JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. State of H.P. aggrieved by the judgment dated 1.9.2010, passed by learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, in Sessions Trial No.47/2009, whereby the respondent, hereinafter referred to as “the accused” has been acquitted of the charge under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, hereinafter referred to as “the Act” in short, has come up in appeal before this Court. 2. Accused Anil Kumar is resident of village Bandal, PO Gusaini, Tehsil Banjar, District Kullu. Allegations against him in a nutshell are that on 3.10.2008 around 9.30 a.m., a team of police headed by PW-9 HC Sarswati of Police Station, Bhuntar, was present at Police Check Post, Bajaura. A bus bearing registration No.HP-34B-8725 came there from Kullu side. It was signalled to stop by the police. The accused was found occupying seat No.37 in the bus. On checking, Charas was recovered from a blue coloured purse like bag he was having with him. After recovery of Charas from his bag, the accused was made to de-board the bus and taken to Police Check Post, situated nearby. Driver of the bus Pappu Ram and Conductor Dalbir Singh PW-1 were also associated in the investigation conducted by PW-9 HC Saraswati. The Charas recovered from the bag was weighed and it was found 170 grams. After separating two samples of 25 grams each, the recovered Charas was wrapped in a piece of cloth and sealed with four impressions of seal ‘T’. The sample parcels were also sealed with the same seal. The Charas was taken into possession vide seizure memo. Ext.PW1/A in the presence of the witnesses. Columns No. 1 to 8 of NCB-1 Form Ext.PW4/C were filled up on the spot and Rukka Ext.PW9/B was prepared. It was handed over to lady constable Chandra Devi PW-2 for being taken to Police Station, Bhunter, for the purpose of registration of FIR. The spot map Ext.PW9/C was also prepared on the spot. 3. The accused was interrogated and apprised about the nature of the offence he committed and the provisions of punishment prescribed therefore vide memo. Ext.PW9/E. It is thereafter he was arrested. 4. On inquiry as to whom he wants to give information about his arrest, such information was given to his sister Smt. Saraswati. On the basis of Rukka, FIR Ext.PW7/A was registered by PW-7 ASI Yashwant Singh. Ext.PW9/E. It is thereafter he was arrested. 4. On inquiry as to whom he wants to give information about his arrest, such information was given to his sister Smt. Saraswati. On the basis of Rukka, FIR Ext.PW7/A was registered by PW-7 ASI Yashwant Singh. The case file, after registration of the FIR, was handed over to I.O. PW-9 H.C. Saraswati at 12.45 p.m. Thereafter she filled in FIR number etc. in the documents prepared on the spot. The accused alongwith case property was brought to Police Station, Bhunter. The case property was produced before PW-7 ASI Yashwant. He resealed each parcel with seal ‘M’. Sample of seal Ext.PW7/B was drawn separately on a piece of cloth. It is thereafter, PW-7 filled up the entries against columns No.9 to 11 of NCB-1 Form. The case property was handed over to PW-4 Kartar Singh alongwith NCB-1 Form, copy of seizure memo. and samples of seals T and M. PW-4 Kartar Singh made entries Ext.PW4/A in Malkhana Register at its Sl. No.39 and retained the same in his safe custody in the Malkhana. On 5.10.2008, he handed over the sample parcels alongwith samples of seals T and M, NCB-1 form and docket to HHC Mast Ram PW-5 for being taken to Forensic Science Laboratory and to deposit the same there. PW-5 has deposited the case property alongwith other articles in FSL on 6.10.2008 and handed over the receipt to PW-4 Kartar Singh on his return to the Police Station. 5. PW-9 HC Saraswati prepared the special report Ext.PW3/A and she herself handed over the same to Additional S.P., Kullu on 4.10.2008 at 12.30 p.m. Additional S.P. after perusal of the Special Report and making an endorsement in this regard under his signature, handed over the same to his Reader PW-3 HC Nirat Singh, who made an entry Ext.PW3/B in the relevant register and retained the special report in the record. On receipt of the report of Chemical Examiner, Ext.PW8/A, Challan against the accused was filed in the Court. 6. As pointed out at the very outset, learned trial Court, on going through the Challan and the documents annexed therewith, has prima-facie found involvement of the accused in the commission of offence, punishable under Section 20 of the Act. The charge against him was, therefore, framed accordingly. 7. 6. As pointed out at the very outset, learned trial Court, on going through the Challan and the documents annexed therewith, has prima-facie found involvement of the accused in the commission of offence, punishable under Section 20 of the Act. The charge against him was, therefore, framed accordingly. 7. The prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses in all in order to sustain the charge against the accused. The material prosecution witnesses are PW-1 Dalbir Singh, PW-2 lady Constable Chandra Devi and PW-9 lady HC Saraswati, the I.O. The remaining prosecution witnesses are formal in nature having remained associated case in one way or the other during the investigation of the case. 8. Learned trial Court on appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence and hearing learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned defence counsel, has arrived at a conclusion that no case against the accused is made out. He has, therefore, been convicted of the charge framed against him. 9. The impugned judgment has been assailed on the grounds, inter alia, that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its right perspective. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses, who had no enmity with the accused, fully establishes the charge against the accused, however, such evidence has been brushed aside erroneously. The impugned judgment has, therefore, been sought to be quashed and set aside and the accused acquitted of the charge framed against him. 10. Shri D.S. Nainta, leaned Additional Advocate General has argued that irrespective of conductor of the bus PW-1 Dalbir Singh having not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile, the testimony of PW-2 Chandra Devi and the I.O. PW-9 HC Saraswati, amply demonstrates that Charas weighing 170 grams was recovered from the exclusive and physical possession of the accused. It has, therefore, been urged that the offence, the accused allegedly committed being not against an individual and rather against the society as a whole, he should have been convicted. 11. Learned defence counsel has, however, argued with all vehemence that the present is a case of no evidence. Therefore, findings of conviction could have not been recorded against the accused. According to learned counsel, the testimony of PW-1 has caused a major dent in the prosecution story, as the official witnesses could have not been relied upon in view of the contradictions and discrepancies in their statements. Therefore, findings of conviction could have not been recorded against the accused. According to learned counsel, the testimony of PW-1 has caused a major dent in the prosecution story, as the official witnesses could have not been relied upon in view of the contradictions and discrepancies in their statements. The impugned judgment, therefore, according to him, does not call for any interference in this appeal. 12. The prosecution case hinges upon the testimony of official witnesses, because PW-1 Dalbir Singh, conductor of the bus has not supported the prosecution case qua the manner in which the search has taken place. No doubt he admits his signatures on the documents, however, according to him, he alongwith driver of the bus was called to Police Check Post. He tells us that the sealed parcels were shown to them there and they were made to put their signatures on certain documents at the pretext that they are merely being associated as witnesses. His statement to this effect appears to be nearer to the factual position, because PW-9, the I.O., no doubt has said that PW-1 and the driver of the bus were associated as witnesses, however, she has not said that they were also called upon to witness the search and seizure in the adjoining Check Post. Therefore, the prosecution case that the recovered Charas was weighed, sealed and taken into possession in the presence of PW-1 Dalbir Singh and also the driver of the bus hardly inspires any confidence. 13. True it is that the testimony of the official witnesses is as much good as that of independent person and the same, if inspires confidence, can be relied upon as well as findings of conviction against the accused recorded on the basis thereof. It is, however, to be seen from the perusal of the testimony of PW-2 lady Constable Chandra Devi and the I.O. PW-9 Saraswati as to whether the same is worthy of credence or not. Learned trial Judge has not relied upon their testimony being contradictory in nature. It is, however, to be seen from the perusal of the testimony of PW-2 lady Constable Chandra Devi and the I.O. PW-9 Saraswati as to whether the same is worthy of credence or not. Learned trial Judge has not relied upon their testimony being contradictory in nature. It would not be improper to conclude that the findings so recorded by learned trial Court are legally sustainable for the reasons that PW-2 and PW-9 have contradicted the prosecution case right from its initial stage, i.e. leaving the Police Station for conducting checking of vehicles at Police Check Post, Bijaura up to the search and seizure having taken place on the spot. While the entries in Rapat Rojnamcha Ext.PW6/A reveal that the police party headed by HC. Saraswati left the Police Station at 9.10 a.m. on 3.10.2008, PW-2 lady Constable Chandra Devi has said that she reached at the police barrier at 9 a.m. According to her, it took about 20 minutes to cover the distance from Bhuntar Bus stand to Bajaura in bus. When the police party covered the distance from Police Station to bus stand in 5-10 minutes and then took 20 minutes further to reach at Bajaura Check Post, if the testimony of PW-2 is believed to be true the police party may have left the police station at about 8.30 a.m. Therefore, either her statement is false or the entries in the Rapat Rojnamcha qua the departure of the police party are wrong. 14. If coming to the version of PW-9 qua this aspect of the matter, according to her it took about 5-7 minutes to cover up the distance between Bhuntar and Bajaura by bus. Therefore, she has contradicted the statement of PW-2. 15. Now if coming to the checking of the bus, the police staff from Police Station Bhunter, i.e. H.C. Saraswati and Constable Chandra Devi etc. had boarded the bus from its front door, whereas the staff deployed at Police Check Post, Bajaura from rear door. The accused admittedly was occupying seat No.37 in rear portion of the bus. He, therefore, would have got frightened on seeing the police staff boarded the bus from its rear door and it is the said staff, who would have apprehended him. The accused admittedly was occupying seat No.37 in rear portion of the bus. He, therefore, would have got frightened on seeing the police staff boarded the bus from its rear door and it is the said staff, who would have apprehended him. It is also not known that in case the accused had frightened on seeing the police inside the bus, why such conduct of the accused did not come to the notice of the police party, which boarded the bus from rear door. The I.O. PW-9 who admittedly boarded the bus from front door of the bus would have taken some time to reach at seat No.37 while conducting checking of the luggage inside the bus. Therefore, the version of PW-9 that the accused frightened only when she reached while checking the luggage at seat No.37 and it is due to this she suspected that he was in possession of some narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, cannot be believed to be true by any stretch of imagination. 16. As per version of PW-2 the accused was given option before his search was conducted, however, PW-9 has stated that she had not given any option to the accused as required under Section 50 of the Act. Interestingly enough, NCB-1 Form as per the prosecution case was filled up on the spot before Rukka Ext.PW9/A was prepared and sent to the Police Station, however, NCB-1 Form Ext.PW4/C was prepared at 11.45 a.m. whereas the time of preparation of Rukka is 10.50 a.m. Therefore, it is not NCB-1 Form which is prior in time, but it is the Rukka Ext.PW9/B. Hence, the prosecution case that NCB-1 from was prepared prior to the preparation of Rukka is false. 17. There is over writing qua the date on which the bus was stopped. Seizure memo. Ext.PW1/A reveals that the bus was stopped at 9.30 a.m. on 3.9.2008. On the top of this document figure “9” has been made “10”. Similar over writing also finds mention under the signature of PW-9 on this document. In the Rukka also, the date 3.9.2008 as mentioned earlier was altered to 3.10.2008. In this document, the time which was initially recorded as 10.30 a.m. has also been altered to 10.50 a.m. This over writing has remained un-explained. 18. Similar over writing also finds mention under the signature of PW-9 on this document. In the Rukka also, the date 3.9.2008 as mentioned earlier was altered to 3.10.2008. In this document, the time which was initially recorded as 10.30 a.m. has also been altered to 10.50 a.m. This over writing has remained un-explained. 18. Now if coming to the entries in Column No.7 of NCB-1 form Ext.PW4/C, the time of despatch has been mentioned as 7.35 p.m. If this document was prepared on the spot at the time of investigation, how the I.O. could have anticipated that the same would be despatched to SHO at 7.35 p.m. The case property as per the testimony of PW-7 ASI Yashwant Singh was produced before him by HC Sarswati at 7.35 p.m. Meaning thereby that NCB-1 Form has not been filled up on the spot. 19. The information qua arrest of the accused, as per the prosecution case, was given to his sister Smt. Sarswati. There is an endorsement on the arrest memo. Ext.PW9/E in the hand of said Smt. Sarswati that she was duly informed about the arrest of her brother, the accused. Meaning thereby that she was present on the spot. It is, however, not the prosecution case that she was also present there. No doubt PW-2 has stated that the other passengers were asked to witness the search and seizure, however, they declined to do so. According to her, their names and addresses were enquired into. PW-9, however, has not stated so. 20. The sample of seal “T” Ext.PW9/A does not bear the signature of the so called witnesses associated by PW-9. Meaning thereby that the sample of seal was not drawn in the presence of the witnesses. 21. The re-appraisal of the evidence as aforesaid, therefore, leads to the only conclusion that the testimony of lady Constable PW-2 Chandra Devi and that of the I.O. PW-9 lady HC Saraswati cannot be relied upon because they have not only contradicted each other, but also improved their version qua each and every aspect of the prosecution case and thereby rendered the prosecution story highly doubtful. Learned trial Court, as such, has not committed any irregularity or illegality while arriving at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Learned trial Court, as such, has not committed any irregularity or illegality while arriving at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal and affirm the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court. Bail bonds, if furnished by the accused shall stand cancelled and surety discharged. The appeal stands accordingly disposed of.