JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. The State has come in appeal against judgment dated 29.3.2012 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr in NDPS Case No. 26 of 2010, whereby respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake), who were 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), have been acquitted by the learned trial Court. 2. Prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that on 15.5.2010, PW-10 Gurbachan Singh alongwith HC Tain Singh, HHC Kashmi Ram, Constable Lal Singh, Constable Harbans and Constable Tikkar Ram was present at Bus Stand Ani, where a Naka had been laid for traffic checking. At about 9 PM, when complainant was talking to Rajesh Kumar and Lal Singh, who had come to see him, in the meantime, a white coloured car came from Shamsher side which was on its way towards Ani. It was signalled to stop. Car was Tata Indigo having registration No. HR-16H-6420. Driver disclosed his name as Satish Kumar. Person sitting in the front seat disclosed his name as Jai Bhagwan. Persons sitting in the rear seats disclosed their names as Karan Singh and Rajinder Singh. They belonged to the State of Haryana. Car was searched. Black coloured and round shaped substance was found from beneath the rear seat. It was found to be Charas. It weighed 14.5 Kg. It was put in a bag, which was sealed with seal impressions of ‘C’ 12 in number, NCB form in triplicate was filled in and seal impression was taken separately on a cloth. Recovered Charas alongwith car and its keys was taken into possession. Rukka was prepared. It was sent to the Police Station through HHC Kashmi Ram. Case property was produced before Parver Thakur, probationer Dy. SP, who resealed the same with three seal impressions of ‘X’. Spot map was also prepared. It was sent to FSL Junga. Investigation was completed. Challan was put in the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused were also examined under Section 313 CrPC. They pleaded innocence. Accused were acquitted as noticed above. Hence, this appeal by the State. 4. Investigation was completed. Challan was put in the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. Prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused were also examined under Section 313 CrPC. They pleaded innocence. Accused were acquitted as noticed above. Hence, this appeal by the State. 4. During the pendency of the appeal before this Court, respondent No. 2, Rajinder Singh expired on 18.5.2015. As such appeal against him stood abated. 5. Mr. M.A. Khan, Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. 6. Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate, has supported Judgment dated 29.3.2012. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the Judgment and record carefully. 8. PW-1 Lal Singh testified that on 15.5.2010, he was in Dhaba at Bus Stand Ani. It was day-time. A motorcycle was parked on which three bags were found. Police personnel took the same to the Police Station. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He has admitted his signatures on Marks PA, PB, PC, PD, PE, PF, PG, PH, PJ, PK and PL. 9. Similarly, PW-2 Rajesh Kumar was also declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He has also admitted his signatures on Marks PA, PB, PC, PD, PE, PF, PG, PH, PJ, PK and PL. 10. PW-3 Parver Thakur Probationar Dy. SP testified that he remained posted as SHO Police Station Ani from May, 2010 to June, 2010. On 15.5.2010, HHC Kashmi Ram had brought Rukka mark Z to the Police Station on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW-3/A was registered. On the same day i.e. 15.5.2010 at about 11.45 PM, SI Gurbachan Singh had produced case property sealed with seal impressions of ‘C’ before him alongwith NCB form in triplicate and sample seals. He resealed the same with seal impression ‘X’ (three in number). Seal impression was taken vide Ext. PW-3/C. He filled in columns No. 7 to 11 of the NCB form Ext. PW-3/D. He also appended seal impression. 11. PW-5 HC Anup Kumar testified that on 15.5.2010, probationer Dy. He resealed the same with seal impression ‘X’ (three in number). Seal impression was taken vide Ext. PW-3/C. He filled in columns No. 7 to 11 of the NCB form Ext. PW-3/D. He also appended seal impression. 11. PW-5 HC Anup Kumar testified that on 15.5.2010, probationer Dy. SP posted as SHO Police Station Ani deposited with him one parcel sealed with 12 seal impressions of seal ‘C’, resealed with three seal impressions of seal ‘X’, alongwith sample seals ‘C’ and ’X’, NCB form in triplicate, regarding which he made entry in the relevant register at Sr. No. 243. He proved the extract of register Ext. PW-5/A. He sent the sealed parcel alongwith documents, NCB form seal impressions to FSL Junga through Constable Puran Chand vide RC No. 24/10, who, after delivering the same at Junga, returned the receipt to him. He did not tamper with the case property, in any manner, when it remained in his custody. 12. PW-6 Constable Puran Chand testified that on 17.5.2010, MHC Anup Kumar handed over to him case property in a parcel sealed with seal impressions ‘C’ and ‘X’ alongwith sample seals and connected documents vide RC No. 24/2010 dated 17.5.2010 in FIR No. 40/2010 for handing over the same at FSL Junga. He deposited the same at FSL Junga on the same day and obtained receipt on the RC itself and handed over the same to MHC. 13. PW-7 Constable Harbans Lal has deposed that he was associated in the investigation of the case by SHO. 14. PW-8 HHC Kashmi Ram testified the manner in which vehicle bearing No. HR-16H-6420, was intercepted. Accused gave their consent that they wanted to be searched before the police. Vehicle was searched. Charas was recovered. It weighed 14.5 Kg. All the codal formalities were completed on the spot. Rukka was handed over to him. He handed over the same to SHO Parver Thakur. In his cross-examination, he deposed that during 20-25 minutes no vehicle came at the spot and as such no vehicle was stopped or checked. Rajesh and Lal Singh came to them since they were known to him and other police officials. He did not know who had written Ext. PC on the spot. According to him, there was no space under the rear seat of the vehicle bearing No. HR-16H-6420. Motorcycle was also taken into possession. Rajesh and Lal Singh came to them since they were known to him and other police officials. He did not know who had written Ext. PC on the spot. According to him, there was no space under the rear seat of the vehicle bearing No. HR-16H-6420. Motorcycle was also taken into possession. He did not remember whether any belonging of any of the accused was recovered from the vehicle. 15. PW-9 HC Tain Singh has also deposed the manner in which vehicle bearing registration No. HR-16H-6420 was intercepted. All the codal formalities were completed on the spot. According to him (in the cross-examination), there was space of 1½-2 feet under the rear seat of the Indigo vehicle. It took 1½ hours to complete the proceedings like seizing the contraband, preparing memos etc. No personal belongings of accused were found in the vehicle. 16. PW-10 SI Gurbachan Singh has also deposed the manner in which vehicle was intercepted and all the codal formalities were completed at the spot. He prepared Rukka. It was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which FIR was registered. He produced the case property before SHO Parver Thakur alongwith connected documents. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that there was no space beneath the rear seat of Indigo car. However, if the seat was folded, space could be created, which could be about 6-7 inches. 17. What emerges from the appraisal of the evidence is that the accused were found travelling in a car bearing registration No. HR-16H-6420. Charas was recovered from below the seat. All the codal formalities were completed on the spot. Case property was produced before PW-3 Parver Thakur, who resealed the same with three seal impressions of 'X’. Case property was sent to FSL Junga. Though, according to HHC Kashmi Ram, there was no space under rear seat of the vehicle, PW-9 Tain Singh has specifically deposed that there was space of 1½-2 feet under the rear seat of the Indigo vehicle, which was involved in the case. Similarly, PW-10 Gurbachan Singh, in his cross-examination, has deposed that if seat was folded, space would be created and it would be 6-7 inches. Charas was recovered from beneath the rear seat of the vehicle with the help of search light. Similarly, PW-10 Gurbachan Singh, in his cross-examination, has deposed that if seat was folded, space would be created and it would be 6-7 inches. Charas was recovered from beneath the rear seat of the vehicle with the help of search light. Though PW-1 Lal Singh and PW-2 Rajesh Kumar have not supported the prosecution case, but they have categorically admitted their signatures on Marks PA, PB, PC, PD, PE, PF, PG, PH, PJ, PK and PL. Official witnesses have categorically testified that the Charas was recovered in their presence from the car. There are no major contradictions in the statements of the official witnesses. Minor contradictions are bound to occur especially when statements are recorded after a considerable gap of time. 18. Statements of the officials witnesses are confidence inspiring and trustworthy. 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 statements of official witnesses 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. 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. 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.” 19. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate that the accused were brought down from the bus. Prosecution has duly proved that the accused were travelling in car bearing registration No. HR-16H-6420 and were found in exclusive and conscious possession of the contraband. Learned trial Court has erred in law by giving undue importance to the fact that no personal belongings of accused were found in the car. It was not necessary for the prosecution to prove that accused were travelling with their personal belongings. Learned trial Court has erred in law by giving undue importance to the fact that no personal belongings of accused were found in the car. It was not necessary for the prosecution to prove that accused were travelling with their personal belongings. Similarly, it was also not necessary for the prosecution to prove the record from Samiti Guest House. Prosecution was only required to prove that the accused were travelling in the car bearing registration No. HR-16H-6420 and were found in conscious and exclusive possession of the contraband. It was also not necessary for the prosecution to prove the ownership of the car though desirable. Car was brought to the area by driver Satish Kumar. PW-7 Harbans Lal has deposed that he was associated in the investigation of the case by SHO. It was not necessary for him to state that he had come on the spot with SHO. The accused were travelling in same car and they hail from District Jind, Haryana, and presumption would be that they knew each other. It is reiterated that the Charas was recovered from the car and not from the abandoned motorcycle as argued by Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate. Prosecution has proved that accused were found in possession of the contraband band. Case property remained intact from its seizure till its production in the Court. Since Charas was recovered from the vehicle, personal search was not necessary. However, fact of the matter is that despite that accused have given their consent to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Thus, Section 50 of the Act has also been complied with. 20. Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the contraband was recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused. 21. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Judgment dated 29.3.2012 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr in NDPS Case No. 26 of 2010 is set aside. The accused No. 1, 3 and 4 are convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Accused be produced to be heard on quantum of sentence on September 13, 2016. 22. Registry is directed to prepare and send the production warrant to the quarter concerned.