JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Assailing the judgment dated 21.09.2011, passed by Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 57 of 2010, titled as State v. Ram Krishan @ Ram Lal, whereby accused stands acquitted, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. In connection with FIR No.173/2010, dated 20.06.2010 (Ex.PW.5/C) registered at Police Station, Sadar Kullu, H.P., accused was charged to face trial for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act). Allegedly accused was found in possession of 1 kg 50 grams of charas. 3. In order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined eight 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. 4. Court below has acquitted. Hence the present appeal. 5. It is a settled principle of law that acquittal leads to presumption of innocence in favour of an accused. To dislodge the same, onus heavily lies upon the prosecution. Having considered the material on record, we are of the considered view that prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients so required to constitute the charged offence. 6. In Prandas v. The State, AIR 1954 SC 36 , Constitution Bench of the apex Court, has held as under: "(6) It must be observed at the very outset that we cannot support the view which has been expressed in several cases that the High Court has no power under Section 417, Criminal P.C., to reverse a judgment of acquittal, unless the judgment is perverse or the subordinate Court has in some way or other High Court of H.P. 3 misdirected itself so as to produce a miscarriage of justice. In our opinion, the true position in regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code in an appeal from an order of acquittal has been stated in - 'Sheo Swarup v. Emperor', AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) at pp. In our opinion, the true position in regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code in an appeal from an order of acquittal has been stated in - 'Sheo Swarup v. Emperor', AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) at pp. 229, 230 (A), in these words: "Sections 417, 418 and 423 of the Code give to the High Court full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial, (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. To state this, however, is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of the appeal should and will act in accordance with rules and principles well known and recognised in the administration of justice." " 7. Prosecution, through the testimonies of Sunil Kumar (PW.7) and Parminder Kumar (PW.8), wants the Court to believe that psychotropic substance i.e. charas measuring 1 kg 50 grams was recovered from the conscious possession of the accused. This was in the morning of 20.06.2010. 8. Trial Court acquitted the accused primarily on the ground that no independent witnesses were associated by the police. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, we find that acquittal is warranted also on the ground that testimonies of police officials cannot be said to be inspiring in confidence and the witnesses to be reliable and believable. In fact, we find their statements to be self contradictory, also rendering the genesis of the prosecution story to be doubtful. 10. In fact, we find their statements to be self contradictory, also rendering the genesis of the prosecution story to be doubtful. 10. In Court, Parminder Kumar (PW.8) has deposed that on 20.06.2010, he along with Constables Sunil Kumar and Inder Dev were on patrol duty near Khalara nullah (Kullu). At about 10.00 AM, they spotted the accused. On suspicion, he was apprehended, for his conduct was found to be abnormal. Apprehending that the accused may be carrying some psychotropic substance, Sunil Kumar (PW.7) was instructed to search for independent witnesses. However, since none could be found, as such, in the presence of police officials, search and seizure operations were conducted. First the accused was apprised of his statutory rights (Section 50 of the Act) and his consent (Ex.PW.7/A) obtained for which he consented the search to be conduct ed by the police party. Thereafter accused was searched. Though from the person of the accused, nothing incriminating was recovered, but however, from the bag held by him in his hand, charas measuring 1 kg 50 grams was recovered. It was wrapped in a white piece of cloth and sealed with seal having impression 'T'. NCB form (Ex.PW. 2/C) was filled up in triplicate. Rukka (Ex.PW.5/A) was carried by Sunil Kumar, on the basis of which FIR (Ex.PW.5/C) came to be registered. The case file was brought back to the spot and accused arrested. With the completion of formalities on the spot, contraband substance was handed over to SHO Om Chand (PW.5), who in turn handed it over to MHC Ram Krishan (PW.2). 11. Now so far so good. In fact, we find that in the examination-in-chief, Sunil Kumar (PW.7) has corroborated such version. 12. But however, when we minutely examine the cross-examination part of the testimonies of these witnesses, we find following major contradictions to have emerged on record, rendering the genesis of the prosecution case to be doubtful. 11. Now so far so good. In fact, we find that in the examination-in-chief, Sunil Kumar (PW.7) has corroborated such version. 12. But however, when we minutely examine the cross-examination part of the testimonies of these witnesses, we find following major contradictions to have emerged on record, rendering the genesis of the prosecution case to be doubtful. In fact, whether Sunil Kumar was present on the spot itself or not is doubtful: (i) Parminder Kumar states that since no independent witnesses could be found Sunil Kumar returned of his own, which fact stands materially belied by the latter who is categorical that he returned within fifteen minutes, only on the asking of Parminder Kumar; (ii) Parminder Kumar states that the spot was isolated and no independent witnesses passed by during the entire period of four hours, the time police remained on the spot. But when we peruse the testimony of Sunil Kumar, we find that the whole place was inhabited, and in fact, work of a Hydel Electrical Power Project was in progress and hutments of labourers were close by. Also there were shops, establishments, public offices in close vicinity. Residences of Junior Engineer and work Chowkidars were alongside the bridge at Khalara market; (iii) Parminder Kumar does not even refer, in fact denies the factum of presence of any bridge near the spot of occurrence, which fact stands materially contradicted by Sunil Kumar, according to whom, police party had crossed the bridge and reached the place where the accused was apprehended. Significantly, alongside this bridge there were hutments of the labourers. Parminder Singh states that no separate search memo of the person of the accused was prepared, which fact stands materially contradicted, in fact, belied by Sunil Kumar, who states it was so done on the spot. 13. Noticeably the accused was apprehended during broad day light around 10.00 AM. Now if no independent witness was found close by, then why is it that police did not take him to the residence of the Junior Engineer or the offices where gazette officers were easily available. Version of Parminder Kumar that no independent witness crossed by for more than four hours is wholly unbelievable, for it stands admitted by Sunil Kumar that the place of occurrence is inhabited and work of Hydel Project was going on during day and night. 14. Version of Parminder Kumar that no independent witness crossed by for more than four hours is wholly unbelievable, for it stands admitted by Sunil Kumar that the place of occurrence is inhabited and work of Hydel Project was going on during day and night. 14. Further Parminder Kumar states he was able to reach the Police Station within fifteen minutes. If that were so, then why is it that he did not take the accused to the Police Station, for there was no reason or purpose for the police party to have remained on the spot for four hours. For it is not the case of the prosecution that while search and seizure operations were in progress, police party was also performing their duties of checking the vehicles or patrol. 15. Even on the question of link evidence, we find that in the report of the expert (Ex.PW.1/A) there is no reference of the number of the Road Certificate (Ex.PW.2/B). It bears some reference number, which cannot be linked to anyone of the document placed on the record. Also doubt is created with regard to the contraband substance, so examined in view of the contradiction with regard to the seal embossed on the sealed parcel. According to Krishan Chand (PW.6), parcel was sealed with seals having impressions 'T' and 'D', whereas, in the report, it is recorded as 'T' and 'V'. Before us, it is not the case of prosecution that alphabet 'D' is wrongly typed out. 16. Most crucially, in the memo (Ex.PW.7/E), we find there are signatures of one Dharam Dass. But however, it is not the case of Parminder Singh that he called this person on the spot informing him of the arrest of the accused. 17. Also it is not the case of prosecution that the police was carrying the kit with itself. However wherefrom the weighing machine, cloth, needle and sewing thread procured, remains a mystery. 18. We do not find the prosecution to have proved its case, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing piece of evidence with regard to recovery of contraband substance from the conscious possession of the accused. Contradictions in the statements of police officials are glaring, material and relevant, totally shaking the edifice of prosecution story. Witnesses are unreliable and their testimonies not free from embellishments/contradictions/variations. 19. Contradictions in the statements of police officials are glaring, material and relevant, totally shaking the edifice of prosecution story. Witnesses are unreliable and their testimonies not free from embellishments/contradictions/variations. 19. The Court below, in our considered view, has correctly and completely appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. It cannot be said that the judgment of trial Court is perverse, illegal, erroneous or based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of material on record resulting into miscarriage of justice. 20. The accused person has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 , since it cannot be said that trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice, no interference is warranted in the instant case. 21. For all the aforesaid reasons, present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Record of the trial Court be immediately sent back.