (PW-2) testified that on 3.1.2014, at 9 PM, HC Mohar Singh, came to the Police Station, Manali with a Rukka sent by HC Vijay Singh. He recorded FIR Ext. PW-2/A. HC Vijay Singh came to the Police Station and gave a sealed parcel sealed with 9 seals of seal ‘T’, NCB-I form in triplicate, samples seal ‘T’ and other documents. He resealed the said parcel by putting six seal impressions of seal ‘M’ and filled the requisite columns of NCB I form. Seal impression of seal ‘M’ was separately taken. Sample seal is Ext. PW-2/C. NCB I form is Ext. He resealed the said parcel by putting six seal impressions of seal ‘M’ and filled the requisite columns of NCB I form. Seal impression of seal ‘M’ was separately taken. Sample seal is Ext. PW-2/C. NCB I form is Ext. PW-2/D. He also embossed seal impression of seal ‘M’ on NCB I form. Case property was handed over to MHC Vivek. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that a Chowkidar of Forest Department as well as a person who issued tickets remained deputed at the entry gate of Van Bihar. There were shops, hotels, bus stand etc. across the road, in front of Van Bihar. 8. HC Vivek Kumar (PW-3) deposed that SI Mathru Ram deposited one sealed parcel sealed with nine seal impressions of ‘T’ and resealed with six seal impressions of seal ‘M’, NCB form in triplicate and sample seals of ‘T’ and ‘M’ with him. 9. HC Mohar Singh (PW-5) testified that he along with Constable Sanjay Kumar, Constable Mahesh Kumar and HC Vijay Singh was on patrol and were coming to PS Manali via Van Bihar Manali by shortcut footpath. At about 6.30 PM, they saw a person coming from jungle side with a pithu bag. On seeing them, accused tried to run away, he was apprehended. His identity was disclosed. HC Vijay Singh sent Constable Sanjay in search of independent witnesses. He returned at 7 PM and told that he could not find any independent witnesses. HC Vijay Singh associated him and Constable Sanjay in the investigation as witnesses and thereafter accused was brought to the place where bag was lying. Bag was having three zips and was black and brown coloured. On opening the zip of Pithu, one carry bag was taken out from it. In the said carry bag, there was Charas in the shape of sticks, rectangular shaped and round shaped. One polythene packet was also found. It contained some brown coloured substance in it. It was tested with a drug kit. It was found to be smack. It weighed 20 grams. Charas weighed 3 kg. Packet containing smack was put into the same carry bag containing Charas and this carry bag was put into Pithu which was then parceled up in a parcel and parcel was sealed with nine seal impressions of ‘T’. Sample seal ‘T’ was separately taken on a cloth Ext. It weighed 20 grams. Charas weighed 3 kg. Packet containing smack was put into the same carry bag containing Charas and this carry bag was put into Pithu which was then parceled up in a parcel and parcel was sealed with nine seal impressions of ‘T’. Sample seal ‘T’ was separately taken on a cloth Ext. PW-5/A. HC Vijay Singh prepared Rukka and gave it to him. He went to Police Station Manali and handed over Rukka to SI Mathru Ram, who recorded FIR. In his cross-examination he deposed that the Chowkidar was supposed to be in Van Bihar. Volunteered that he was not there on that day. On the other side of Van Bihar across the road, there were shops and hotels. Constable Sanjay was sent in search of witnesses at around 6.30 PM. He denied the suggestion that one abandoned bag was lying at bus stand Manali and accused was also lying intoxicated there and he has been falsely implicated in this case. 10. HC Vijay Singh (PW-6) also deposed the manner in which accused was apprehended and Charas and smack were recovered. Search, seizure and sampling proceedings were completed at the spot. Personal search of accused was conducted after his arrest. In his cross-examination he deposed that Chowkidar was not present on the relevant date. He also admitted that in front of Van Bihar, Manali, there are shops. Shops remained open till 7-8 PM. There remained HRTC staff at Bus Stant Manali. 11. Constable Mahesh Kumar (PW-8) also deposed the manner in which accused was apprehended. Search, seizure and sampling proceedings were completed at the spot. Constable Sanjay was sent to bring independent witnesses. He came back and told that no independent witnesses were available. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that Van Bihar is closed from one side and on other side is river. There were hotels and parking towards the gate of Van Bihar. 12. What emerges from the analysis of the statements discussed above, is that the accused was apprehended at 6.30 PM, while he was coming from jungle side. He was carrying a bag. Bag was searched. It contained 3 kg. Charas and 20 grams smack. All the codal formalities were completed at the spot. Case property was produced before SI Mathru Ram. He resealed the same and deposited with HC Vivek Kumar. He was carrying a bag. Bag was searched. It contained 3 kg. Charas and 20 grams smack. All the codal formalities were completed at the spot. Case property was produced before SI Mathru Ram. He resealed the same and deposited with HC Vivek Kumar. He made necessary entries in the Malkhana Register and case property was sent for chemical analysis. 13. Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate has vehemently argued that the independent witnesses were not associated. It has come on record that though Constable was sent to bring independent witnesses but he could not find any in the near vicinity. He then argued that Chowkidar was always posted at Van Bihar. However, it has come on record that on that day Chowkidar was absent. Statements of the officials witnesses i.e. HC Mohar Singh (PW-5), HC Vijay Kumar (PW-6) and Constable Mahesh Kumar (PW-8) inspire confidence. There is no reason for this Court to disbelieve their statements. Case property has reached FSL with all seals intact. Case property has remained in safe custody from the date of seizure till production in the Court. 14. Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate has also argued that Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has not been complied. However, fact of the matter is that contraband has been recovered from the bag. Thus, Section 50 of the Act, in this case, is not applicable. 15. Prosecution has proved its case against the accused to the hilt. There is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court. 16. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.