JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgment of 29.4.2008 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track, Kullu, H.P., in Sessions trial No. 33/07, whereby the learned trial Court convicted the appellant (hereinafter referred to as “accused”) for his committing an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the Act”) also sentenced him as follows:- “…………….. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and eight months and to pay a fine in a sum of Rs.28,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.1.2007, ASI Mathru Ram alongwith Constable Om Chand, C Karanjore and lady Constable Maya had proceeded from police Station in Government vehicle bearing registration No. HP-34A-0213 in connection with a patrol duty. When the police party aforesaid was present on the road near Shringa Rishi Aal one person came from Deori side who had covered his body with the aid of blanket (Patu) at about 2.00 p.m.. On seeing the police party, he turned back. It was suspected that he might be in possession of contraband. He was apprehended by the police party. It was a secluded place. Despite efforts no independent witness was found thereat. On inquiry, the accused disclosed his name to be Rakesh S/o of Ganje Singh R/o Sonali Road Chandni Bag new housing Board Colony Tehsil Panipat. Accused was apprised about his right to be searched in the presence of Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer on which he consented to be searched by the police. A consent memo was prepared. During the personal search of the accused one polythene envelope was recovered from inside the jacket worn by the accused. On opening of said envelope, it was found to be containing charas in the shape of balls and sticks. On weighment of recovered charas it was found to be 600 grams. Two samples of charas 25 grams each were separated from the recovered charas and were sealed in separate parcels. Remaining charas was put back in the same polythene envelope and was sealed in a separate parcel. Four seal impressions of M were affixed on each parcel. Samples of seal impression M were obtained separately. NCB form in triplicate was filled in on the spot. Remaining charas was put back in the same polythene envelope and was sealed in a separate parcel. Four seal impressions of M were affixed on each parcel. Samples of seal impression M were obtained separately. NCB form in triplicate was filled in on the spot. A search and seizure memo was prepared on the spot. Rukaa was prepared on the spot. Arrest memo was prepared. FIR was registered. SHO Ram Karan handed over the case property to MHC Chaman Lal who deposited the same in the Malkhana concerned. On 29.1.2007 sealed sample alongwith relevant documents were sent to FSL, Junga. Column No. 12 of NCB form was also filled in by MHC Chaman Lal. Report of the FSL, Junga was also obtained. A special report was also prepared and handed over to Dy. S.P Headquarters at Kullu. After completing all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigation into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused challan was prepared and filed in the Court. 3. The accused stood charged by the learned trial Court for his committing an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded in which he pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. He chose not to lead any evidence in defence. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of conviction against the accused for his committing an offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the accused has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record rather theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Hence he contends qua the findings of conviction being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of acquittal. 7. The learned Deputy Advocate General has with considerable force and vigor contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by the Court below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference rather meriting vindication. 8. 7. The learned Deputy Advocate General has with considerable force and vigor contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by the Court below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference rather meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side has with studied care and incision evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. Recovery of the relevant item of contraband stood effectuated under memo Ex. PC by the Investigating Officer from the purported conscious and exclusive possession of the accused at the relevant site of occurrence. In proof thereof all the prosecution witnesses, who are police officials depose qua its recovery standing begotten in the manner pronounced in memo comprised in Ex.PC bereft of any vice of any inter-se contradictions occurring in their respective examinations in chief vis-à-vis their respective cross-examinations also when their respective testifications qua the effectuation of recovery of the relevant item of contraband under memo Ex.PC are free from any stain of any intra-se contradictions whereupon hence credence is liable to be imputed to their respective testimonies on oath. 10. Be that as it may for the apposite investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer concerned standing construed to be free from any stain of impartisanship also its being free from any frailty of his holding a slanted investigation, evidence stood enjoined to imperatively surface in portrayal of his concerting to associate independent witnesses in the relevant proceedings who were easily available in close vicinity of the relevant site of occurrence. However, when despite easy availability of independent witnesses in close vicinity to the relevant site of occurrence, the Investigating Officer omits to solicit their participation in the apposite proceedings, his omission in regard aforesaid would be amenable to a construction of its standing prodded by proactive deliberateness on his part to smother the truth qua the genesis of the prosecution case. Hereat, it is incumbent to from the evidence available on record fathom therefrom qua availability of independent witnesses in immediate vicinity to the relevant site of occurrence, on availability whereof the Investigating Officer stood enjoined to make arduous concerts to elicit their association in the apposite proceedings, his apposite concerts when provenly stood not endeavored by him would concomitantly beget a sequel qua the investigations held by him being slanted besides skewed. Also it would sequel an inference of the testimonies of the official witnesses though free from any blemishe aforesaid yet theirs being contrived besides invented. In the aforesaid endeavor for determining the factum of availability of independent witnesses in close vicinity to the site of occurrence, an advertence to the testimony of PW-1 is imperative, wherein he deposes of shops and residential houses standing located at Khunan. He also deposes of village Khunan standing situated on the upper side of Gushaini Road. Further more, he voices therein qua the distance inter-se Khunan and Shringa Rishi Aal being about half a kilometer. The effect of the aforesaid pronouncements occurring in the deposition of the PW-1 Constable Om Chand qua a village standing located in close vicinity to the relevant site of occurrence read in coagulation with this Court hereinafter holding of the investigating officer concerned not assiduously concerting to associate any of the inhabitants of the village existing in close vicinity to the relevant site of occurrence in the apposite proceedings is of a conclusion standing evinced from this Court qua the aforesaid omissions of the Investigating Officer standing goaded by his holding an intention to smother the truth qua the occurrence. In aftermath with the apposite investigations held by the Investigating officer carrying a taint of slantedness besides of impartisanship, the ensuing sequel therefrom, is of even the unblemished testimonies rendered by the Official witnesses yet not acquiring any virtue of credibility rather their respective testimonies qua the genesis of the prosecution case standing imbued with a vice of doctoring besides of proactive concoctions whereupon hence no reliance is imputable. In making a conclusion of the Investigating Officer not making any arduous concert to associate independent witnesses in the apposite proceedings despite their availability in close proximity to the relevant site of occurrence an allusion to the testimony of PW-1 is imperative, who in his cross-examination testifies of PW-2 (ASI Mathru Ram) making relevant concerted efforts by his deploying C Karamjore for soliciting the association of independent witnesses in the apposite proceedings, factum whereof stands corroborated by ASI Mathru Ram. However, C Karamjore was the best witness to comment/testify qua the veracity of the aforesaid factum. Even though he stood cited as a witness yet he stands given up by the learned PP concerned. However, C Karamjore was the best witness to comment/testify qua the veracity of the aforesaid factum. Even though he stood cited as a witness yet he stands given up by the learned PP concerned. Hence, given the factum of his being an official witness whereupon there would not be any likelihood of his holding leanings towards the accused his yet standing given up by the learned PP concerned is perse construable to be pretextual besides flimsy. Moreover his omission to step into the witness box appears to be a calculative machination on the part of the prosecution to smother the truth qua the occurrence also engenders a sequel of the Investigating Officer despite availability of independent witnesses in close vicinity to the site of occurrence his not making any concert to through C Karamjore solicit their association in the apposite proceedings. Since the aforesaid inference belies the testimony of the Investigating Officer qua the facet aforesaid qua his deploying C Karmjore for soliciting the association of independent witnesses in the apposite proceedings hence amplifyingly holds leverage to a deduction of his by contriving a false reason qua the aforesaid facet had a hidden/oblique motive to smother the truth qua the genesis of the prosecution case. 11. The extract of malkhana register Ex.PQ unravels of the Investigating Officer concerned on recovering charas under memo Ex.PC from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused his depositing it with the Incharge of the Malkhana concerned. It stood dispatched to the FSL concerned after its standing retrieved by its Incharge from the malkhana concerned. The report of the FSL concerned is depictive of the sample parcel thereat holding 4 seals of seal impression ‘M’ whereafter on its standing subjected to examination at the FSL concerned the latter embossing thereon four seals of ‘T’. The sample parcel whereupon the FSL concerned recorded its opinion stood returned to the Malkhana concerned. However the abstract of malkhana makes no apposite disclosure of the sample parcel returned by the FSL to the police station concerned standing deposited thereat under apposite signatured entries. Also Ex. PQ does not hold any reflections of, at all moments it stood transmitted to the learned trial Court for its being shown to PWs concerned it under signatured entries standing retrieved from the apposite Malkhana by the Incharge of the Malkhana concerned. Also Ex. PQ does not hold any reflections of, at all moments it stood transmitted to the learned trial Court for its being shown to PWs concerned it under signatured entries standing retrieved from the apposite Malkhana by the Incharge of the Malkhana concerned. Even at the time of production of the relevant item of contraband before the learned trial Court by the learned PP for its being shown to the prosecution witnesses, there occurs no communication in the statements of the official witnesses to whom it stood shown qua it in concurrence with the portrayals in the FSL report comprised in Ex. PL, its holding 4 seals impressions of “T”. All the omissions aforesaid take a toll upon the prime factum of the case property as stood produced in Court holding no connectivity with the one as stood recovered at the site of occurrence under memo Ex.PC from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused nor it holds any connectivity with the report of FSL concerned comprised in Ex. PL. 12. All the police stations concerned hold apposite Malkhana registers. Also all the police stations concerned hold “Malkhanas” for storing therein the case property/properties. The existence of Malkhana registers in the police stations also the existence of “Malkhanas” thereat hold a salutary purpose, of, the Incharge of the Malkhana concerned ensuring on his receiving the case property from the police officials concerned recording therein signatured entries qua its receipt from the police official concerned whereupon he is obliged to store it in the Malkhana concerned where alone it is enjoined to be kept. If the relevant entries reflective of its receipt by the Incharge of the Malkhana concerned do not find their occurrence therein the imminent sequel therefrom is of the relevant case property standing located or its standing kept at a place other than the “Malkhana” whereat alone it is enjoined to be stored. If the aforesaid inference is drawable, necessarily the effect thereof is of the case property being kept open at an open besides at an accessible place leaving it open to stand subjected to tampering by any of the police officials who man the police station concerned, who too, holding seals in congruity with the one embossed on the case property can with facile skill proceed to emboss them thereon for hiding besides camouflaging their tampering with it. The Incharge of the malkhana concerned when proceeds to record an apposite signatured entry in the Malkhana register qua its standing deposited before him by the police official concerned whereupon he proceeds to keep it in safe storage in the apposite Malkhana, is also enjoined to ensure, of, on all moments when it successively stands retrieved therefrom for its standing transmitted by him for relevant purposes to the Court concerned, his recording in the apposite register the apposite signatured entries in consonance therewith. His omissions aforesaid tantamount to his derelicting from his duties rendering him open to his standing subjected to appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Unless the aforesaid consequence stands germinated from his omissions aforesaid it would give an open latitude to the incharge of the Malkhana concerned to breach the enjoined obligation cast upon him qua his maintaining the appropriate entries in the apposite Malkhana register also would give him leeway to depart from his duty of ensuring its storage in the Malkhana concerned whereat alone it stands enjoined to be deposited. Consequently to preempt the aforesaid breaches, insistence upon the prosecution to adduce the hereinabove referred evidence is imperative. In aftermath with all the afore-referred omissions constraining a conclusion of the relevant item of contraband standing kept in storage not in the Malkhana concerned rather its standing kept in an open and accessible place whereupon it was amenable to its standing tampered with also omissions aforesaid beget an ensuing deduction of the prosecution failing to connect the relevant item of contraband which stood recovered by the Investigating Officer from the purported conscious and exclusive possession of the accused at the site of occurrence with the item of contraband produced in Court. 13. The crux of the above discussion is of the prosecution not adducing cogent and emphatic evidence in proving the guilt of the accused. The appreciation of the evidence as done by the learned trial Court suffers from an infirmity as well as perversity. Consequently, reinforcingly, it can be formidably concluded that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court merit interference. 14. In view of above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of 29.4.2008 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track, Kullu is set aside. The accused is acquitted of the offence charged. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused is ordered to be refunded to him. 14. In view of above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of 29.4.2008 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track, Kullu is set aside. The accused is acquitted of the offence charged. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused is ordered to be refunded to him. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Records be sent down forthwith.