JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Assailing the judgment dated 21.2.2014, passed by learned Special Judge, Chamba Division, Chamba, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2013 (56/2013), titled as State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Darshan Singh, whereby accused stands convicted of the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, he has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 9.3.2013 ASI Madan Lal had laid naaka near Toll Tax Barrier, Banikhet. Other police officials including Const. Amit Sharma (PW-1) and LC Tulsi Devi were present with him. While vehicles were being checked, police party saw the accused carrying a pithoo bag on his shoulder. On suspicion, in the presence of independent witnesses Raj Gill (PW-3) and Suresh Kumar (not examined), accused was apprehended and informed of his right of being searched in accordance with law. The accused consented to be searched before a Gazetted Officer vide consent memo (Ext. PW-1/A) and, as such, on the request so made, Dy.S.P. Raman Sharma (PW-8) arrived on the spot and conducted search of the accused. From the pithoo bag so carried by the accused, contraband substance i.e. charas, which upon weighment was found to be 2k.g. and 600 grams was recovered. The recovered contraband substance was put in the same carry bag and sealed in a parcel with seal impression-A. NCB form (Ext. PW-13/D) was filled on the spot and the contraband substance taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ext. PW-1/D). Ruka (Ext. PW-10/A) was sent for registration of case through LC Tulsi Devi (PW-2). Resultantly F.I.R. No. 19/2013, dated 9.3.2013 (Ext. PW-10/B) was registered against the accused under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act by HC Arun Kumar (PW-10), at Police Station Dalhousie, Distt. Chamba. Accused was arrested. PW-1/D). Ruka (Ext. PW-10/A) was sent for registration of case through LC Tulsi Devi (PW-2). Resultantly F.I.R. No. 19/2013, dated 9.3.2013 (Ext. PW-10/B) was registered against the accused under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act by HC Arun Kumar (PW-10), at Police Station Dalhousie, Distt. Chamba. Accused was arrested. Necessary investigation was conducted on the spot and the case property reproduced before SHO Sher Singh (PW-12) who resealed the same with his seal impression-S where after the case property along with NCB form was handed over to MHC Arun Kumar (PW- 10) who through Constable Sandeep Kumar (PW-11) sent the same to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga and report (Ext. PX) taken on record. Special report (Ext. PW-9/B was sent through HHC Pritam Singh (PW-6) to the superior officer. Investigation revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime. Hence, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined thirteen witnesses and statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was also recorded, in which he took plea of innocence and false implication. No evidence in defence was led by the accused. 5. Appreciating the material on record, including the testimonies of the witnesses, trial Court convicted the accused of the charged offence and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal. 6. We have heard Ms. Salochna Kaundal, learned legal aid counsel, on behalf of the appellant as also Mr. V. S. Chauhan, learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr. Vikram Thakur and Mr. Puneet Rajta, learned Dy. A.Gs. Asstt. A.G., on behalf of the respondent-State. We have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. Having done so, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. We find the findings returned by the trial Court to be based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice. Prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt. 7. We find the findings returned by the trial Court to be based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice. Prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt. 7. Prosecution case of recovery of alleged contraband substance stands established beyond reasonable doubt by Const. Amit Sharma (PW-1), Raj Gill (PW-3), Dy.SP Raman Sharma (PW-8) and ASI Madan Lal (PW-13). The onus, statutory in nature, in our considered view cannot be said to have been discharged by the accused. 8. That ASI Madan Lal left the police station Dalhousie with the police party on traffic checking duty is evidently clear from the testimony of HHC Chaman Singh (PW-4) and HC Suraksha (PW-5) who effected entries in the police station with regard thereto. 9. ASI Madan Lal and Const. Amit Sharma are also categorical that they had set up a naaka at Banikhet near the toll tax barrier and checking vehicles. Independent witness Raj Gill (PW-3) is the scooterist whose vehicle was also checked by the police. Testimony of these witnesses on this issue remains unshattered. 10. Now ASI Madan Lal categorically states that he saw the accused carrying a pithoo on his shoulder. Seeing the police party, accused became perplexed and as such on suspicion apprehended, more so, when he tried to flee away. Accused, who was informed of his statutory right vide memo (Ext. PW-1/A), desired to be searched by a Gazetted Officer belonging to the police force. Consequently Dy.SP Raman Sharma (PW-8) was requested, on telephone, to visit the spot. In the presence of Raj Gill, on arrival, Dy.SP Raman Sharma searched the accused and from the bag (pithoo) so carried by him, charas recovered. Raj Gill was asked to bring the scales and the contraband substance on weighment was found to be 2.6 k.g. The recovered contraband substance was packed in the bag and sealed with seal impression-A, seals whereof were handed over to witness Suresh Kumar. NCB form (Ext. PW-13/D) was filled on the spot where after ruka (Ext. PW-10/A) sent through LC Tulsi Devi which led to the registration of F.I.R. (Ext. PW-10/B). The accused was arrested and with the completion of the proceedings on the spot, contraband substance reproduced before SHO Sher Singh (PW-12) who re-sealed the same. 11. NCB form (Ext. PW-13/D) was filled on the spot where after ruka (Ext. PW-10/A) sent through LC Tulsi Devi which led to the registration of F.I.R. (Ext. PW-10/B). The accused was arrested and with the completion of the proceedings on the spot, contraband substance reproduced before SHO Sher Singh (PW-12) who re-sealed the same. 11. Now on the question of recovery of the contraband substance from the possession of the accused, we find the version of this witness to be fully corroborated by Dy.S.P. Raman Sharma (PW-8), independent witness Raj Gill (PW-3) and the other member of the police party Const. Amit Sharma (PW-1). Undisputedly, conjoint reading of the testimonies of these witnesses establishes their version to be consistent, credible and convincing. Not only they have been able to corroborate but establish the version so stated by ASI Madan Lal. 12. With the contraband substance having been recovered from the conscious possession of the accused, the burden shifted upon the accused, which in the instant case, remains undischarged. Defence of innocence and false implication cannot be said to have been probablized even through the cross examination part of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Of course, one cannot ignore the fact that no independent evidence was led by him. 13. Be that as it may, prosecution has also strengthened its case by leading corroborative evidence and that being the testimony of Inspector Sher Singh (PW- 12) who categorically states that the contraband substance when produced before him was resealed, where after he deposited it with MHC Arun Kumar (PW-10) who further states that the contraband substance was sent for chemical analysis through Const. Sandeep Kumar (PW-11) which fact is also testified by this witness. Conjoint reading of the testimony of MHC Arun Kumar and Const. Sandeep Kumar establishes that so long as the case property remained with them, it was kept safe and not tampered with. Report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory (Ext. PX) also establishes the parcel bearing four seals of seal impression ‘A’ and two seals of seal impression ‘S’ containing the contraband substance to have been received in the laboratory through Const. Sandeep Kumar (PW-11). Original seal stands proved on record. 14. Hence in our considered view, prosecution has been able to discharge burden of proving the recovery of the contraband substance from the conscious possession of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. Sandeep Kumar (PW-11). Original seal stands proved on record. 14. Hence in our considered view, prosecution has been able to discharge burden of proving the recovery of the contraband substance from the conscious possession of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. It cannot be said that the trial Court erred in correctly and completely appreciating the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. 15. From the material placed on record, it stands established by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence, that accused was carrying contraband substance i.e. charas weighing 2.6 kilograms. 16. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with a well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence placed on record by the parties. There is no illegality, irregularity, perversity in correct and/or in complete appreciation of the material so placed on record by the parties. Findings of conviction cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any. Records of the Court below be immediately sent back.