JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. The State has come in appeal against Judgment dated 4.5.2013 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, exercising the powers of Special Judge, Shimla, under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in Sessions Trial No. 7-S/7 of 2012, whereby respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for convenience sake), has been acquitted by the learned trial Court. 2. Prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that ASI Ram Lal (PW-8) alongwith his team reached Majhotli on 2.11.2011 at about 6.15 AM. One motorcycle bearing No. HP-08-0300 came from Nerwa side. It was signalled to stop. Rider of the motorcycle disclosed his identity. He was asked to produce the documents of the vehicle. Rider disclosed his name as Sita Ram. In the meanwhile, one HRTC bus came there. It was proceeding from Nerwa to Chamunda. One person alighted from the bus. He proceeded towards Lankadbir. He was carrying one cloth bag in his right hand. He alongwith other police officials and Sita Ram nabbed said person. He disclosed his identity. Bag was searched. Inside the bag, one plastic bag having ‘Bhuttico Kullu Shawl’ was printed, from which contraband was recovered. It was found to be Charas. He photographed the articles recovered. Charas was weighed with the help of weights and scale. It weighed 2 kg. After weighing, Charas was put in the same ‘thailee’ envelope, in the cloth bag and parceled into a separate cloth parcel. Cloth parcel was sealed with six seal impressions of ‘R’. Sample of seal was taken on cloth piece. He filled in NCB form in triplicate, on the spot. Impression of seal ‘R’ was taken on NCB form. Recovered Charas was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ext PW-1/B. ASI Ram Lal (PW-8) filled in the Rukka on the spot. Rukka Ext. PW- 8/C was sent to the Police Station through Constable Rakesh Kumar. Thereafter, he proceeded to the Police Station. He deposited the case property i.e. bulk sealed parcel, sample seal, NCB form, copy of recovery memo etc. with MHC in intact position. Case property was sent for chemical examination. FSL report is Ext. PW- 8/F. Investigation was completed. Challan was put in the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Thereafter, he proceeded to the Police Station. He deposited the case property i.e. bulk sealed parcel, sample seal, NCB form, copy of recovery memo etc. with MHC in intact position. Case property was sent for chemical examination. FSL report is Ext. PW- 8/F. Investigation was completed. Challan was put in the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused was also examined under Section 313 CrPC. He pleaded innocence. Two witnesses were examined by the accused in his defence. Accused was acquitted as noticed above. Hence, this appeal by the State. 4. Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 5. Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate, has supported Judgment dated 4.5.2013. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the Judgment and record carefully. 7. Rakesh Kumar (PW-1) testified that on 2.11.2001, he accompanied ASI Ram Lal, HC Para Nand No. 44, HC Sohan Singh No. 57 and Constable Vikramjit No. 945 for patrolling and proceeded towards Majhotli and Dabas. At about 6.15 AM, when they were patrolling near Majhotli, a motorcycle No. HP-08-0300 came from Nerwa side. It was stopped. It was being driven by Sita Ram resident of Medoli. In the meanwhile, an HRTC bus came from Nerwa side. A passenger deboarded from the bus. He was nabbed. He was carrying a bag in his hand. Bag was checked in the presence of police officials and witness Sita Ram. It contained Charas. It weighed 2 kg. IO filled in the NCB form. Search, seizure and sampling proceedings were completed at the spot. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that they left the Police Station at 5 AM. Majhotli was at a distance of 1½ kms from Police Station, Chopal. They reached Majhotli at 6.15 AM. He did not know at what time, Nerwa Chamunda bus stared from Nerwa in the morning. It took about 10 to 15 minutes for them to check motorcycle of Sita Ram and his papers. No person was present on the road. 8. Sita Ram (PW-2) testified that he was going from Sarahan to Chopal on motorcycle No. HP-08-0300. At about 10.30 AM, he was stopped by the police officials of Police Station Chopal at Majhotli. Police checked the motorcycle and papers. No person was present on the road. 8. Sita Ram (PW-2) testified that he was going from Sarahan to Chopal on motorcycle No. HP-08-0300. At about 10.30 AM, he was stopped by the police officials of Police Station Chopal at Majhotli. Police checked the motorcycle and papers. They took photographs of one person alongwith him at that place. Thereafter, he left the spot. At about 1 PM, he was called to the Police Station. He was asked to put signatures on the documents. He has admitted his signatures on Ext. PW-1/B, PW-2/A (seal impression), Ext. PW- 2/C and Ext. PW-2/D (receipts). Photographs of the spot are Exts. PW-1/A-1 to Ext. PW-1/A-5. He identified the photographs of the spot. He admitted signatures on parcel Ext. P1. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he was a matriculate. He did not read Exts. PW-1/B, PW-2/B, PW-2/C and PW-2/D before putting his signatures on these documents. He did not ask the police officials as what was written on these documents. He was a news reporter in Channel 9. He denied the suggestion that the HRTC bus Nerwa-Chamunda came from Dabas side. He also denied that accused was apprehended by the police when he was walking on a path towards hill side. He also denied the suggestion that police officials checked the bag of the accused and it was found to contain plastic bag. He denied that when plastic bag was checked it contained another small cloth bag, in which black coloured substance in the form of sticks was recovered. He did not complain against the police officials for obtaining signatures on the documents. He admitted his signatures on Ext. PW-2/E as well. 9. Constable Bansi Lal (PW-4) testified that on 3.11.2011, MHC Narveer Singh of Police Station, Chopal handed over to him cloth parcel sealed with six seal impressions of ‘R’ stated to be containing 2 kg Charas, alongwith sample of seal, NCB form, seizure memo, copy of FIR and Police docket vide RC No. 55/2011 for being taken to FSL Junga for chemical examination. He took the case property to FSL Junga and deposited the same at FSL. He handed over receipt to MHC Narveer Singh on 4.11.2011 on his return to the Police Station. 10. He took the case property to FSL Junga and deposited the same at FSL. He handed over receipt to MHC Narveer Singh on 4.11.2011 on his return to the Police Station. 10. HC Narveer Singh (PW-5) testified that on 2.11.2011 at about 1.00 PM, ASI/SHO Ram Lal, Police Station, Chopal, deposited with him the case property. He made necessary entry of case property in the Malkhana Register. He proved the copy of Malkhana Register, Ext. PW-5/A. On 3.11.2011, vide RC No. 55/2011, he forwarded the parcel alongwith NCB form, sample seal, seizure memo, copy of FIR and docket through Constable Bansi Lal to FSL Junga. 11. HC Parma Nand (PW-6) deposed the manner in which accused was apprehended when he deboarded from the bus. All the codal formalities were completed at the spot. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that Majhotli was at a distance of 2-3 kms from Chopal. HRTC bus from Nerwa to Chamunda started at 5 AM from Nerwa. Nerwa was 26 kms from Chopal. Bus reached the spot, where they were checking the motorcycle at 6.15 AM. He did not know how many passengers were travelling in the HRTC bus. 12. ASI Ram Lal (PW-8) has also deposed the manner in which accused was apprehended on 2.11.2011 in the morning hours. All the codal formalities of search, seizure and sampling were completed at the spot. Rukka was prepared by him. He also filled in NCB form in triplicate. Rukka was sent to the Police Station through Constable Rakesh Kumar. He deposited the case property i.e. bulk sealed parcel, sample seal, NCB form, copy of recovery memo with MHC. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the photograph Ext. PW-1/A-1 was clicked at 6.20 AM, in the morning. At the time when photo was clicked, no search of accused or his bag was conducted. In the personal search of accused, Ext. DX was recovered. They stayed at the spot for 5-6 hours. 13. What emerges from the prosecution case is that the accused was apprehended on 2.11.2011 in the morning hours. He was carrying a bag. Bag was searched. It contained Charas. It weighed 2 kg. Rukka was prepared. All the codal formalities were completed at the spot. Case property was deposited by Ram Lal with MHC. It was sent to FSL Junga. Report of FSL is Ext. He was carrying a bag. Bag was searched. It contained Charas. It weighed 2 kg. Rukka was prepared. All the codal formalities were completed at the spot. Case property was deposited by Ram Lal with MHC. It was sent to FSL Junga. Report of FSL is Ext. PW-8/F. Case of the prosecution has not been supported in its entirety by PW-2 Sita Ram., however, he has admitted his signatures on Ext. PW-1/B, PW-2/A (seal impression), Ext. PW-2/C and Ext. PW-2/D (receipts). He was a matriculate. He was also a reporter of Channel 9. It can not be presumed that he has not read the documents before putting his signatures. It has also come in the statement that he has not lodged any complaint against the police officials for obtaining his signatures on the documents. PW-1 Rakesh Kumar has categorically deposed the manner in which accused was apprehended, search, seizure and sampling proceedings were completed at the spot. He took Rukka to the Police Station. Statement of PW-1 is duly corroborated by PW-6 HC Parma Nand. Though they are official witnesses but their statements are trustworthy and inspire confidence. There is no law that the statements of the official witnesses can not be relied upon. 14. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karamjit Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration), reported in AIR 2003 SC 1311 , have held that there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. Presumption that person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons. It has been held as follows: “8. Shri Sinha, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has vehemently urged that all the witnesses of recovery examined by the prosecution are police personnel and in absence of any public witness, their testimony alone should not be held sufficient for sustaining the conviction of the appellant. In our opinion the contention raised is too broadly stated and cannot be accepted. The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. In our opinion the contention raised is too broadly stated and cannot be accepted. The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. It will all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no principle of general application can be laid down. PW11 Pratap Singh has clearly stated in the opening part of his examination-in-chief that ACP Shakti Singh asked some public witnesses to accompany them but they showed their unwillingness. PW10 Rajinder Prasad, SI has given similar statement and has deposed that despite their best efforts no one from public was willing to join the raiding party due to the fear of the terrorists. Exactly similar statement has been given by PW9 R.D. Pandey. We should not forget that the incident took place in November 1990, when terrorism was at its peak in Punjab and neighbouring areas. The ground realities cannot be lost sight of that even in normal circumstances members of public are very reluctant to accompany a police party which is going to arrest a criminal or is embarking upon search of some premises. At the time when the terrorism was at its peak, it is quite natural for members of public to have avoided getting involved in a police operation for search or arrest of a person having links with terrorists. It is noteworthy that during the course of the cross- examination of the witness the defence did not even give any suggestion as to why they were falsely deposing against the appellant. There is absolutely no material or evidence on record to show that the prosecution witnesses had any reason to falsely implicate the appellant who was none else but a colleague of theirs being a member of the same police force. Therefore, the contention raised by Shri Sinha that on account of non-examination of a public witness, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who are police personnel, should not be relied upon has hardly any substance and cannot be accepted.” 15. Mr. Therefore, the contention raised by Shri Sinha that on account of non-examination of a public witness, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who are police personnel, should not be relied upon has hardly any substance and cannot be accepted.” 15. Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the though according to the prosecution, accused was apprehended at 6.15 AM, time mentioned in Ext. PW-6/A is 6.51 AM. He has referred to the statement of DW-2 Khem Raj. There may be a slight discrepancy with regard to time when accused was apprehended. Accused was apprehended on 2.11.2011. Statements of the witnesses were recorded in the year 2012. There is bound to be memory loss with the passage of time. Time is not required to be remembered with mathematical precision. Case of the prosecution is that the accused was apprehended in the morning hours. Police was also checking papers of the motorcycle of PW-2 Sita Ram and it must have taken some time and only thereafter, the bus has come. 16. DW-2 Khem Raj has also admitted that there is no time in Ext. PW-6/A. Time is mentioned in Ext. DX only. According to him, time printed on it fades away subsequently. However, no expert has been produced to prove this fact. 17. Learned trial Court has also acquitted the accused on the ground that the complainant/ IO has himself carried out the investigation. This question is no more res integra in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State vs. V. Jayapaul, reported in (2004) 5 SCC 223 , whereby they have held that there is nothing in the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code which precluded the appellant from taking up the investigation. Their lordships have further held that there is no principle or binding authority to hold that the moment the competent police officer, on the basis of information received, makes out an FIR incorporating his name as the informant, he forfeits his right to investigate. It has been held as under: “4. We have no hesitation in holding that the approach of the High Court is erroneous and its conclusion legally unsustainable. There is nothing in the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code which precluded the appellant (Inspector of Police, Vigilance) from taking up the investigation. It has been held as under: “4. We have no hesitation in holding that the approach of the High Court is erroneous and its conclusion legally unsustainable. There is nothing in the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code which precluded the appellant (Inspector of Police, Vigilance) from taking up the investigation. The fact that the said police officer prepared the FIR on the basis of the information received by him and registered the suspected crime does not, in our view, disqualify him from taking up the investigation of the cognizable offence. A suo motu move on the part of the police officer to investigate a cognizable offence impelled by the information received from some sources is not outside the purview of the provisions contained in Sections 154 to 157 of the Code or any other provisions of the Code. The scheme of Sections 154, 156 and 157 was clarified thus by Subba Rao, J. speaking for the Court in State of U.P. vs. Bhagwant Kishore, AIR 1964 SC 221 . "Section 154 of the Code prescribes the mode of recording the information received orally or in writing by an officer in charge of a police station in respect of the commission of a cognizable offence. Section 156 thereof authorizes such an officer to investigate any cognizable offence prescribed therein. 6. Though there is no such statutory bar, the premise on which the High Court quashed the proceedings was that the investigation by the same officer who 'lodged' the FIR would prejudice the accused inasmuch as the investigating officer cannot be expected to act fairly and objectively. We find no principle or binding authority to hold that the moment the competent police officer, on the basis of information received, makes out an FIR incorporating his name as the informant, he forfeits his right to investigate. If at all, such investigation could only be assailed on the ground of bias or real likelihood of bias on the part of the investigating officer. The question of bias would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and it is not proper to lay down a broad and unqualified proposition, in the manner in which it has been done by the High Court, that whenever a police officer proceeds to investigate after registering the FIR on his own, the investigation would necessarily be unfair or biased. In the present case, the police officer received certain discreet information, which, according to his assessment, warranted a probe and therefore made up his mind to investigate. The formality of preparing the FIR in which he records the factum of having received the information about the suspected commission of the offence and then taking up the investigation after registering the crime, does not, by any semblance of reasoning, vitiate the investigation on the ground of bias or the like factor. If the reason which weighed with the High Court could be a ground to quash the prosecution, the powers of investigation conferred on the police officers would be unduly hampered for no good reason. What is expected to be done by the police officers in the normal course of discharge of their official duties will then be vulnerable to attack. 13. Viewed from any angle, we see no illegality in the process of investigation set in motion by the Inspector of Police (appellant) and his action in submitting the final report to the Court of Special Judge.” 18. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterating the same principles in the case of S. Jeevanantham vs. State, reported in (2004) 5 SCC 230 , have held that when nothing is pointed out to show that the investigation has caused prejudice or was biased against the accused in the case when the investigation was conducted by the complainant-police officer himself, it was found to be valid. It has been held as under: “3. In the instant case, PW-8 conducted the search and recovered the contraband article and registered the case and the article seized from the appellant was narcotic drug and the counsel for the appellant could not point out any circumstances by which the investigation caused prejudice or was biased against the appellant. PW-8 in his official capacity gave the information, registered the case as part of his official duty and later investigated the case and filed charge-sheet. He was not in any way personally interested in the case. We are unable to find any sort of bias in the process of investigation. 4. The appellants have been rightly convicted by the Special Judge and the High Court was also justified in confirming the conviction and sentence. These appeals are without any merit and are accordingly dismissed.” 19. He was not in any way personally interested in the case. We are unable to find any sort of bias in the process of investigation. 4. The appellants have been rightly convicted by the Special Judge and the High Court was also justified in confirming the conviction and sentence. These appeals are without any merit and are accordingly dismissed.” 19. Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the contraband was recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused. 20. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Judgment dated 4.5.2013 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, exercising the powers of Special Judge, Shimla, under Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in Sessions Trial No. 7-S/7 of 2012 is set aside. The accused is convicted for offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Accused be produced to be heard on quantum of sentence on 26.8.2016. 21. Registry is directed to prepare and send the production warrant to the quarter concerned.