JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge Accused Joga Singh, in a case registered under Section 20-61-85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ in short) vide FIR No. 11/2012 in Police Station, State CID, Bharari (Shimla) aggrieved by his conviction and sentence by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla vide judgment dated 29.10.2012, is in appeal before this Court. 2. The complaint is that learned trial Court has recorded the findings of conviction against the accused on surmises and conjectures. The contraband allegedly charas, if was tied by him with transparent tape on his both legs, it was necessarily required for the Investigating Officer to have conducted his search either in presence of a Gazetted officer or Magistrate. He never opted for being searched by the police. The consent memo Ext. PW-1/B is stated to be false. There is no compliance of the provisions contained under Section 50 of the Act. There being no evidence as to how much was the quantity of charas tied by him in his each leg, no findings of conviction could have been recorded. The search was conducted at 3.30 p.m. in broad day light and that too on a national highway, therefore, non-joining of independent witnesses has rendered the entire prosecution story highly improbable. The material contradictions in the statements of the official witnesses have been erroneously ignored and brushed aside. The judgment has, therefore, been sought to be quashed and set aside. 3. In a nut-shell, the prosecution case as disclosed from the record shortly stated is that PW-6 Sub Inspector Krishan Chand was posted as Investigating Officer in State CID Police Station, Bharari, Shimla in the year 2012. On 16.05.2012, around 11.30 p.m. he along with Head Constable Pradeep Kumar (PW-1) and Constable Joginder Singh (PW-2), proceeded towards Tara Devi and Shoghi side for patrolling and in connection with detection of crimes. Rapat Ext. PW-1/A to this effect was entered in the rojnamcha. Around 3.30 p.m. when the police party reached at a place one kilometer ahead of bifurcation of road to P.W.D rest house Tara Devi, one person walking ahead of them was spotted. PW-6 asked him to stop. On inquiry, the said person has disclosed his name Joga Singh. Also that he was going on foot from Tara Devi to Shoghi Side. PW-6 asked him to stop. On inquiry, the said person has disclosed his name Joga Singh. Also that he was going on foot from Tara Devi to Shoghi Side. On asking as to why he was going to Shoghi walking on foot and that too at an isolated place, he failed to answer satisfactorily and rather became nervous. He tried to flee away from the spot, however, apprehended by the police. On further inquiry, he disclosed his parentage and also the place of his residence at Patiala in Punjab. PW-6 suspected that the accused is in possession of some narcotic substance or drug. The efforts were made to try independent witnesses, however, the place being isolated, no person could be associated as independent witness. PW-6 even tried to stop few vehicles, but of no avail because the persons on wheel of such vehicles did not stop the same. Therefore, the Investigating Officer has associated Head Constable Pradeep Kumar (PW-1) and HHG Narinder Kumar (PW-2) as witnesses and proceeded further in the matter. The accused was informed orally as well as in writing about his right of being searched either in presence of a Gazetted officer or a Magistrate. The memo Ext. PW-1/B was prepared in this regard. The accused, however, agreed for his search by the police itself. Therefore, after obtaining the consent of the accused, PW-6 offered his own search to the accused first vide memo Ext. PW-1/C. Nothing incriminating was found during the search of PW-6 conducted by the accused. Thereafter, the personal search of the accused was conducted. He was found to have wrapped some substance brown in colour with plastic tape on his both legs below knee level. The Investigating Officer got the plastic tape cut and noticed that two transparent plastic poly bags containing black coloured substance in the shape of balls and sticks were tied with both legs. On checking and smelling the same and on his personal experience, the Investigating Officer found the same to be charas. When weighed with electronic scale, the Investigating Officer having with him, it was found to be 1.300grams. The recovered charas along with plastic bag and tape was packed in a parcel of cloth and it was sealed with 10 seals of impression ‘K’. Samples of seal Ext. PW-1/D were drawn and the seal after its use handed over to Head Constable Pradeep Kumar. The recovered charas along with plastic bag and tape was packed in a parcel of cloth and it was sealed with 10 seals of impression ‘K’. Samples of seal Ext. PW-1/D were drawn and the seal after its use handed over to Head Constable Pradeep Kumar. The recovered charas was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-1/E. All the documents were prepared in the presence of witnesses and also the accused, which were also signed by them. The Investigating Officer thereafter filled in the NCB forms Ext. PW-4/D in triplicate. He prepared the rukka Ext. PW- 6/A and it was forwarded through Constable Joginder Singh along with parcels containing charas, seizure memo, NCB forms and sample of seal to Police Station State CID Bharari for registration of a case. On the basis of rukka, FIR No. 11/12, Ext. PW-4/A was registered by PW- 4 Head Constable Parkash, the then MHC, Police Station, State CID, Bharari. Spot map Ext. PW-6/B was prepared. Since the accused was found to be in possession of charas weighing 1.300grams, therefore, he was arrested after the grounds of arrest disclosed to him vide memo Ext. PW-6/C. The statements of witnesses were recorded. Memo Ext. PW-3/A qua the articles recovered during the personal search of the accused was prepared. Special report Ext. PW-1/F was prepared and it was sent to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Bharari, Shimla. The certificate CIPA (Common Integrated Police Application) was also prepared. The case property was re-sealed by PW-5 Inspector Tenzin Shasni, the then Station House Officer with six seals of impression ‘R’. The sample of seal Ext. PW-5/A was separately drawn on a piece of cloth. PW-5 has also filled in relevant columns of NCB forms vide memo Ext. PW-4/D. He thereafter deposited the case property with the MHC in the Malkhana. PW-4 received the parcels containing recovered charas duly sealed along with NCB forms in triplicate, seizure memo, re-sealing certificate and retained the same in Malkhana. Entries Ext. PW-4/B were made in the Malkhana register. On 17.05.2012, PW-4 has handed over the parcels containing the recovered charas, sample of seals ‘K’ and ‘R’, NCB forms in triplicate, copy of seizure memo and reseal certificate and copy of FIR vide RC No. 39/12 Ext. PW-4/C to Constable Joginder Singh for being deposited in the Forensic Science Laboratory. Entries Ext. PW-4/B were made in the Malkhana register. On 17.05.2012, PW-4 has handed over the parcels containing the recovered charas, sample of seals ‘K’ and ‘R’, NCB forms in triplicate, copy of seizure memo and reseal certificate and copy of FIR vide RC No. 39/12 Ext. PW-4/C to Constable Joginder Singh for being deposited in the Forensic Science Laboratory. The said Constable has deposited the case property in Forensic Science Laboratory and produced the receipt on it before PW-4. 4. On receipt of the chemical examiner’s report Ext. P-X and completion of the investigation of the case, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared by PW-5 and filed in the Court. 5. Learned trial Judge on appreciation of the investigation conducted by the police and the documents annexed to the report filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has prima-facie found the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence punishable under Section 20-61-85 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Therefore, charge against him was framed accordingly. He, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge, therefore, the prosecution was called upon to produce the evidence in order to sustain the charge so framed against the accused. 6. The prosecution, in turn, has examined six witnesses in all. The material prosecution witnesses are PW-1 HC Pradeep Kumar, PW-2 HHG Narinder Kumar, PW-3 Constable Joginder Singh and PW-6 Sub-Inspector Krishan Chand, the Investigating Officer, who has apprehended the accused, conducted his search and recovered charas weighing 1.300grams from his possession. The remaining witnesses PW-4 and PW-5 are formal being the Moharer Head Constable and the Station House Officer, Police Station, State CID Bharari and the evidence as has come on record by way of their testimony can be considered and taken as link evidence. 7. Learned trial Court on appreciation of the evidence has concluded that in view of the cogent and reliable evidence produced by the prosecution during the course of trial, the charas weighing 1.300 Grams has been recovered from the physical and conscious possession of the accused and as such, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is this judgment, which is under challenge in the present appeal. 8. Mr. It is this judgment, which is under challenge in the present appeal. 8. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, learned counsel representing the convict has argued with all vehemence that learned trial Court has erred legally and factually in placing reliance on the testimony of official witnesses. According to him, there is no consistency in the statements made by these witnesses and they rather have contradicted each other on material aspects. The option of the accused qua his search either before the Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate is not at all obtained in accordance with law and as such, the entire proceedings in the trial have vitiated. The alleged place of recovery, a national highway, the independent witnesses could have easily been associated. Therefore, it is submitted that the non-joining of independent witnesses has rendered the entire prosecution story highly doubtful. Mr. Sharma has, therefore, urged that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the findings of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant-convict have, therefore, been sought to be quashed and set aside. 9. On the other hand, Mr. D.S. Nainta, learned Additional Advocate General while repelling the submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant-convict, has urged that the official witnesses are as much good as any independent person and as such, the Court below is stated to have rightly appreciated the evidence as has come on record by way of their testimony. It is also urged that the statements made by the prosecution witnesses are consistent and support the prosecution case on all material aspects. The appeal, therefore, has been sought to be dismissed. 10. We have analyzed the rival submissions and also gone through the evidence available on record. The present is a case registered under Section 20 of the N.D. P.S. Act. The offence under the section ibid is not only heinous but grievous also because the offender not commits an offence of this nature against any individual but the public at large. The illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and other substances has played havoc in the society as a whole, particularly in our young generation, which got attracted to the drugs and other narcotic substances easily and then become addict thereof. The illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and other substances has played havoc in the society as a whole, particularly in our young generation, which got attracted to the drugs and other narcotic substances easily and then become addict thereof. It is for this reason, provision of stringent punishment has been made against an offender, if after holding full trial is found guilty of the commission of offence. At the same time, there are few safeguards also provided under the Act, which save an innocent person from conviction if the investigating agency is found to be lacking in taking care thereof while conducting the search and seizure and the investigation of a case registered under the Act. 11. The sine qua none to infer the commission of an offence under the Act is the recovery of contraband from the actual and physical possession of the accused. The prosecution has successfully pleaded and proved that the police party headed by PW-6 Sub Inspector Krishan Chand has left the Police Station at 11.30 p.m towards Tara Devi and Shoghi side for patrolling and detection of crimes. The police party as per the evidence having come on record by way of the testimony of PWs 1, 3 and 6 first reached at Long Wood from Bharari. They boarded a bus from Long Wood up to Victory tunnel. They boarded another bus from Victory tunnel and reached at Tara Devi around 1.30 p.m. The police party remained at Tara Devi up to 3.00 p.m when collected intelligence (certain secret information) there. Then they started walking on foot on the national highway. When they reached at point ‘D’ in the spot map Ext. PW-6/B near the bifurcation of road to P.W.D Rest House Tara Devi, the accused was spotted and asked to stop there. All the prosecution witnesses are categoric and specific while deposing so in the witness box. 12. True it is that the place of recovery is a national highway. There is again no quarrel that it is busy road and connecting Shimla with Chandigarh. The time was 3.30 p.m i.e. day time, however, the prosecution case that PW-4 has signaled many vehicles to stop, but of no avail, found corroboration from the testimony of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 6. That place is also isolated, as the market and residential houses are either at Tara Devi or ahead of that place i.e. Shoghi. The time was 3.30 p.m i.e. day time, however, the prosecution case that PW-4 has signaled many vehicles to stop, but of no avail, found corroboration from the testimony of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 6. That place is also isolated, as the market and residential houses are either at Tara Devi or ahead of that place i.e. Shoghi. Since the persons on wheel of the vehicles being driven to and fro did not stop their vehicles, irrespective of signaled by the Investigating Officer and the place an isolated one, it cannot be said that the Investigating Officer has avoided intentionally and deliberately to associate the independent witnesses. The Investigating Officer and the remaining three witnesses of spot have corroborated this aspect of the prosecution case in toto. Meaning thereby that there is a plausible explanation qua non- joining of independent witnesses at the time of conducting search and seizure. 13. The Apex Court has held in Girja Prasad v. State of M.P., (2007) 7 SCC 625 that the conviction can be based on the testimony of official witnesses, however, if otherwise inspires confidence. 14. This legal position has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Makhan Singh v. State of Haryana, (2015) 12 SCC 247 . The relevant extract of reads as follows: “……In peculiar circumstances of the case, it may not be possible to find out independent witnesses at all places at all times. Independent witnesses who live in the same village or nearby villages of the accused are at times afraid to come and depose in favour of the prosecution. Though it is well settled that a conviction can be based solely on the testimony of official witnesses, condition precedent is that the evidence of such official witnesses must inspire confidence. In the present case, it is not as if independent witnesses were not available…..” 15. Now, if coming to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses PWs 1, 3 and 6, they all while in the witness-box have stated in one voice that they started from Police Station, Bharari at 11.30 a.m., boarded a bus from Long Wood to Victory tunnel and from Victory tunnel to Tara Devi. They reached at Tara Devi at 1.30 p.m. They remained there up to 3.00 p.m. It is, thereafter, they started walking on national highway towards Shoghi side. They reached at Tara Devi at 1.30 p.m. They remained there up to 3.00 p.m. It is, thereafter, they started walking on national highway towards Shoghi side. Accused was nabbed at a place where the road bifurcates to P.W.D Rest House, Tara Devi i.e. one kilometer away from Tara Devi bazaar. Independent witnesses were not present, therefore, the Investigating Officer PW-6 has associated PW-1 Head Constable Pradeep Kumar and HHG Narinder Kumar, PW-2 as independent witnesses and conducted the search of the accused in their presence after obtaining his consent. They all have stated that the charas was wrapped by the accused with tape on his both legs below knee level. They have also supported the prosecution case qua the weighment of the recovered charas and sealing process. It is also established from their testimony that after the recovery of charas, NCB forms Ext. Ext. PW-4/D was filled-in, in triplicate. Thereafter, rukka Ext. PW-6/A was prepared and handed over to Constable Joginder Singh, PW-3. The parcels containing case property were also given to PW-3 for being handed over to the Station House Officer in the Police Station. The registration of FIR Ext. PW-4/A on the basis of rukka Ext. PW-6/A is also satisfactorily proved on record. 16. The appreciation of the statements of PWs 1, 3 and 6 leads to the only conclusion that they are specific and categoric on all material aspects, such as time when they left the Police Station. Time when they reached at Tara Devi, the place where the accused was apprehended and the recovery of charas weighing 1.300 kilograms from his possession. Learned counsel though has argued that the evidence as has come on record by way of their testimonies is contradictory in nature, however, merely for rejection because he failed to point out any inconsistency or contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Dalel Singh V. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 149 and State of Punjab V. Lakhvinder Singh and another (2010) 4 SCC 402 has held that the minor discrepancies in the statements of witnesses are bound to occur due to the fading of the memories of the witnesses. The same should not be viewed seriously to doubt the prosecution case, if the same otherwise is found to have proved beyond all reasonable doubt with the help of cogent and reliable evidence. 17. The same should not be viewed seriously to doubt the prosecution case, if the same otherwise is found to have proved beyond all reasonable doubt with the help of cogent and reliable evidence. 17. The accused belongs to Patiala. In order to explain his presence in Shimla, no doubt, it is his case that he was here on pleasure trip, as a tourist, however, it cannot be believed so for the reason that during his personal search conducted by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ext. PW-3/A, currency notes worth of Rs.13/- were found in his purse. He, therefore, was not in Shimla as a tourist and rather doing business i.e. to carry charas for someone else may be in the capacity of a carrier. Therefore, the recovery of charas from his physical and conscious possession stands satisfactorily established on record. In this view of the matter, the burden to prove otherwise that he is innocent and has not committed any offence was shifted on the accused. In view of the findings hereinabove, he, however, has failed to discharge the onus upon him and as such, the presumptions envisaged under Sections 35 and 54 of the Act can be raised against him. 18. In similar circumstances, the Apex Court in Noor Aga Versus State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417 has held as under: “58. Sections 35 and 54 of the Act, no doubt, raise presumptions with regard to the culpable mental state on the part of the accused as also place burden of proof in this behalf on the accused; but a bare perusal the said provision would clearly show that presumption would operate in the trial of the accused only in the event the circumstances contained therein are fully satisfied. An initial burden exists upon the prosecution and only when it stands satisfied, the legal burden would shift. Even then, the standard of proof required for the accused to prove his innocence is not as high as that of the prosecution. Whereas the standard of proof required to prove the guilt of accused on the prosecution is "beyond all reasonable doubt" but it is ‘preponderance of probability' on the accused. If the prosecution fails to prove the foundational facts so as to attract the rigours of Section 35 of the Act, the actus reus which is possession of contraband by the accused cannot be said to have been established. If the prosecution fails to prove the foundational facts so as to attract the rigours of Section 35 of the Act, the actus reus which is possession of contraband by the accused cannot be said to have been established. 59. With a view to bring within its purview the requirements of Section 54 of the Act, element of possession of the contraband was essential so as to shift the burden on the accused. The provisions being exceptions to the general rule, the generality thereof would continue to be operative, namely, the element of possession will have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 6. Whether the burden on the accused is a legal burden or an evidentiary burden would depend on the statute in question. The purport and object thereof must also be taken into consideration in determining the said question. It must pass the test of doctrine of proportionality. The difficulties faced by the prosecution in certain cases may be held to be sufficient to arrive at an opinion that the burden on the accused is an evidentiary burden and not merely a legal burden. The trial must be fair. The accused must be provided with opportunities to effectively defend himself.” 19. Be it stated that as per the ratio of the judgment supra it is the prosecution which has first to prove the foundational facts i.e. proof qua the recovery of the contraband from the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt to attract the rigours of Section 35 of the Act and it is only thereafter the burden to prove otherwise that the contraband has not been recovered from his exclusive and conscious possession would shift upon the accused. Also that, the standard of proof to discharge the onus upon the accused to prove his innocence is not so high as compared to that upon the prosecution and the accused can discharge such onus upon him merely on preponderance of probability. However, we are of the firm view that cogent and consistent eye witness count given by PWs 1 and 3 and supported by the testimony of the I.O. PW6 leaves no manner of doubt that the ‘charas’ has been recovered from the physical and conscious possession of the accused. As noticed supra, he however, failed to discharge the onus upon him even by preponderance of probability also. As noticed supra, he however, failed to discharge the onus upon him even by preponderance of probability also. The explanation qua his presence at the place of recovery that he had come to Shimla on a pleasure trip as a tourist is neither plausible nor reasonable and stands discarded as per findings recorded in para supra. In our considered opinion, he had come to carry charas may be for someone else. The fact, however, remains that the charas has been recovered from his physical and conscious possession. 20. Much has been said about the compliance of provisions contained under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S Act. The evidence, as discussed hereinabove, makes it crystal clear that the option of being searched in the presence of a Gazetted officer or Magistrate was sought from the accused vide memo Ext. PW-1/B. He, however, opted for being searched by the police itself. It lies ill in the mouth of the accused that his consent was not obtained for the reason that this part of the prosecution case finds full corroboration from the testimonies of PWs 1 and 3 and that of PW-6, the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the convict cannot be said to have any grievance qua this aspect of the matter 21. True it is that at the time of search and seizure of contraband or narcotic drugs, independent witnesses are required to be associated, however, in the case in hand, as already discussed hereinabove, the Investigating Officer, PW-6 has made efforts to associate someone as independent witness, but failed to do so, as the drivers did not stop their vehicles being plied on the road and the place was isolated. No doubt, an effort has been made to show that P.W.D workshop was situated nearby, as is apparent from the trend of crossexamination of the prosecution witnesses conducted by learned defence counsel, however, without any result as except for bald suggestion, nothing has come on record as to at what distance such workshop was situated. Therefore, the ratio of the judgments of Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Bal Raj Singh v. State of HP, Latest HLJ 2014(HP) 1120 and Tarun Sharma v. State of HP, Latest HLJ 2015(HP) 519 is not attracted in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 22. Therefore, the ratio of the judgments of Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Bal Raj Singh v. State of HP, Latest HLJ 2014(HP) 1120 and Tarun Sharma v. State of HP, Latest HLJ 2015(HP) 519 is not attracted in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 22. We, however, draw support qua this aspect of the matter from the judgment of the Apex Court in Makhan Singh’s case (supra), in which it has been held that it is not always possible to associate someone as independent witness to witness the search and seizure and at times even the villagers do not agree to assist the police in the investigation of a case. Also that, if the witnesses examined by the prosecution are consistent that the efforts were made to join independent persons as witnesses, the same is sufficient to discharge the onus upon the prosecution. 23. Now if coming to another aspect of the matter, highlighted by Mr. Sharma, learned defence counsel during the course of arguments that failure of the prosecution to produce the evidence as to whom the case property was entrusted for being produced in the Court and under what condition the same was redeposited in the Malkhana, has vitiated the trial. We are afraid that such a plea can be raised in defence by the accused for the reason that from the perusal of statement of PW-1 Head Constable Pradeep Kumar it is apparent that the parcel containing case property was produced by learned Public Prosecutor in the Court. The accused and learned defence counsel were also present there. On checking, the seals were found intact. It is thereafter the permission as sought by learned Public Prosecutor to open the same was granted by the trial Court. The defence has not raised any objection qua the manner in which the parcel containing the recovered charas was produced in the Court. Therefore, it lies ill in the mouth of the convict to claim that for want of rapat in rojnamcha or evidence qua production of the case property in the Court, the trial has vitiated. The ratio of the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rajinder Singh and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Latest HLJ 2015(HP) 1532 is, therefore, distinguishable on facts. 24. The ratio of the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rajinder Singh and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Latest HLJ 2015(HP) 1532 is, therefore, distinguishable on facts. 24. True it is that the trial Court was required to have ordered to re-seal the parcels opened with its permission qua re-sealing the same with the seal of the Court and thereafter to hand over the same to learned Public Prosecutor for being taken to Malkhana of the concerned Police Station in order to ensure that the same is re-deposited in safe condition. Though, it appears to us that the trial Court may have re-sealed the parcel containing the case property with its own seal, however, omitted to pass an order to this effect in the zimini order of that day. It is not only in this case but also in other cases registered under the Act, our experience shows that the Subordinate Courts have stopped to pass an order qua re-sealing of the parcels and case property opened during the course of recording prosecution evidence with the permission of the Court. Such an approach is not at all appreciated as the same is not in the interest of fair trial. The trial Courts are required to invariably pass an order qua re-sealing of the parcels containing case property in the Court with its own seal and before handing over the same to learned Public Prosecutor or to any other officer/official authorized to receive the same and ensure that the same are properly re-sealed and also to record its satisfaction in the zimini order. We, therefore, direct Registrar (Vigilance) on the establishment of the Registry of this Court to issue instructions in the light of the observations hereinabove to all the Subordinate Courts in the State for its strict compliance with a caution that any deviation or violation thereof shall be viewed seriously including initiation of proceedings against the erring Judicial Officers in accordance with law. 25. The link evidence is also complete because parcel containing the case property was sealed by the Investigating Officer with impression seal ‘K’ and the seal was handed over to PW-1, who had also brought the same to the Court on the day of his examination. 25. The link evidence is also complete because parcel containing the case property was sealed by the Investigating Officer with impression seal ‘K’ and the seal was handed over to PW-1, who had also brought the same to the Court on the day of his examination. Parcel along with NCB forms and seizure memo were handed over by PW-3 Constable Joginder Singh to PW-5 Station House Officer on that day at 5.30 p.m. PW-5 has resealed the same with six seals of impression ‘R’ and drawn the sample of seal Ext. PW-5/A over a piece of cloth. It is thereafter, he handed over the case property to PW-4 MHC Parkash who had entered the same in Malkhana register vide entries Ext. PW-4/B and retained the same in safe custody. PW-4 has forwarded the case property to Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga vide RC Ext. PW-4/C through Constable Joginder Singh, PW-3. The said witness has stated that the case property was deposited by him in the Laboratory in safe custody. The preparation of special report Ext. PW-1/F also stands proved in this case, which as per the version of PW-1 was handed over to Shri Vijay Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police on 17.05.2012 by the Investigating Officer, PW-6 himself. The report of chemical examiner Ext. P-X makes it crystal clear that the parcel containing the case property duly sealed with impression ‘K’ and ‘R’ was received in good condition along with NCB forms and the sample of seals. The same was not tampered with. On analyzing the recovered contraband sent for analysis was found to be the extract of cannabis, hence sample of charas. 26. In view of oral as well as documentary evidence discussed hereinabove, we are satisfied that learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity while arriving at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused has, therefore, been rightly convicted and sentenced. The impugned judgment cannot be said to be legally and factually unsustainable. The same as such is affirmed. 27. For all the reasons hereinabove, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.