JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. State has come in appeal against the judgment dated 3.9.2011 rendered by the Special Judge, FTC, Kullu in Sessions Trial No. 45 of 2009 whereby the respondents- accused (hereinafter referred to as the “accused”) have been acquitted. Accused Ashish Sachdeva was charged for the commission of offence punishable under section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for brevity sake), accused Deepak Chaudhary and Pradeep were charged for the commission of offence punishable under section 29 of the Act and accused Mangal Chand was charged for the commission of offence punishable under section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 14.10.2008, SHO, Police Station Bhunter alongwith other police officials was conducting traffic checking at Police Check Post, Bajaura. The other police party headed by SI Onkar Singh was also conducting traffic checking at Check Post, Bajaura. In the meantime, one black coloured Lancer car bearing registration No. DL-3C-V-6581 came from Kullu side. It was signalled to stop. The person sitting on the left side of the car was having black coloured cloth bag in his lap. When the bag was checked, black coloured polythene envelop wrapped in white coloured towel was found in the bag. It was found to be charas. LHC Sarswati Devi was sent to arrange for local witnesses. She came after sometime with one Om Prakash and Ramesh Kumar residents of Bajaura. The SHO inquired about the antecedents of the persons carrying black coloured bag. He disclosed his name as Ashish Sachdeva. The other occupant of the car, who was sitting alongwith Ashish Sachdeva disclosed his name Pradeep son of Vijender both residents of Delhi. The driver of the lancer car disclosed his name as Deepak Chaudhary resident of Delhi. The charas was weighed. It was found to be 340 grams. Two samples of 25 grams each were drawn out from the lot for the purpose of analysis. The sample charas weighing 25 grams each was put in separate polythene envelopes. Thereafter, both the envelopes were wrapped with cloth. Rest of the charas was again put in the same black coloured polythene and wrapped in a piece of cloth. The sample parcels and rest of the charas wrapped in black coloured polythene were sealed with three impressions of seal ‘T’. Thereafter, both the envelopes were wrapped with cloth. Rest of the charas was again put in the same black coloured polythene and wrapped in a piece of cloth. The sample parcels and rest of the charas wrapped in black coloured polythene were sealed with three impressions of seal ‘T’. The sample parcels were marked as A-1 and A-2. The I.O. filled NCB-1 form in triplicate. The packet containing charas, samples of charas and black coloured bag alongwith towel were taken in possession by the police alongwith car. Rukka was prepared. It was sent to Police Station through LHC Sarswati, on the basis of which FIR was registered. Accused Ashish Sachdeva made a disclosure statement to the police under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in the presence of witnesses. He disclosed the place from where he had purchased the charas. He took the police to Chharod Nallah and identified the shop from where he had purchased 340 grams of charas against payment of Rs. 5,000/-. He also disclosed the name of the person from whom he had purchased charas as Mangal Chand son of Negi Ram. The shop-cum-residence of accused Mangal Chand was searched. During search, 3 kgs & 700 grams of charas was recovered from the lintel of third floor. The charas was kept in a polythene bag concealed behind old steel box. The samples were drawn. These were duly sealed. The I.O. filled in NCB-1 form in triplicate. Accused Mangal Chand was arrested. On 16.10.2008, accused Mangal Chand also made a disclosure statement to the police under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding money, which he had received from other three accused as sale consideration of charas. The police recovered Rs. 5,000/- from the residential house of accused Mangal Chand. The currency notes were wrapped in a piece of cloth and sealed with seal impression ‘H’. The police investigated the case and the challan was put up in the Court after completing all the codal formalities. Accused Ashish Sachdeva was charged for the commission of offence punishable under section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Act, accused Mangal Chand was charged for the commission of offence punishable under section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Act and accused Deepak Chaudhary and Pradeep were charged for the commission of offence punishable under section 20 (b) (ii) (B) read with section 29 of the Act. 3. 3. Prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses in all to prove its case against the accused. Statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. According to them, they have been falsely implicated. Defence taken by the accused Ashish Sachdeva, Pradeep and Deepak Chaudhary was that they had come to Kullu to see Dussehra. Accused were acquitted by the trial court vide judgment dated 3.9.2011. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Addl. A.G. has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. Mr. Anup Chitkara and Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocates have supported the judgment dated 3.9.2011. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment and record meticulously. 7. PW-1 Om Prakash testified that about two years ago, police called him and told that Bhang has been recovered. He and Ramesh Kumar went to Bajaura. Their signatures were obtained on the papers and their photographs were taken with two-three persons. Thereafter, they returned. He has not supported the case of prosecution. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, he has admitted that he has passed matriculation examination and remained Pradhan for five years. He had put his signatures only on one document. He has denied that LHC Sarswati called him on 14.10.2008 and told that charas has been recovered at Bajaura. Ramesh Pradhan met him at Check Post, Bajaura. He has denied that two persons were occupying the rear seat in addition to driver. He has denied that Ashish Kumar occupying the rear seat was having a black coloured bag in his lap. He has admitted that another person revealed his name as Pradeep in his presence. He disclosed his name as Deepak Chaudhary. He has denied that when the bag being carried by Ashish was checked, it was found to be containing charas. He has also denied that two samples each weighing 25 grams were separated for the purpose of chemical analysis. He has denied that remaining charas was put in the same bag from which it was recovered and was sealed in a parcel of cloth. He did not recall that A-1 and A-II were written on the sample parcel. Volunteered that only parcels were prepared. He has denied that remaining charas was put in the same bag from which it was recovered and was sealed in a parcel of cloth. He did not recall that A-1 and A-II were written on the sample parcel. Volunteered that only parcels were prepared. He did not recall the number of impressions put on the parcel; however, he has admitted that the seal impression was taken on a piece of cloth. He has admitted that charas was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/B and he put his signatures alongwith Ramesh Kumar. He has admitted recording of his statement by the police. He has also admitted that photograph Mark D was his photograph and the photograph of the accused was taken at Check Post, Bajaura near tent. He has also admitted that mark E and Mark F were his photographs. He has admitted his signatures on memo Ex.PW-1/D. He has admitted his signatures on Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2. In his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, he has admitted that police check post is located at a distance of one KM from Bajaura Bazar towards Mandi. There are 7-8 houses adjacent to Police Post, Bajaura. 8. PW-2 Charan Singh has deposed that about three years ago, nothing happened in his presence. He was also declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He has admitted that he has passed matriculation examination. He has admitted his signatures on Ex.PW-2/A, Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-2/C. He has denied the suggestion that when the charas was weighed, its weight was found to be 3 kgs and 700 grams. He has admitted that photograph mark H was his photograph. He also admitted his photograph marks J, K and L. 9. PW-3 Dile Ram has deposed that about two years ago, during Dussehra season, he was called by the police to the police station. He has admitted his signatures on Ex.PW-3/A. He was also declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He has denied that Mangal Chand made statement Ex.PW-3/A in the police custody under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act that he could get recovered Rs. 5,000/- from his house, which was received by him as a sale consideration of the cannabis from Ashish Sachdeva. 10. PW-4 Yoginder Kumar has deposed that nothing happened in his presence. He has denied that Mangal Chand made statement Ex.PW-3/A in the police custody under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act that he could get recovered Rs. 5,000/- from his house, which was received by him as a sale consideration of the cannabis from Ashish Sachdeva. 10. PW-4 Yoginder Kumar has deposed that nothing happened in his presence. However, he has admitted his signatures on memo Ex.PW-3/A. He was also declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He has denied that Managal Chand made statement Ex.PW-3/A in the policy custody under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 11. PW-5 Kartar Singh has testified that SI/SHO Narain Singh deposited with him three parcels each sealed with three seal impressions of seal ‘T’, two parcels were marked as A-1 and A-2 alongwith sample seals, NCB-I form in triplicate, copy of seizure memo, copy of FIR, three other parcels each sealed with three seal impressions of seal A. Two parcels bearing marks B-1 and B-2 alongwith sample seal A, NCB-1 form in triplicate, copy of seizure memo, one bag, one car bearing registration No. DL-3C-V-6581 alongwith key and red light to him on 14.10.2008 at 11.30 P.M were also deposited with him. He made entry at Sr. No. 41 in the Malkhana register. He handed over two parcels marks A-1 and B-1 alongwith sample seals T and A, NCB-1 form in triplicate (two sets), copy of seizure memo, copy of FIR, docket to HHC Mast Ram on 15.10.2008 with the direction to deposit the same at FSL vide RC No. 50/08. SHO Narian Singh deposited one parcel sealed with six seal impressions of seal H stated to be containing Rs. 5,000/- with him on 16.10.2008 alongwith sample seal. He made entry at Sr. No. 42, the copy of which is Ex.PW-5/E. 12. PW-6 HHC Mast Ram has deposed that on 15.10.2008 HHC Kartar Chand handed over to him two parcels of charas which were bearing marks B-1 and A-1, one sealed with three seal impressions of seal T and other was sealed with three seal impressions of seal A, sample seals T and A, NCB-1 form (two sets) and the documents of the case with the direction to take the same to FSL vide RC No. 50/08. He deposited the same at FSL, Junga on 16.10.2008. 13. He deposited the same at FSL, Junga on 16.10.2008. 13. PW-9 Sanjay Kumar has testified that he was posted as Patwari in patwar Circle Chong. He has proved tatima Ex.PW-9/A and Jamabandi Ex.PW-9/B. He was not cross-examined. 14. PW-10 Shambhu Prakash has deposed that he was working as Reporter in the daily news paper Amar Ujala. He received a telephonic call from Police Station, Bhunter in the month of October, 2008 that charas was recovered by the police and he should come to the police station for reporting this fact. He obtained the details and the news was published in the news paper. Police was weighing the charas. He was told that charas was 4 kgs. Many persons were present there. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He has denied the suggestion that Ashish made a statement and thereafter, he took the police to Chharod nullah where the house of Mangal Chand was identified by him and told the police that he has purchased 340 grams of charas for Rs. 5,000/- from Mangal Chand. He has admitted his signatures on memo Ex.PW-2/B. He has denied the suggestion that search of the house of accused Mangal Chand was conducted in their presence during which one polythene bag bearing words “Mayur” colour red and yellow was found on the slab of the third floor and in front of the kitchen of 4th floor, which was concealed behind the trunk. He denied that it contained Charas wrapped in polythene bag. He denied that charas weighed 3 kgs and 700 grams. He also denied taking out the samples from the recovered charas. He admitted his signatures on Ex.PW-2/D. He also admitted that the police had not forced him to put his signatures. 15. PW-11 HC Sarswati has deposed the manner in which the accused who were travelling in a lancer car bearing registration No. DL-3C-V-6581 were apprehended. The person sitting on the back seat was having black coloured bag in his lap. The bag was checked by the SHO. It was found to be containing one white coloured towel in it, in which black coloured polythene envelope, was kept. On physical examination by the SHO, it was found to be charas. She was deputed to bring independent witnesses. Few yards ahead from Check Post, two persons, namely Ramesh Kumar and Om Prakash met her. It was found to be containing one white coloured towel in it, in which black coloured polythene envelope, was kept. On physical examination by the SHO, it was found to be charas. She was deputed to bring independent witnesses. Few yards ahead from Check Post, two persons, namely Ramesh Kumar and Om Prakash met her. She requested them to associate the police in search of the accused. They agreed to become witnesses to the search. She also deposed the manner in which the sealing and sampling process was completed on the spot. Accused Ashish Kumar made disclosure statement Ex.PW-1/D to the I.O. in presence of witnesses regarding the place from where the charas was purchased. Thereafter, accused took them to Chharod nullah and identified the place where he had purchased the charas. The search of the house of Mangal Chand was conducted in presence of witnesses Charan Singh and Shambhu Prasad and memo Ex.PW-2/B to this effect was prepared. During the house search of Mangal, one iron box was found on the lintel outside the house. Nothing incriminating material was found in the trunk. However, one polythene envelope was recovered which was kept behind the iron box in which charas was found in the shape of marble, sticks and pancake. It weighed 3kgs and 700 grams. Thereafter, all the codal formalities were completed on the spot. She denied the suggestion in her cross-examination by Sh. Chuneshwar Thakur, Advocate that residential houses are situated near the check post. Volunteered that residential houses are far away from the check post. She has denied the suggestion that neither she nor Mast Ram and Umesh were present on the spot. In her cross-examination conducted by Sh. N.K. Sood, Advocate on behalf of accused Mangal Chand, she has admitted that the slab which was searched by the police was having no roof or walls. The roofs of other adjoining houses were touching the lintel of the house, which was searched by the police party. One can pass from one roof to another easily. She admitted that in the ground floor of the house, which was searched by the policy party, was having sweet shop. She did not remember whether the ownership of the house was verified from revenue officers, Patwari or Panchayat Secretary by the police or not. One can pass from one roof to another easily. She admitted that in the ground floor of the house, which was searched by the policy party, was having sweet shop. She did not remember whether the ownership of the house was verified from revenue officers, Patwari or Panchayat Secretary by the police or not. She admitted that there was only one stair case to reach the third floor, which was just adjacent to the alleged house. The family members of Mangal Chand were residing in the first floor. Mangal Chand disclosed about his daughter-in-law, but his statement was not recorded in her presence. She has denied the suggestion that the alleged house was owned by Tara Chand and Mangal Chand was not running any shop. 16. PW-12 SHO Narian Singh has deposed the manner in which lancer car was stopped, accused were apprehended, their antecedents were ascertained and all the codal formalities were completed on the spot. The accused identified the house from where he had purchased the contraband. The house which was identified by accused Ashish Sachdeva had a sweet shop on the ground floor parallel to the road and where one person was sitting. The accused told the police that he was the same person, who sold him the charas. They inquired from that person, who disclosed his name as Mangal Chand. Charas recovered from the house of Mangal Chand was also sealed as per the procedure laid down. Photographs were also taken. On 16.10.2008, Mangal Chand made a disclosure statement under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act vide Ex.PW-3/A that he could show the place where he has kept Rs. 5,000/- received from accused Ashish as a price for 340 grams of charas. Thereafter, Rs. 5,000/- was recovered. He has obtained Jamabandi Ex.PW-9/B and aks tatima Ex.PW-9/A from the local Patwari. He has proved chemical examiner’s reports Ex.PW-12/O and Ex.PW-12/P. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the police had clicked the photographs of the car alongwith independent witnesses. The samples were taken to FSL, Junga by HHC Mast Ram. In his cross-examination conducted by the learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of accused No. 4, he has denied that site plan Ex.PW-12/F was not according to the spot. Charan Singh told him that the sweet shop belongs to Mangal Chand. The shop shown in Ex.DA is the same shop which belonged to accused Mangal Chand. In his cross-examination conducted by the learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of accused No. 4, he has denied that site plan Ex.PW-12/F was not according to the spot. Charan Singh told him that the sweet shop belongs to Mangal Chand. The shop shown in Ex.DA is the same shop which belonged to accused Mangal Chand. He has admitted that the name of the proprietor has been mentioned on the sign board as Tara Chand Thakur. 17. Case of the prosecution precisely is that accused Nos. 1 to 3 were travelling in a car. The car was intercepted. Accused Ashish Sachdeva was carrying a bag in his lap. It was searched and on search charas weighing 340 grams was found. He made a disclosure statement under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act to the police that he has purchased the charas from Mangal Chand by paying a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on 14.10.2008. The house of Mangal Chand was also searched. On search charas weighing 3 kgs and 700 grams was recovered from the house of Mangal Chand. All the codal formalities were completed on the spot when the charas weighing 340 grams was recovered from accused, namely, Ashish Sachdeva and Deepak Chaudhary. Codal formalities were also completed when charas 3 kgs and 700 grams was recovered. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was also recovered by the police from the house of Mangal Chand. The house of Mangal Chand was identified on the basis of tatima and Jamabandi prepared by PW-9 Sanjay Kumar. Learned trial court has acquitted accused on the ground that there are material contradictions in the statements of witnesses. According to the trial court, independent witnesses PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Charan Singh have not supported the case of prosecution. 18. PW-1 Om Prakash though was declared hostile but has admitted his signatures on Ex.PW-1/A, Ex.PW- 1/B, Ex.PW-1/C and Ex.PW-1/D. He was matriculate as per his own admission. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that he must have read the documents before putting signatures on these documents. It is not stated by PW-1 Om Prakash that he was forced to put his signatures on the documents. Similarly, Charan Singh though was declared hostile, but has admitted his signatures on Ex.PW-2/A, Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-2/C. PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Charan Singh have admitted their photographs with the accused. It is not stated by PW-1 Om Prakash that he was forced to put his signatures on the documents. Similarly, Charan Singh though was declared hostile, but has admitted his signatures on Ex.PW-2/A, Ex.PW-2/B and Ex.PW-2/C. PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Charan Singh have admitted their photographs with the accused. The statements of PW-1 Om Prakash and PW-2 Charan Singh could not be discarded in its entirety, more particularly, when they have admitted their signatures on the important documents. PW-3 Dile Ram has admitted his signatures on Ex.PW-3/A whereby Mangal Chand made statement to the police under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act that he could get recovered Rs. 5,000/- from his house, which was received by him as a sale consideration of the cannabis from Ashish Sachdeva. The case property was deposited with MHC Kartar Singh. He sent the same to FSL, Junga through PW-6 HHC Mast Ram after filling in column No.12 of NCB-1 form Ex.PW-5/C. The case property has remained intact till the same remained in his custody as per the statement of PW-6 Mast Ram. PW-9 Sanjay Kumar has proved copy of tatima Ex.PW-9/A and Jamabandi Ex.PW-9/B. It is evident from copy of tatima Ex.PW-9/A and copy of Jamabandi Ex.PW-9/B that the house from where the charas was recovered belonged to Mangal Chand. PW-9 Sanjay Kumar was not cross-examined by the advocate appearing on behalf of accused Mangal Chand. PW-10 Shambhu Prakash though was declared hostile but was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He has admitted his signatures on Ex.PW-2/D as well as seizure memo Ex.PW-2/A. It cannot be believed that he would sign the documents without going through the contents of the same. 19. Case of the prosecution has been proved by the official witnesses PW-11 Sarswati and PW-12 SHO Narain Singh. They have categorically deposed the manner in which accused Ashish Sachdeva, Deepak Chaudhary and Pradeep were apprehended while travelling in a lancer car bearing registration No.DL-3C-V-6581, charas weighing 340 grams was recovered and all the codal formalities were completed on the spot. Accused Ashish Sachdeva made a disclosure statement vide Ex.PW-1/D that he has purchased the charas from Mangal Chand. The house of accused Mangal Chand was also searched. The charas was also recovered from his house. It weighed 3 kgs and 700 grams. There are no major contradictions in the statements of PW-11 Sarswati and PW-12 SHO Narian Singh. Accused Ashish Sachdeva made a disclosure statement vide Ex.PW-1/D that he has purchased the charas from Mangal Chand. The house of accused Mangal Chand was also searched. The charas was also recovered from his house. It weighed 3 kgs and 700 grams. There are no major contradictions in the statements of PW-11 Sarswati and PW-12 SHO Narian Singh. The statements made by the official witnesses inspire confidence. 20. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karamjit Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration), reported in AIR 2003 SC 1311 , have held that there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. Presumption that person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons. It has been held as follows: “8. Shri Sinha, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has vehemently urged that all the witnesses of recovery examined by the prosecution are police personnel and in absence of any public witness, their testimony alone should not be held sufficient for sustaining the conviction of the appellant. In our opinion the contention raised is too broadly stated and cannot be accepted. The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. It will all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no principle of general application can be laid down. PW11 Pratap Singh has clearly stated in the opening part of his examination-in-chief that ACP Shakti Singh asked some public witnesses to accompany them but they showed their unwillingness. PW10 Rajinder Prasad, SI has given similar statement and has deposed that despite their best efforts no one from public was willing to join the raiding party due to the fear of the terrorists. Exactly similar statement has been given by PW9 R.D. Pandey. We should not forget that the incident took place in November 1990, when terrorism was at its peak in Punjab and neighbouring areas. Exactly similar statement has been given by PW9 R.D. Pandey. We should not forget that the incident took place in November 1990, when terrorism was at its peak in Punjab and neighbouring areas. The ground realities cannot be lost sight of that even in normal circumstances members of public are very reluctant to accompany a police party which is going to arrest a criminal or is embarking upon search of some premises. At the time when the terrorism was at its peak, it is quite natural for members of public to have avoided getting involved in a police operation for search or arrest of a person having links with terrorists. It is noteworthy that during the course of the cross-examination of the witness the defence did not even give any suggestion as to why they were falsely deposing against the appellant. There is absolutely no material or evidence on record to show that the prosecution witnesses had any reason to falsely implicate the appellant who was none else but a colleague of theirs being a member of the same police force. Therefore, the contention raised by Shri Sinha that on account of non-examination of a public witness, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who are police personnel, should not be relied upon has hardly any substance and cannot be accepted.” 21. The house of accused Mangal Chand was duly identified by the police. His family was also residing in the same house. The prosecution has duly proved that the charas weighing 340 grams was recovered from the car, in which accused Nos. 1 to 3 were travelling. The charas weighing 3 kgs and 700 grams was also recovered from the house of Mangal Chand situated in a village Chharod Nallah. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was also recovered. Mangal Chand has made a disclosure statement vide Ex.PW-3/A that he could get the money recovered from his house. Learned trial court has erred in law by observing that the house from where charas weighing 3 kgs and 700 grams was recovered did not belong to Mangal Chand. In fact, the house belonged to Mangal Chand as per tatima Ex.PW-9/A and Jamabandi Ex.PW-9/B. 22. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate that the charas was recovered from the open place from the lintel. In fact, the house belonged to Mangal Chand as per tatima Ex.PW-9/A and Jamabandi Ex.PW-9/B. 22. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate that the charas was recovered from the open place from the lintel. It cannot be said that there was free access to the lintel of the house of Mangal Chand. 23. Mr. Anup Chitkara, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused Nos. 1 to 3 has vehemently argued that the case against accused Pradeep and Deepak Chaudhary is not proved for offence under section 29 of the Act. However, learned trial court has not taken into consideration the fact that three accused, namely, Ashish Sachdeva, Pradeep and Deepak Chaudhary were travelling together in a car and all of them belonged to Delhi. It has come in the Statement of Ashish Sachdeva that they had gone to Kullu Dussehra. Thus, it can safely be presumed that there was agreement amongst the three accused, namely, Ashish Sachdeva, Pradeep and Deepak Chaudhary and the agreement was to do some illegal act. They had hatched conspiracy to transport the charas weighing 340 grams by travelling together in one car. The charas weighing 3.700 kgs was recovered from the shop of accused Mangal Chand. 24. Mr. Anup Chitkara has also submitted that the person, who had taken the bulk sample to FSL, Junga has not been examined. However, fact of the matter is that as per Ex.PW-5/A, charas weighing 290 grams recovered from accused Ashish Sachdeva, Deepak Chaudhary and Pradeep alongwith two samples of 25 grams each was deposited with MHC, who entered the same at Sr. No. 41. Similarly, charas weighing 3 kgs and 650 grams recovered from accused Mangal Chand alongwith two samples of 25 grams each was also deposited with the MHC. He deposited the same in Malkhana as per entry at Sr. No.41. The sample A-1 drawn from the charas weighing 340 grams recovered from accused Ashish Sachdeva and sample B-1 drawn from the charas weighing 3 kgs and 700 grams recovered from accused Mangal Chand were sent to FSL, Junga through PW-6 Mast Ram on 16.10.2010. The report of FSL, Junga is Ex.PW-12/O. The remaining bulk charas weighing 3.350 kgs and 256 grams was also sent to FSL, Junga through constable Birbal Dass on 1.1.2010. It was found to be charas as per report Ex.PW-12/P. 25. The report of FSL, Junga is Ex.PW-12/O. The remaining bulk charas weighing 3.350 kgs and 256 grams was also sent to FSL, Junga through constable Birbal Dass on 1.1.2010. It was found to be charas as per report Ex.PW-12/P. 25. Consequently, in view of analysis and discussion made hereinabove, the prosecution has proved its case against all the accused persons for the offence for which they have been charged. 26. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Judgment dated 3.9.2011 rendered by the Special Judge, FTC, Kullu in Sessions trial No. 45 of 2009 is set aside. The accused Ashish Sachdeva is convicted for offence under section 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the Act, accused Deepak Chaudhary and Pradeep are convicted for offence under section 29 of the Act and accused Mangal Chand is convicted for offence under section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Act. Accused be produced to be heard on the quantum of sentence on 8.7.2016. The bail bonds are cancelled. 27. The Registry is directed to prepare the production warrants.