JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. 1. Aggrieved by acquittal of respondents in Sessions trial No. 5/2008 vide judgment dated 30.04.2008, passed by special Judge, Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, HP under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered in case FIR No.166/2007 at Police Station, Joginder Nagar, State of Himachal Pradesh has preferred present appeal. 2. As per prosecution story, on 21.08.2007 at about 5.00 PM PW-3 ASI Parmod Singh and PW-9 LHC Pawan Kumar were standing at Dhruni Bridge during their patrolling duty. At that time, respondent No.1 was coming from Banander side to Lad Bharol side alongwith pillion rider respondent No. 2 on Motor Cycle No. HP-29A-0840 owned and possessed by respondent No.1. On noticing police personnel near bridge, respondent No.2 pillion rider had thrown a bag in khad which was seen by PW-3 ASI Parmod Singh, PW-9 Constable Pawan Kumar, PW-7 Sakin Singh, PW-8 Sanjeev Kumar and one Rajinder Kumar. On reaching near Police personnel, respondent No.1 stopped Motor Cycle on signal of police personnel. On inquiry, respondents disclosed their names as Rakesh Kumar driver owner of Motor Cycle and Sunil Kumar, pillion rider. On asking reason for throwing bag in Dhruni khad, respondent No. 2 had disclosed that there was liquor in bag and the same had been thrown on noticing police personnel. In the meanwhile, PW-1 Desh Raj and PW-2, Dan Singh had reached there who were on the way to Baijnath and Lad Bharol on their respective Motor Cycle and Scooter. On questioning by PW-1 Desh Raj, respondent No. 2 had disclosed that there were 7 bottles of liquor in bag. The bag was floating in water and therefore for verifying version of respondent No.2, PW-3 ASI Parmod Singh, PW-9 LHC Pawan Kumar alongwith PW-1 Desh Raj and PW-2, Dan Singh went to Khad. Respondents-accused were also with them. In the meanwhile, PW-3 ASI Parmod Singh had called PW-16 constable Sunil Kumar and water carrier Prakash Chand by telephonic call made to Police Post Lad- Bharol with direction to bring photographer from Lad-Bharol with them. Before reaching spot, PW-16 constable Sunil Kumar and water carrier Prakash Chand had also joined ASI Parmod Singh alongwith photographer PW-4 Bhagirath. On reaching in Khad, bag was found floating on water. Before reaching spot, PW-16 constable Sunil Kumar and water carrier Prakash Chand had also joined ASI Parmod Singh alongwith photographer PW-4 Bhagirath. On reaching in Khad, bag was found floating on water. Photographs of bag lying in the water were taken by PW-4 Bhagirath and bag was taken out by PW-1 and PW-2. After taking out bag, PW-3 ASI Parmod Singh had requested PW- 1 Desh Raj and PW-2 Dan Singh to open bag. On opening bag, one more bag tied with sting was found inside it. On opening second bag, two plastic polythene envelopes having black sticks and round in it were found. On smelling and checking, it was found to be charas. PW-16 Sunil Kumar was sent for calling some shop keepers alongwith weight and measures for Lad-Bharol Bazar by issuing Hukamnama Ex.PW-3/A who had come back alongwith PW- 5 Ashok Kumar, Gold Smith. The recovered contraband was taken into possession vide memo. Ex. PW-1/A and on weighing it with the help of weighing machine, brought by PW-5 Ashok Kumar, total weight of seized contravened was found 1530 gms. After taking four samples of 25 gram each, contraband and sample parcels were sealed by affixing seal ‘T’ on parcels. Specimen seal impression Ex.P-9 was taken on cloth. Memo of identification of contraband as charas Ex. PW-1/B was prepared in presence of witnesses. NCB form in triplicate Ex. PW-3/B was filled in on spot and seal impression ‘T’ was also appended on same. Motor Cycle was taken into possession vide Memo Ex. PW-1/C. Thereafter Rukka Ex. PW-3/C was sent to Police Station, Joginder Nagar through PW-16 Constable Sunil Kumar. Site plan Ex. PW-3/D was prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded. Accused persons were arrested after giving notice of arrest in writing vide memo Ex. PW-1/D. Respondents-accused had supplied phone numbers for giving information of their arrest vide Memo. Ex. PW-1/E. In presence of witnesses, personal search (Jama-Talashi) of respondents was carried out vide memo Ex. PW-1/F and Ex. PW-1/G. Respondents were arrested at about 8.00 PM. Accused persons were arrested after giving notice of arrest in writing vide memo Ex. PW-1/D. Respondents-accused had supplied phone numbers for giving information of their arrest vide Memo. Ex. PW-1/E. In presence of witnesses, personal search (Jama-Talashi) of respondents was carried out vide memo Ex. PW-1/F and Ex. PW-1/G. Respondents were arrested at about 8.00 PM. On reaching Police Station, five parcels, sample seal, NCB form were handed over to SI PW-18 Kapoor Chand who had resealed contraband with seal ‘K’ and after taking specimen seal impression on cloth Ex.18/C and affixing impression of the said seal ‘K’ on NCB form filled columns 9 to 11 of NCB form, and handed over case property to MHC PW-13 Mangat Ram to deposit same in Malkhana who had entered the same in Malkhana Register. Extract of said Malakhana Register entry No. 800 is Ex.PW-13/A. Samples of contraband were sent to State FSL Junga through PW-15 Constable Roshan Lal vide RC-92/07, dated 24.08.2007 alongwith copies of FIR, Memo. NCB Form and sample seals which were deposited at State FLS Junga on 25.08.2007 against proper receipt on road Certificate Ex. PW-13/C. Report from State FSL, Junga Ex. PW-18/E confirms that seized contraband was charas. After completion of investigation, challan was put up in the Court. 3. Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General has vigorously argued that there is sufficient evidence on record proving that respondents were found in conscious and exclusive possession of contraband without any explanation and, therefore respondents be convicted under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 4. Mr. Lakshay Thakur, counsel for respondents has supported judgment passed by learned trial Court stating that there is not even an iota of evidence to prove recovery of contraband from conscious and exclusive possession of respondents and he has prayed for dismissal of appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused evidence on record. 6. Respondents were charged for having found in conscious and exclusive possession of 1530 gms. Charas being transported in Motor cycle No. HP-29-A-0840 in furtherance of criminal conspiracy to commit an offence under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 7. 5. We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused evidence on record. 6. Respondents were charged for having found in conscious and exclusive possession of 1530 gms. Charas being transported in Motor cycle No. HP-29-A-0840 in furtherance of criminal conspiracy to commit an offence under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 7. To bring home guilt of respondents accused, first ingredient to be proved by prosecution for rendering respondents liable for conviction under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is to prove recovery and seizure of contraband from conscious and exclusive possession of respondents. For that purpose prosecution has relied upon the statements of PW-3 ASI Parmod Singh, PW-9 LHC Pawan Kumar. 8. Independent witnesses PW-7 Sakin Singh and PW-8 Sanjeev Kumar have not supported prosecution case and have denied to have made statement to the effect that they had seen respondent No. 2 throwing a bag in khad on noticing police personnel on bridge. After declaring them hostile they were subjected to cross examine by learned Public Prosecutor but nothing material in favour of prosecution and against respondents was elucidated. No doubt, statements of hostile witnesses can be relied upon in favour of either party, if corroborated by other evidence on record. In present case, PW-7 and PW-8 have stated nothing incriminating against respondents so as to prove belonging of contraband recovered and seized from khad to respondents. 9. Another independent witness Rajinder Kumar has been given up declaring that he was won over by accused. It is strange that without examining PW Rajinder Kumar he has been declared to be won over by accused. There is no material on record on the basis of which learned Public Prosecutor had arrived at conclusion that PW Rajinder Kumar was won over by accused. Other two independent witnesses PW-7 Sakin Singh and PW-8 Sanjeev Kumar have not supported prosecution case. In such eventuality, best course available with prosecution was to examine third material independent witness instead of withholding said witness from examining in the Court. In case of not lending support prosecution case, said witness may have been subjected to cross examine to elucidate truth. When two independent eye witnesses had turned hostile, withholding third eye witness was not warranted. 10. In case of not lending support prosecution case, said witness may have been subjected to cross examine to elucidate truth. When two independent eye witnesses had turned hostile, withholding third eye witness was not warranted. 10. Before discussing evidence of official witnesses statements of other two independent witness PW-1 Desh Raj and PW-2 Dan Singh, who were also declared hostile are necessary to be evaluated as statement of hostile witnesses is not to be discarded in entirely but the same is to be considered and evaluated on the basis of other evidence on record. Despite having declared hostile, these witnesses, in their examination-in-chief have stated that on 21.08.2007 about 5.00 PM, they had reached at Dhrun Bridge on their respective vehicles i.e. motorcycle and scooter where police personnel and respondents were present besides other people standing at a distance and police personnel were inquiring from respondents with regard to one bag thrown in the Khad by respondent No.2 Both of them have admitted that they were requested to accompany the police during inquiry. Both of them have stated that photographs were taken at the instance of police. After seeing photographs in court file, they have verified that these photographs were taken on that day at the instance of police by photographer. They have stated that on request of police, bag was taken out from water by both of them in presence of respondents and on asking of police, they had opened bag in which one more bag of brown colour was found having Polythine envelopes and inside the Polythine envelopes dhoop like bundle and sticks were found. Both of them have further stated that police personnel have called PW-5 Ashok Soni alongwith weighing and measure who had brought electronic weighing machine on the spot. Both of them had stated that weighing capacity of electronic machine was 200 gms. and after weighing recovered charas, it was found to be 1530 gms. out of which four sample of 25 gms. each were drawn and packed in cloth parcel and were sealed with impression ‘T’. They have further stated that residue charas was put into brown bag and thereafter in blue bag and then was packed in a cloth parcel which was sealed with seal impression ‘T’ and both of them have identified parcel Ex. P-1 containing blue bag Ex. P-2 brown bag Ex. P-3 polythine envelopes Ex. P-4 and Ex.P-5 charas Ex. They have further stated that residue charas was put into brown bag and thereafter in blue bag and then was packed in a cloth parcel which was sealed with seal impression ‘T’ and both of them have identified parcel Ex. P-1 containing blue bag Ex. P-2 brown bag Ex. P-3 polythine envelopes Ex. P-4 and Ex.P-5 charas Ex. P-6 and parcels of sample Ex. P-7 and Ex. P-8. PW-1 and PW-2 have identified Ex. P-2 to P-8 are same which were taken into possession by police on the spot. They had also identified their signatures on two parcels containing seal of FSL Junga as well as on the parcel Ex. P-1, Ex. P-7 and Ex. P-8. All these Exs. were found to be intact when produced in the court for identification and verification by these witnesses. During cross-examination both of them have admitted their signatures on seizure memo, Ex. PW-1/A, identification of contraband memo Ex. PW-1/B, memo taking into possession motorcycle alongwith documents Ex.PW-1/C, arrest memo Ex.PW-1/D and supply of mobile numbers by respondents vide memo Ex. PW-1/E. Both of them have admitted sealing of parcel on support with seal ‘T’. 11. At first instance PW-1 had admitted signatures on parcel search memo (Jama-Talashi) Ex. PW-1/F to PW- 1/G, but immediately he denied his signature on these memos alleging that his signatures on these memos are forged signatures. However, PW-2 Dan Singh had admitted that he had signed memo Ex. PW-1/F & PW-1/G. 12. PW-1 has admitted that he had appended his signatures after going through the contents of memo and he had signed the documents of his own and police had not applied any pressure. He has further admitted that respondents used to meet him and they belong to his Tehsil, running shops in their respective places. He had also stated in his cross-examination by learned defence counsel that parcels were stitched by police on the spot. PW-1 has not denied signing of memos by respondents but has stated that he does not remember as to whether respondents have appended their signatures or not. During the course of examination by learned defence counsel, he has stated that it is correct that accused persons have not signed documents in his presence. 13. PW-2 has stated in his examination-in-Chief that he, PW-1 Desh Raj and both accused have appended signatures on parcels Ex. P-1 containing residue and sample parcels Ex. During the course of examination by learned defence counsel, he has stated that it is correct that accused persons have not signed documents in his presence. 13. PW-2 has stated in his examination-in-Chief that he, PW-1 Desh Raj and both accused have appended signatures on parcels Ex. P-1 containing residue and sample parcels Ex. P-7 and P-8. He has further stated that sample seal was taken on separate piece of cloth on which both, he and PW-1 Desh Raj appended their respective signatures. PW-2 has also admitted that respondents are running Tea stall and Karyana shop and he used to meet them for purchase of articles from their shops on his visits to his house. In cross-examination by learned defence counsel, he has stated that respondents were interrogated in his presence regarding ownership and material contained in bag Ex.P-2. 14. From perusal of statements of PW-1 and PW-2, it is evident that these witnesses have duly corroborated prosecution’s story with respect to presence of accused on spot being inquired by police about bag thrown in Khad, recovery of bag from Khad, recovery of charas from said bag, preparation of memos Ex. PW-1/A to Ex. PW-1/G, presence of PW-4 Bhagirath photographer on spot and photography by him, calling of PW-5 Ashok Kumar on the spot, weighing of recovered contraband on the spot, seizure and sealing residue contraband and sample parcels on the spot. Photographs of spot have also been verified by both of them. 15. Now, there are two official witnesses PW-3 ASI Parmod Singh, PW-9 Constable Pawan Kumar who have deposed that they had seen respondent No. 2 throwing bag in khad on noticing their presence on bridge. It is settled law that evidence of official witnesses is not to be disbelieved or discarded merely for reason that they are official witnesses. Statements of official witnesses can be basis for conviction of accused. However, before basing conviction on evidence of official witness, strict scrutiny with care and caution is required particularly when independent witnesses have turned hostile. In case evidence of official witnesses is found cogent, reliable and credible, the conviction can be based on evidence of official witnesses only. 16. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of PW-3 ASI Parmod Singh and PW-9 LHC Pawan Kumar regarding throwing of bag by respondent No. 2 in Khad on noticing police personnel. In case evidence of official witnesses is found cogent, reliable and credible, the conviction can be based on evidence of official witnesses only. 16. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of PW-3 ASI Parmod Singh and PW-9 LHC Pawan Kumar regarding throwing of bag by respondent No. 2 in Khad on noticing police personnel. Defence taken by respondents is denial simplicitor and there is nothing placed on record or suggestion put to the witnesses assigning any reason for false implication of respondents in case. There is no enmity of official witnesses with the respondents for which the evidence of official witnesses is discarded and disbelieved. 17. PW-3 ASI Parmod Singh and PW-9 LHC Pawan Kumar have proved on record that during patrolling in Pandol area on 21.07.2007 at about 5.00 PM they had noticed respondent No.2 throwing a bag in water on noticing police and on inquiry, respondent No. 2 had disclosed that bag was thrown as there were liquor bottles in the same. These witnesses have further stated that in presence of PW-1, PW-2 and respondents bag was taken out from water and on opening the same one more bag was found in it containing polythene envelopes having charas in polythene envelope. They further stated that PW-16 Sunil Kumar and Parkash Chand were called from Police Post Lad Bharol, who had brought PW-4 Bhagirath photographer, PW-5 Ashok Gold Smith on the spot and spot photographs Exs. PW-4/A to Ex.4/A-12 were taken on the spot. They have further stated that on weighing machine brought by PW-5 Ashok Kumar contraband was found 1530 gms and the said contraband was seized by memo Ex. PW-1/A and was sealed in parcel Ex. P-1 after extracting four samples of 25 gms. each and these samples were also sealed in separate parcels affixing Seal ‘T’. It has further come in their evidence that impression of seal ‘T’ was also taken on NCB form and on cloth Ex. P-9. Both of these witnesses have deposed regarding preparation of seizure memo Ex. PW-1/A, identification of contraband memo Ex. PW-1/B, memo taking motor cycle in custody by police Ex. PW-1/C, arrest memo Ex. PW-1/D, supply of mobile numbers Ex. PW-1/E, notice regarding arrest Ex. PW-1/D and preparation of Rukka Ex. PW-3/C filling up of NCB form in triplicate Ex. PW-3/B. PW-16 has also corroborated the statements of PW-3 and PW-9. PW-1/A, identification of contraband memo Ex. PW-1/B, memo taking motor cycle in custody by police Ex. PW-1/C, arrest memo Ex. PW-1/D, supply of mobile numbers Ex. PW-1/E, notice regarding arrest Ex. PW-1/D and preparation of Rukka Ex. PW-3/C filling up of NCB form in triplicate Ex. PW-3/B. PW-16 has also corroborated the statements of PW-3 and PW-9. He has further proved taking of Rukka to the Police Station, Joginder Nagar and registration of FIR on the basis of the same. In cross-examination nothing material affecting veracity of these witnesses could be extracted by defence counsel. 18. PW-3 ASI Parmod Singh PW-9 LHC Pawan Kumar and PW-16 constable Sunil Kumar have duly corroborated prosecution case which has also been substantiated from statements of PW-1 and PW-2. 19. PW-4 Bhagirath has proved that he was summoned by the police on the spot through Parkash Chand and respondents, police personnel and other persons were present on the spot. He has stated names of accused persons on spot as Rakesh Kumar and Suman Kumar. He has stated that on reaching spot on 21.08.2007 one bag was floating on the water and he has taken photographs on the spot. He has also stated that bag was checked and blue sticks were found in polythene envelopes which were found to be 1530 gms. on weighing. He had proved photographs Ex.PW-4/A to Ex. PW-4/A-12 alongwith negatives PW-4/A-13 to PW-4/A-24. PW-4 in cross-examination has stated that in his presence accused had not told to the police that bag belonged to them as no talks between accused person and police had taken place in his presence. 20. PW-5 Ashok Kumar Gold Smith has also proved that on 21.08.2007, he had gone to spot on summoning by police alongwith weighing machine. He has stated that after weighing charas was found 1530 gms. Thereafter, he had also weighed four sample of 25 gms. each and samples of bulk charas was packed in sealed parcels on the spot. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not know that material weighed by him was charas or anything else. 21. PW-13 HC Mangat Ram was MHC in Police Station, Joginder Nagar on 21.08.2007. Thereafter, he had also weighed four sample of 25 gms. each and samples of bulk charas was packed in sealed parcels on the spot. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not know that material weighed by him was charas or anything else. 21. PW-13 HC Mangat Ram was MHC in Police Station, Joginder Nagar on 21.08.2007. He has stated that PW-16 Sunil Kumar has reached the Police Station at about 10.00 PM with Rukka written by PW-3 Parmod Singh and FIR was registered on the basis of said Rukka at the instance of SHO/SI Kapoor Chand and after registration of FIR, case file was handed over to Sunil Kumar to hand over it to PW-3 ASO Parmod Singh. He has further stated that on 22.08.2007 at 12.20 AM SHO/SI Kapoor Chand after re-sealing case property with seal ‘K’ had handed over him four sample parcels of 25 gms each one big parcel weighing 1430 gms. alongwith NCB form in triplicate having sample seals ‘T’ and ‘K’ and other related documents which were deposited in Malkhana and entered in Register at serial No. 800 and had produced copy of Entry as Ex. PW-3/A. 22. On 24.08.2007 PW-13 MHC Mangat Ram had sent two sample parcels alongwith documents to FSL, Junga through PW-15 Roshan Lal vide RC No. 92/2007 Ex. PW- 13/C after depositing the same in FSL, Junga. He has further stated that on 23.08.2007 PW-3 ASI Parmod Singh had handed over one Special Report to him for sending it to SDPO Sarkaghat which was sent by him through PW-14 HC Balwant Singh on 24.08.2007 in the morning. 23. PW-15 Constable Roshan Lal has corroborated the fact of depositing sample parcels in FLS Junga and has stated that as long as case property remained with him, he had not admitted the same. 24. PW-14 H.C. Balwant Singh had stated that after receiving Special Report from PW-13 HC. Mangat Ram, he had delivered the same in office of SDPO Sarkaghat to PW- 10 Constable Suresh Kumar as DSP was not present in the office. 25. PW-10 HC Constable Suresh Kumar has stated that on 27.04.2007 PW-14 Constable Balwant Singh had handed over Special Report to him on which he had made endorsement Ex. Mangat Ram, he had delivered the same in office of SDPO Sarkaghat to PW- 10 Constable Suresh Kumar as DSP was not present in the office. 25. PW-10 HC Constable Suresh Kumar has stated that on 27.04.2007 PW-14 Constable Balwant Singh had handed over Special Report to him on which he had made endorsement Ex. PW-10/A under his signature and thereafter he had sent Special Report to DSP Sarkaghat to Pandol as he was at Pandol at that time in connection with recruitment of constables. Report was sent to Pandol through PW-11 Constable Ramesh Kumar. He has proved entry of Special Report at Sl. No. 4 at Page-19 in Special Report Register producing extract of Register Ex. PW-10/A. 26. PW-11 Constable Ramesh Kumar has proved the fact of delivery of Special Report to PW-12 DSP Surinder Sharma on 25.08.2007 PW-12 DSP Surinder Sharma has proved receipt of special report and his endorsement on the same. 27. PW-18 Kapoor Chand has proved his endorsement Ex. PW-18/A on Rukka after registration of FIR Ex. PW-18/B and resealing of case property with seal ‘K’. He has also proved facsimile of seal ‘K’, taken on cloth as Ex. PW-18/C and also filling up of Columns No. 9 to 11 of NCB form and affixation sample seal ‘K’ on NCB form and handing over case property to PW-13 HC Mangat Ram vide memo Ex. PW-18/D. He has further stated that after receiving report of FSL Junga Ex. PW-18/E, he had prepared challan and presented same in the Court. As per FSL report Ex. PW-18/E, samples of contraband were found to be of charas. 28. Learned counsel for respondents have pointed out that as per PW-3 ASI Parmod Singh, he remained on spot at 9.00 PM whereas PW-6 Bhim Singh has stated that on 21.08.2007 at about 8.30 PM he had dropped PW-3 ASI Parmod Singh on his request in his vehicle near huts of labourers working under PW-7 Sakin Singh and Rajender Kumar. It is corroboration of prosecution story rather than contradiction as it proves presence of police personnel on the spot making investigation from the concerned persons who were working on road on that day. Difference in time is minor and also PW-6 has not stated specific time but has stated about 8.30 PM. 29. It is corroboration of prosecution story rather than contradiction as it proves presence of police personnel on the spot making investigation from the concerned persons who were working on road on that day. Difference in time is minor and also PW-6 has not stated specific time but has stated about 8.30 PM. 29. It is also pointed out that as per PW-3 ASI Parmod Singh and SHO PW-18 Kapoor Chand, PW-3 Parmod Singh and other had reached in police station Joginder Nagar on 22.08.2007 at 12.10 AM in midnight and case property was deposited by SHO with MHC at 12.20 AM whereas PW-16 Sunil Kumar stated that PW-3 ASI Parmod Singh has also reached in Police Station Joginder Nagar at about 10.30 PM and after registration of FIR, he had not gone back to spot as by that time PW-3 ASI Parmod Kumar had also reached in police station and no spot proceedings were conducted after registration of FIR. 30. Learned counsel for respondents has stated that contradictions and discrepancies pointed out show that things had not happen as has been portrayed by prosuection and the prosecution story liable to be rejected. PW-3 ASI Parmod Singh has stated that at the time of going to khad he had asked telephonically MC Mohan Lal, Police Post, Lad Bharol to send Sunil Kumar and water carrier Prakash Chand on the spot alongwith private photographer from Lad Bharol Bazar before reaching in khad. PW-16 Constable Sunil Kumar, water carrier Prakash Chand and photographer PW-4, Bhagi Rath had joined them in mid-way and thereafter they reached on point where bag was lying in khad. In cross-examination also PW-3 has categorically stated that he had telephonically directed PW- 17 MC Mohan Lal for sending photographer as he was suspecting that there might be bottles of liquor in bag. PW- 17 MC Mohan Lal has also proved entry regarding this direction in Report No. 8 of Daily Diary dated 21.08.2007 Ex. PW-17/A where PW-1 Desh Raj has stated that one police personnel was sent by ASI to call photographer and PW-9 Constable Pawan Kumar has also stated that after reaching of PW-16 Constable Sunil Kumar and Prakash Chand on spot on call of ASI Parmod Singh, Prakash Chand was sent to Lad Bharol for bringing photographer and Constable Sunil Kumar for bringing weights and scale. PW-16 Constable Sunil Kumar has stated that on receiving telephonic message of PW-3, he and Prakash Chand had reached Dhruni Khad from where PW-3 ASI Parmod Singh issued a Hukamnama Ex.PW-3/A under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to bring weights and scale from Lad Bhoral Bazaar and he had brought PW-5 Ashok Kumar on the spot whereas Prakash Chand had brought PW-4 Bhagirath on the spot. 31. These are not contradictions but may be termed as discrepancies which do not go to the root of the case belying charge against accused regarding throwing of bag in Khad and recovery of contraband from said bag in presence of independent witnesses. 32. Purpose of sealing and resealing of seized substance, handing over of seal to witness after taking seal impressions on piece of cloth and on NCB form and production of original seal in the court, is to ensure that substance seized on the spot, deposited in Malkhana, sent to forensic lab and produced in the court is one and the same. Therefore, non-production of original seal is not fatal to prosecution cases in every case. It may be fatal in that cases where it leads to creating doubt linking accused with substance seized sent to forensic lab and produced in the Court. In case where prosecution has able to prove that substance recovered from accused, sent to forensic lab and produced in Court is one and the same, non-production of original seal is irrelevant. Every procedural error or defect is not fatal to prosecution story unless it causes serious prejudice to accused. It is the case of prosecution that seal was handed over to PW-1 Desh Raj, whereas Desh Raj has stated that seal was not handed over to him. Same was kept by PW-3 ASI Parmod Singh. Keeping seal by PW-3 ASI Parmod Singh or handing over of the same to PW-1 Desh Raj has lost its relevance for reason that PW-1 Desh Raj as well as PW-2 Dan Singh have identified articles PW-2 blue bag, PW-3 brown bag, P-4 and P-5 Polythine and envelopes, P-6 charas and samples parcels P-7 and P-8. Facsimile of seal ‘T’ Ex. P-9 and seal ‘K’ Ex. 8/C have also been duly proved which were sufficient to compare with seal affixed on parcels of residue substance and samples. Facsimile of seal ‘T’ Ex. P-9 and seal ‘K’ Ex. 8/C have also been duly proved which were sufficient to compare with seal affixed on parcels of residue substance and samples. At the time of production of parcel P-1, P-7 and P-8 seals were found intact and there is no question raised on behalf of respondents-accused in this regard. Seal impression of ‘T’ and ‘K’ were also taken on NCB form for comparison in forensic lab. In chemical analysis report Ex. 18/E it has been mention as under :- 7. Description of parcel:- Two sealed parcels mark A/1 & A/2 bearing six seals of “T” and resealed with three seals of “K”. The seals were found intact and tallied with the seal impression sent by the SHO on form NCB-I. (i) The same was kept in safe custody of the chemical examiner till the report of the same was signed & dispatched. Therefore, in present case there is sufficient evidence on record to prove that substance sent to Forensic Lab and produced in the Court is one and same which was recovered and seized on the spot from khad. Therefore, non-production of original seals has not caused any prejudice to respondents and thus non production of these seals in Court is not fatal to prosecution in present case. These articles were the same which were recovered and taken into possession on the spot therefore, no prejudice has been caused to respondents on this count. 33. It is settled proposition that at the time of appreciation of the evidence of witnesses, minor discrepancies not affecting the case of prosecution may not be the basis of rejecting evidence in its entirety. Such discrepancies are bound to occur for the reason because of witnesses owing to common error in observations, due to lapse of time or errors owing to different mental capacity of reception, retention and narrations. 34. In the present case, there are no major contradictions in the statements of the official witnesses. There is nothing on record to suggest that there was enmity of the official witnesses with the respondent-accused or all official witnesses were interested to implicate respondents-accused for their benefit or otherwise for reasons other than their official duty. The official witnesses were not having any personal interest in implication and/or conviction of the respondent-accused. They have supported prosecution case. It is evident from RC Ex. The official witnesses were not having any personal interest in implication and/or conviction of the respondent-accused. They have supported prosecution case. It is evident from RC Ex. P-10 of Motor Cycle No. HP-29A-0840 that it was owned and possessed by respondent No.1 and he was driving the same himself. There is no explanation or defence on behalf of respondent No. 1 that he was not having knowledge of contraband and being transported on his motorcycle by respondent No.2. On the basis of evidence on record, it has been proved that motorcycle in question owned and possessed by respondent No.2 was being used in carrying charas and, therefore, the same motorcycle is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and accordingly Motor Cycle is ordered to be confiscated by State. 35. Therefore it is clear that prosecution has able to prove that respondents were found in conscious and exclusive possession of 1530 gms. charas being transported on motorcycle No. HP-29-A-0840 with criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that respondents were in conscious and exclusive possession of charas. 36. In view of the above discussion, presumption of Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act is also attracted, there is no attempt on behalf of respondents to discharge their onus for rebutting presumptions under these sections. 37. Hence, the judgment passed by Lower Court is set aside. Respondents-accused are convicted for the offences under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for having found in conscious possession of 1530 gms. of charas. The accused be produced for hearing on quantum of sentence on 05.08.2016. List on 05.08.2016. The registry is directed to prepare the production warrants.