JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. The State has come in appeal against Judgment dated 28.11.2011 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, HP in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2011, whereby respondents-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake), who were charged with and tried for offence under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for convenience sake), have been acquitted by the learned trial Court. 2. Prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that on 2.3.2011 at 6.30 AM, Incharge PP Jari Dheeraj Singh was present at Suma Chalon in connection with patrolling and Nakabandi duty. In the meantime, a Scorpio Jeep having registration No. HR-18E-0014 green in colour came from Manikaran side. ASI Dheeraj Singh signalled the jeep to stop. Police asked for the documents of jeep. Occupants of the vehicle became perplexed and were reluctant to show the documents. Police suspected that the accused might be carrying some stolen article in the jeep. Driver of the jeep disclosed his name as Nazar Khan, person sitting beside driver disclosed his name as Sahil and third accused who was sitting in the rear seat disclosed his name as Raj Kapoor. Police found one blanket bag and a carry bag in the boot compartment of the jeep. Police noticed that accused sitting in the rear seat was carrying a carry bag on his lap. Occupants of jeep could not give a satisfactory answer to the query raised by the police. Police waited for 15 minutes for some passersby or for another vehicle so that independent witnesses could be associated. The place was isolated. No vehicle or inhabitant crossed at that point of time. Two officials of Naka party were associated as witnesses. Police personnel gave their search to the accused. Thereafter they conducted search of the vehicle. Carry bag in the lap of Raj Kapoor was checked. It contained clothes i.e. jean pants, T-shirt and a shirt. Under these clothes, packets, yellow, khaki and soil coloured were found. These packets were opened. Black coloured material wrapped in transparent polythene papers, rectangular in shape was recovered. It was found to be Charas. It weighed 4.5 kg. Charas and clothes were put back in carry bag and carry bag was wrapped in a piece of cloth. Pullinda was sealed with eight impressions of seal ‘H’. These packets were opened. Black coloured material wrapped in transparent polythene papers, rectangular in shape was recovered. It was found to be Charas. It weighed 4.5 kg. Charas and clothes were put back in carry bag and carry bag was wrapped in a piece of cloth. Pullinda was sealed with eight impressions of seal ‘H’. Accused Raj Kapoor disclosed to the police that 2 kg Charas belonged to Nazar Khan, 1.5 kg Charas belonged to Sahil and rest 1 kg Charas was his own. IO sent Rukka to the Police Station through Constable Kuldeep Kumar on the basis of which FIR was registered. Case property was produced before SHO Sher Singh by the IO, who resealed the parcel with three seals of seal impression ‘T’. Case property was deposited in the Malkhana. Case property was sent to FSL Junga for chemical analysis. Investigation was completed. Challan was put in the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused were also examined under Section 313 CrPC. They denied the prosecution case in its entirety. Their specific defence was that they had an altercation with the police at Jari Bazaar during traffic checking. Police took them to Police Station on 1.3.2011 and obtained their signatures on blank papers. Learned trial Court acquitted all the accused. Hence, this appeal by the State. 4. Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. Mr. Ajay Sharma and Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocates, have supported Judgment dated 28.11.2011. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the Judgment and record carefully. 7. Rajnish Kumar (PW-1) testified that he was posted at PS Sadar, Kullu since February, 2010. On 3.3.2011, MHC Ram Krishan handed over one parcel which was sealed with 8 impressions of seal ‘H’ and resealed with three impressions of ‘T’ allegedly containing 4.5 kg Charas alongwith docket, copy of FIR, recovy memo, sample seals ‘H’ and ‘T’ etc. vide RC No. 68/2011 with the direction to deposit the same at FSL Junga. He deposited the same at FSL Junga on 4.3.2011 and obtained receipt from dealing hand and on his return handed over the receipt to MHC. 8. vide RC No. 68/2011 with the direction to deposit the same at FSL Junga. He deposited the same at FSL Junga on 4.3.2011 and obtained receipt from dealing hand and on his return handed over the receipt to MHC. 8. HC Brij Bhushan (PW-3) testified that on 2.3.2011, at 6.30 AM he alongwith Constable Pritam, Constable Kuldeep Kumar and Constable Munish Kumar was present at village Suma Chalon in connection with Nakabandi under the supervision of ASI Dheeraj Singh. In the meantime, one vehicle came from Manikaran side. It was signalled to stop. It was bearing registration No. HR-18E-0014. Three persons were travelling in the jeep. One person was sitting alongwith driver on the front seat and third person was sitting behind the driver. Driver was asked to produce the documents of the jeep. On this the other occupants of the vehicle got perplexed. Driver was reluctant to show the documents. On checking, police found that person sitting on the back seat was having a bag in his lap. A blanket bag in the boot compartment with carry bag was also found. The spot at Suma Chalon was isolated. There was no residential locality near the spot. No vehicle passed through that place. ASI waited for 15 minutes and when he found no independent witnesses, he associated Constable Pritam and him as witnesses. Bag, which was in the lap of accused Raj Kapoor was checked. Raj Kapoor disclosed that articles inside the bag belonged to him and two other accused Nazar Khan and Sahil. Under the clothes, some packets, yellow, khaki and soil coloured were found. These were opened. They contained Charas. It weighed 4.5 Kg. Raj Kapoor disclosed that 2 kg Charas belonged to Nazar Khan, 1.5 kg Charas belonged to Sahil and the remaining 1 kg Charas belonged to him. Charas was put back in the packets and packets were put in same carry bag alongwith clothes. Pullinda was sealed with 8 impressions of seal ‘H’. NCB-I form in triplicate was filled in. Sample of seal was taken on pieces of cloth and one of such samples was Ext. PW-3/B. Seal after use was entrusted to him. Samples of seal and parcel were signed by him, constable Pritam Singh and accused. The Charas, vehicle alongwith documents etc. were taken into possession by the police vide memo Ext. Sample of seal was taken on pieces of cloth and one of such samples was Ext. PW-3/B. Seal after use was entrusted to him. Samples of seal and parcel were signed by him, constable Pritam Singh and accused. The Charas, vehicle alongwith documents etc. were taken into possession by the police vide memo Ext. PW-3/C. IO prepared Rukka and sent the same through Constable Kuldeep to Police Station. Site plan was prepared. In his cross-examination, he deposed that distance of spot from PP Jari was about 1 km. They reached the spot within half an hour. No vehicle crossed through the road during that half an hour. No person was found walking on the road between 5 to 5.30 AM. Village Dhunkra was 200 metres ahread from PP Jari. There were about 8-10 houses in village Dhunkra within the periphery of 40-50 metres. Houses were situate on both the sides of the road. Village Suma Ropa was about 2 kms from Dhunkra. He admitted that police post was just outside the gate of Malana Project Gate which was about 1 km from Jari Bazaar. No bus or truck passed through the spot in between 5.30 to 6.30 AM. He denied the suggestion that the accused were stopped by the police on 1.3.2011 at Jari Bazaar. 9. Ram Krishan (PW-4) deposed that on 2.3.2011, Inspector-SHO Sher Singh deposited one Pullinda which was sealed with eight seals of ‘H’ and three seals of ‘T’ allegedly containing 4.5 kg Charas alongwith NCB form in triplicate, sample of seals. Pullinda was handed over to him at 6.20 PM. He deposited the Pullinda in Malkhana after making entry at Sr. No. 15 of the Malkhana Register. On 3.3.2011, he handed over Pullinda to Constable Rajnish Kumar vide RC No. 68 of 2011, Ext. PW-4/B alongwith docket Ext. PW-4/C, NCB-I form in triplicate, samples of seals ‘H’ and ‘T’, copy of FIR and recovery memo with the direction to deposit the same at FSL Junga. He filled in relevant columns of NCB form Ext. PW-4/B. Constable Rajnish Kumar, on his return handed over receipt from FSL Junga to him. 10. SHO Sher Singh (PW-5) testified that on 2.3.2011, ASI Dheeraj Singh sent Rukka Ext. PW-5/A through Constable Kuldeep on the basis of which he registered FIR Ext. PW-5/B. on the same day, ASI Dheeraj Singh produced case property related to the case before him alongwith accused. 10. SHO Sher Singh (PW-5) testified that on 2.3.2011, ASI Dheeraj Singh sent Rukka Ext. PW-5/A through Constable Kuldeep on the basis of which he registered FIR Ext. PW-5/B. on the same day, ASI Dheeraj Singh produced case property related to the case before him alongwith accused. He resealed the Pullinda with three seals of impression ‘T’. He also took samples of seal ‘T’ on separate pieces of cloth and one such sample is Ext. PW-5/C. 11. Constable Kuldeep Singh (PW-7) testified that on 2.3.2011 at 6.30 AM, he alongwith HC Brij Bhushan, Prtam Singh, Munish Kumar under the supervision of ASI Dheeraj Singh was present at Suma Chalon in connection with Nakabandi when a green coloured Scorpio baring registration No. HR-18E-0014 came from Manikaran side. ASI Dheeraj signalled the vehicle to stop. He asked driver to show the documents. Occupants of the jeep got perplexed. Contraband was recovered from the bag which was carried by Raj Kapoor. All the codal formalities were completed at the spot. Charas weighed 4.5 kg. Rukka Ext. PW-5/A was prepared by ASI Dheeraj and handed over to him. He took the Rukka to MHC Police Station, Kullu. In his cross-examination, by the learned defence Counsel appearing on behalf of accused Raj Kapoor, he deposed that Suma Chalon was about 1 km from PP Jari. In between PP Jari and Suma Chalon, one village Dhunkra was situate having 7-8 houses and one restaurant namely Sanjha Chula, which was about 300 metres away from PP Jari. He admitted that Sanjha Chula was a big hotel. He also admitted that there was a gate in said hotel, where security personnel remained posted. Suma Chalon was about 700 metres from Sanjha Chula. He denied the suggestion that Suma Ropa was about 200 metres from Suma Chalon. Volunteered that it was about 1 km away from Suma Chalon. No vehicle crossed till the time, Rukka was handed over to him. He admitted that IO did not send any person towards Suma Ropa or Sanjha Chula side for arranging the independent witnesses. In his cross-examination by the learned defence Counsel for accused Nos. 2 and 3, he admitted that many people visited old Shiv temple Manikaran on the Shivratri festival. 12. ASI Dheeraj Singh (PW-8) deposed the manner in which vehicle was intercepted. Vehicle was searched. Contraband was recovered. All the codal formalities were completed at the spot. In his cross-examination by the learned defence Counsel for accused Nos. 2 and 3, he admitted that many people visited old Shiv temple Manikaran on the Shivratri festival. 12. ASI Dheeraj Singh (PW-8) deposed the manner in which vehicle was intercepted. Vehicle was searched. Contraband was recovered. All the codal formalities were completed at the spot. He filled in NCB form and prepared Rukka. Rukka was sent to Police Station, on the basis of which FIR was registered. He also prepared site plan. He produced the case property before SHO for resealing of parcel. SHO resealed the parcel with his own seal. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that it was Shivratri on that day and flow of traffic was heavy. People used to visit old Shiv temple at Manikaran. He admitted that he did not send any official to search for independent witnesses. However, fact of the matter is that he waited for 15 minutes. Sanjha Chula was about 700 metres from Suma Chalon. The walking distance from Sanjha Chula to Suma Chalon was about 10-15 minutes. He admitted that village Dhunkra was situate in between Sanjha chula and PP Jari having residential abadi on both side of the road. Village Sumo Ropa was about 1 km from Suma Chalon. He admitted that Suma Ropa was thickly populated having NHPC stores where security personnel always remained deputed. 13. Brij Bhushan, PW-3, in his examination-in-chief has proved that spot Suma Chalon was isolated place and there was no residential locality near the spot. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that the distance of spot from PP Jari was 1 km and no vehicle crossed the road during that half an hour. One village Dhunkra was 1 km from PP Jari. There were 8-10 houses in the village Dhunkra situate on both sides of the road. Suma Ropa was 2 kms from Suma Chalon. Constable Kuldeep Singh (PW-7) also deposed that Suma Chalon was about 1 km from PP Jari. In between PP Jari and Suma Chalon, one village Dhunkra was situate having 7-8 houses and one restaurant namely Sanjha Chula, which was about 300 metres away from PP Jari. He admitted that Suma Chalon was about 700 metres from Sanjha Chula. Dheeraj Singh (PW-8) though admitted that a number of people crossed Sanjha Chula on that day. He did not send any officials to nearby locality to bring independent witnesses. He admitted that Suma Chalon was about 700 metres from Sanjha Chula. Dheeraj Singh (PW-8) though admitted that a number of people crossed Sanjha Chula on that day. He did not send any officials to nearby locality to bring independent witnesses. However, fact of the matter is that he has waited for 15 minutes for independent witnesses. Sanjha Chula was 700-800 metres from Suma Chalon. Walking distance from Sanjha Chula to Suma Chalon was about 10-15 minutes. He also admitted that village Dhunkra was situate in between Sanjha chula and PP Jari having residential abadi on both side of the road. 14. Accused were apprehended at 6.30 AM in the morning hours on 2.3.2011. It was dark at that time. Place where accused were apprehended, was isolated. Police has waited for 15 minutes for the independent witnesses. Since independent witnesses were not available, official witnesses were joined as witnesses. Distance of Sanjha Chula and PP Jari was 1 km. Village Dhunkra and restaurant Sanjha Chula were also not in the close proximity from the place where accused were apprehended while travelling in jeep. 15. Statements of official witnesses are trustworthy and inspire confidence. 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. 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. 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.” 16. Accused were travelling in the same jeep, from which contraband was recovered. They have hatched criminal conspiracy to buy Charas from one area and to transport the same to outside State. It is not the case of the accused that they were not known to each other. Accused were travelling in the same jeep, from which contraband was recovered. They have hatched criminal conspiracy to buy Charas from one area and to transport the same to outside State. It is not the case of the accused that they were not known to each other. Rather, Raj Kapoor (accused) has, during the course of investigation stated that 2 kg Charas belonged to Nazar Khan, 1.5 kg Charas belonged to Sahil and rest 1 kg was his own. 17. Mr. Ajay Sharma and Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocates, have argued that a number of vehicles passed through. Court can take judicial note of the fact that persons are generally not agreeable to become witnesses since everybody is in a hurry. Defence version that they were falsely implicated due to altercation at Jari Bazaar, can not be believed. Police has completed all the codal formalities at the spot. Contraband was produced before competent officer. He resealed the same. It was sent to FSL. Report of FSL is Ext. PW-5/D. Contraband was found to be Charas. 18. Learned trial Court has erred in law by relying upon judgment in case of Sunil Kumar v. State of H.P. (Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) 207) as the same has been overruled by this Court in the case of State of H.P. vrs. Mehboon Khan and analogous matters, reported in Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) (FB) 900. The Full Bench of this Court has categorically held that there is no legal requirement of the presence of particular percentage of resin to be there in the sample and the presence of the resin in purified or crude form is sufficient to hold that the sample was that of Charas. It has been held as follows: “…………..The separated resin is cannabis resin not only when it is in ‘purified’ form, but also when in ‘crude’ form or still mixed with other parts of the plant. Therefore, the resin mixed with other parts of the plant i.e. in ‘crude’ form is also charas within the meaning of the Convention and the Legislature in its wisdom has never intended to exclude the weight of the mixture i.e. other parts of the plant in the resin unless or until such mixture proves to be some other neutral substance and not that of other parts of the cannabis plant. Once the expert expressed the opinion that after conducting the required tests, he found the resin present in the stuff and as charas is a resinous mass and after conducting tests if in the opinion of the expert, the entire mass is a sample of charas, no fault can be found with the opinion so expressed by the expert nor would it be appropriate to embark upon the admissibility of the report on any ground, including non-mentioning of the percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol or resin contents in the sample…………. f. We are also not in agreement with the findings recorded by the Division Bench in Sunil’s case that “ mere presence of tetrahydrocannabinol and cystolithic hair without there being any mention of the percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol in a sample of charas is not an indicator of the entire stuff analyzed to be charas” for the reason that the statute does not insist for the presence of percentage in the stuff of charas and mere presence of tetrahydrocannabinol along with cystolithic hair in a sample stuff is an indicator of the same being the resin of cannabis plant because the cystolithic hair are present only in the cannabis plant. When after observing the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol and cystolithic hair, the expert arrives at a conclusion that the sample contains the resin contents, it is more than sufficient to hold that the sample is of charas and the view so expressed by the expert normally should be honoured and not called into question. Of course, neutral material which is not obtained from cannabis plant cannot be treated as resin of the cannabis plants. The resin rather must have been obtained from the cannabis plants may be in ‘crude’ form or ‘purified’ form. In common parlance charas is a hand made drug made from extract of cannabis plant. Therefore, any mixture with or without any neutral material of any of the forms of cannabis is to be considered as a contraband article. No concentration and percentage of resin is prescribed for ‘charas’ under the Act..” 19. Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the contraband was recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused. 20. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Judgment dated 28.11.2011 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, HP in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2011 is set aside. Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the contraband was recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused. 20. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Judgment dated 28.11.2011 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, HP in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2011 is set aside. The accused are convicted for offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Act. Accused be produced to be heard on quantum of sentence on 18.7.2016. Bail bonds of accused are cancelled. 21. Registry is directed to prepare and send the production warrant to the quarter concerned.