JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This appeal has been instituted against Judgment dated 18.2.2016 rendered by the learned Special Judge III, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh in Sessions Trial No. 6ASJII/ 7 of 2014, whereby appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused' for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for the commission of offence under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for convenience sake), has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the commission of offence under Section 18 of the Act and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 17.4.2014, at about 5.30 PM, ASI Surinder Singh (PW-8), HC Govind Ram (PW-2), HC Madan Gopal, LHC Ashok Kumar (PW-6), Constable Rajesh Kumar (PW-3) and LC Sita Devi proceeded in a private vehicle No. HP-01A-2848 in connection with patrolling duty towards Kandaghat, Solan, Kumarhatti. When they were present at Kumarhatti, ASI Surinder Singh received and secret information that a person wearing white half T-shirt and half black coloured jacket coming from Dharampur side towards Kumarhatti on National Highway No. 5 was holding a red coloured carry bag in his hand, having contraband. Information was reduced into writing under Section 42 (2) of the Act vide Ext. PW-5/A and sent through Constable Rajesh Kumar (PW-3) to Dy. SP, CID Bharari. ASI Surinder Singh (PW- 8) associated two independent witnesses namely Dinesh Kumar and Saurav Thakur in his raiding party and proceeded towards Dharampur. When they reached at a distance of 500 metres towards Dharampur on National Highway No. 5, a person was seen holding a red coloured carry bag in his hand coming from the opposite side. He was intercepted. His identity was ascertained. ASI Surinder Singh gave him option whether he wanted to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Accused consented to give search to the police party vide memo Ext. PW-1/A, in the presence of Dinesh Kumar (PW-1) and Saurav Kumar. Before conducting search of accused, members of raiding party gave their search to the accused. Memo to this effect was prepared vide Ext. PW-1/D. Red coloured bag was opened in the presence of witnesses. Accused consented to give search to the police party vide memo Ext. PW-1/A, in the presence of Dinesh Kumar (PW-1) and Saurav Kumar. Before conducting search of accused, members of raiding party gave their search to the accused. Memo to this effect was prepared vide Ext. PW-1/D. Red coloured bag was opened in the presence of witnesses. A brown coloured carry bag containing three polythene transparent packets was found inside it, from which black coloured substance was recovered. It was found to be opium. It was weighed. It weighed 888 grams. Opium was put in the same polythene packet in a Pullinda with carry bag with five seal impressions of ' S’. Contraband was taken into possession vide Ext. PW-1/B in the presence of witnesses. Sample of seal ‘S’ was taken on a white piece of cloth, Ext. PW-1/G. Memo of seals Ext. PW-1/C was prepared in the presence of witnesses. Impression of seal was put on this memo. Columns No. 1 to 8 of Ext. PW-4/C were filled in by ASI Surinder Singh. Rukka Ext. PW-8/A was prepared. It was sent to the Police Station, for the registration of FIR. FIR Ext. PW- 4/A was registered. Case property was resealed by SI Rajinder with five seal impressions of ‘H’. He also filled in relevant columns of NCB form. Specimen impression of seal ‘H’ was separately taken. Case property was deposited in the Malkhana. Thereafter, the case property was sent to the FSL Junga vide RC No. 57/14. It was deposited in the FSL. Report of FSL Junga is Ext. PX. Investigation was completed. Challan was put up in the Court after completing all codal formalities. 3. Prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses in support of its case. Accused was also examined under Section 313 CrPC. His case was that of denial simpliciter. According to him, he was falsely implicated in the case. Learned trial Court convicted the accused as noticed herein above. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove case against the accused. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General has supported the judgment dated 18.2.2016. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the judgment and record carefully. 7. PW-1 Dinesh testified that he and Saurav were present in the Kumarhatti market. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General has supported the judgment dated 18.2.2016. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the judgment and record carefully. 7. PW-1 Dinesh testified that he and Saurav were present in the Kumarhatti market. In the meantime, police personnel also came there and they associated them. A person was seen coming from Dharampur side. They were present about 500 metres towards Dharampur from Kumarhatti. Person was holding a red coloured carry bag in his hand. Police intercepted the accused. He was apprised of his legal right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Accused consented to give his search to the police. Memo Ext. PW-1/A was prepared. Carry bag held by accused was searched. Three bags were recovered from it, which contained black coloured substance. It was found to be opium. It weighed 888 grams. Opium alongwith bags was put in a white cloth and parcel was prepared. It was sealed with five seals of seal impression ‘S’. documents were prepared which were signed by him and Saurav. Seal after use was handed over to him. He has admitted his signatures on Exts. PW-1/B, PW-1/C, PW-1/D, PW-1/E, PW-1/F and PW-1/G. He was declared hostile and crossexamined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He identified the photographs Mark A1 and A-2. He has also admitted that before effecting search of the accused, police personnel as well as he and Saurav had subjected themselves to be searched by the accused. Memo Ext. PW-1/D was prepared to this effect. In his cross-examination by the learned defence Counsel, he has admitted that there were many shops in the Kumarhatti market. He has also denied the suggestion that within a radius of 500 metres from Kumarhatti market towards Dharampur there were many shops and hotels along the road. He has also denied the suggestion that accused was forcibly made to sit in the police vehicle and thereafter was taken from Kumarhatti market to Solan. 8. PW-2 Govind Ram, testified that the police party was on patrolling duty. When they were at Kumarhatti at 5.30 PM, a secret information was received by ASI and on the basis of same docket Mark C was prepared. It was sent through Rajesh Kumar to Dy.SP CID (Crime), Bharari Shimla. 8. PW-2 Govind Ram, testified that the police party was on patrolling duty. When they were at Kumarhatti at 5.30 PM, a secret information was received by ASI and on the basis of same docket Mark C was prepared. It was sent through Rajesh Kumar to Dy.SP CID (Crime), Bharari Shimla. Dinesh and Saurav were associated from a place ahead of Kumarhatti towards Dharampur. When they were about 500 metres away from Kumarhatti, a person was seen coming from the opposite direction with a red coloured carry bag in his hand. Accused was intercepted. Accused was apprised of his legal right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. He consented to be searched by the police. Memo Ext. PW-1/A was prepared to this effect. Carry bag held by accused was searched. Contraband was recovered. Rukka was prepare. It was sent to the Police Station, Bharari through LHC Ashok Kumar. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that there were many shops at Kumarhatti market. He also denied the suggestion that they have forcibly put the accused in a vehicle at Kumarhatti market and had thereafter, brought him to Solan. 9. PW-3 Constable Rajesh Kumar deposed that at 5.35 PM ASI handed over to him docket Mark C. he took it to Shimla and handed over the same to Vijay Sharma, the then Dy. SP, State CID Shimla. 10. PW-4 HC Parkash Chand deposed that on 18.4.2014 at 12.30 AM, SI Rajinder Singh handed over to him a parcel sealed with five seals of seal impression ‘S’ and five seals of seal impression ‘H’ alongwith specimen impressions thereof, NCB form in triplicate, copy of seizure memo, and resealing certificate. He made necessary entry in the Malkhana register at Sr. No. 198. On 19.4.2014 he filled in column No. 12 of the NCB form. On the same day, he handed over the case property to HC Kewal Krishan for depositing the same in FSL Junga vide RC No. 54/14. RC was handed over back to him duly endorsed by the officials of FSL. 11. PW-5 HC Anil Kumar deposed that on 17.4.2014, docket Mark C was received by the Dy. SP at his residence and thereafter, after making necessary entries, it was received by him through Constable Rajesh Kumar. 12. LHC Ashok Kumar deposed that he accompanied HC Govind Ram Constable Rajesh Kumar, LC Sita Devi, ASI Surinder Kumar etc. 11. PW-5 HC Anil Kumar deposed that on 17.4.2014, docket Mark C was received by the Dy. SP at his residence and thereafter, after making necessary entries, it was received by him through Constable Rajesh Kumar. 12. LHC Ashok Kumar deposed that he accompanied HC Govind Ram Constable Rajesh Kumar, LC Sita Devi, ASI Surinder Kumar etc. They left Bharari Shimla for Dharampur in connection with crime detection. On 17.4.2014 at about 5.30 PM, when they were present at Kumarhatti, ASI Surinder received secret information that a person wearing a white Tshirt and a sleeveless black coloured jacket holding a red bag in his hand coming from Dharampur towards Kumarhatti. He was apprehended. Contraband was recovered. Thereafter opium was put back in the same poly packs and carry bag and thereafter carry bag was wrapped with a cloth and a parcel thereof was prepared which was sealed with five seals of ‘S’. He also denied the suggestion that in cross-examination that accused was apprehended at Kumarhatti market and thereafter taken towards Solan. 13. PW-7 Rajinder Chauhan deposed that on 17.4.2014, at 11.10 PM, Ashok Kumar brought Rukka mark D alongwith a sealed parcel purportedly containing opium sealed with five seals of seal impression ‘S’ NCB form in triplicate, copy of seizure memo, and specimen impression of seal ‘S’ to Police Station, Bharari. He resealed the parcel with five impressions of ‘H’. 14. PW-8 ASI Surinder Singh deposed the manner in which accused was apprehended. Contraband was recovered. He prepared Rukka. It was sent to Police Station. All the codal formalities were completed. 15. Prosecution has proved that the accused was apprehended while he was moving from Dharampur to Kumarhatti. He was apprised of his legal right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Contraband was recovered from the bag. It weighed 888 grams. All the codal formalities were completed at the spot. Case property was resealed with seal impression ‘H’. It was sent to FSL Junga. Statement of PW-2 HC Govind Ram was duly supported by PW-6 LHC Ashok Kumar and PW-8 Surinder Singh. Dinesh Kumar is the independent witness. He has also supported the statements of the official witnesses namely PW-2 HC Govind Ram, PW-6 LHC Ashok Kumar and PW-8 Surinder Singh. He has admitted his signatures on Exts. PW-1/B, PW-1/C, PW- 1/D, PW-1/E, PW-1/F and PW-1/G. Case property was sent to the FSL Junga. Dinesh Kumar is the independent witness. He has also supported the statements of the official witnesses namely PW-2 HC Govind Ram, PW-6 LHC Ashok Kumar and PW-8 Surinder Singh. He has admitted his signatures on Exts. PW-1/B, PW-1/C, PW- 1/D, PW-1/E, PW-1/F and PW-1/G. Case property was sent to the FSL Junga. It was received intact in the FSL Junga. Report of FSL Junga is PX. Case property that was received was sealed with five seal impressions of ‘S’ and resealed with five seal impressions of 'H’. These seals tallied with sample seals and same were found intact. Neither the seal ‘S’ nor ‘H’ was tampered with by any person. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate that the accused was forcibly abducted at Kumarhatti. Witnesses have categorically denied the suggestion that the accused was abducted at Kumarhatti. According to the prosecution, 888 grams of opium was recovered. However, as per report Ext. PX, it was 946 grams. There is bound to be some variance in the weight of the contraband for the simple reason that FSL Junga has the state of art weighing machines and generally the police weighs contraband with traditional weights and scale. 16. Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate has vehemently argued that the PW-1 Dinesh in his statement has deposed that the parcel Ext. P1 was sealed with ‘T’. It is a clerical mistake. It has come in the evidence that the contraband was sealed with five seal impressions of 'S’ and resealed with five seal impressions of 'H’. PW-4 HC Parkash Chand deposed that on 18.4.2014 at 12.30 AM, SI Rajinder Singh handed over to him a parcel sealed with five seals of seal impression ‘S’ and five seals of seal impression ‘H’. PW-6 LHC Ashok Kumar has also deposed that when the parcel was prepared, it was sealed with five seal impressions of 'S’. PW-7 Rajinder Chauhan, has also deposed that he has resealed the Ext. P1 with five seal impressions of 'H’. Surinder Singh, PW-8 has also deposed that he has sealed the contraband with five seal impressions of 'S’. According to the Ext. PX, parcel sealed with five seal impressions of 'S’ and ‘H’ was received at FSL. In the NCB form also, parcel was sealed with seal impression ‘S’ and resealed with seal impressions of 'H’. In RC, Ext. PW-4/D also seal impressions are ‘S’ and ‘H’. According to the Ext. PX, parcel sealed with five seal impressions of 'S’ and ‘H’ was received at FSL. In the NCB form also, parcel was sealed with seal impression ‘S’ and resealed with seal impressions of 'H’. In RC, Ext. PW-4/D also seal impressions are ‘S’ and ‘H’. 17. Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate, has drawn the attention of the Court to Ext. D1. According to him, Ext. D1 was recorded by the police officials of PP Saproon. However, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that that the vehicle was checked and nothing incriminating or illegal was found in the vehicle in which CIA staff was travelling. Thus, the accused was not travelling in the vehicle. It is not believable that the accused was kidnapped from Kumarhatti by CIA staff. Accused was present 500 metres ahead of Kumarhatti at 6.15 PM on 17.4.2014. PW-1 Dinesh and PW-2 Govind Ram, PW-6 Ashok Kumar and PW-8 Surinder Singh have deposed that they were on the spot at 5.30 PM at Kumarhatti when secret information was received. 18. The prosecution has fully proved its case against the accused. There is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court. 19. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.