JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is instituted by the State against the impugned judgment dated 6.8.2011, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. in N.D.P.S. Act Case No. 02 of 2011, whereby the respondents, Shiv Ram and Sita Ram (hereinafter referred to as the “accused” for the convenience sake), who were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, the Act) have been acquitted. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 14.8.2010, the complainant along with HC Chaman Lal, PW1 HHC Kashmi Ram, Constable Puran Chand and HHG Ishwar Singh was present at Shamshar on routine checking. At about 7.45 P.M., a vehicle (TATA Sumo) bearing registration No. HP-01K-0548 came from Chowai side. Since it was turning towards Kandugad, it was signalled to stop. PW3, Jinder Lal, driver of the vehicle, produced its documents along with R.C. He told that he was going to drop the passenger sitting on rear seat, who, on enquiry, disclosed his name Shiv Kumar. He was found holding a black bag in his lap. On suspicion, his consent was obtained whether he wanted to be searched either before the Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer. No local witness was available on the spot at that time as it was lonely place. In the bag, a polythene envelope was found containing black colour substance in the shape of small pieces like aggregate (bajri). It was found to be charas. It weighed 8.6 kg. The envelope containing charas was put in the bag and was sealed in a parcel with seal impression ‘C’ facsimile of which was taken separately on a piece of cloth. NCB form, in triplicate, was filled in. Ruka was prepared and sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which FIR was registered. The contraband was sent to FSL, Junga for chemical examination. The accused was arrested. On his personal search, mobile phone Nos. 98058-25957 and 98054-04905 were recovered and their call details were obtained from the Telecom Company concerned. It transpired that the mobiles phones belonged to PW10 Parma Nand and PW 9 Tikam Ram. Phone No. 98058-25957 was found to be used by accused Shiv Ram and another phone No. 98054-04905 by accused Sita Ram. On his personal search, mobile phone Nos. 98058-25957 and 98054-04905 were recovered and their call details were obtained from the Telecom Company concerned. It transpired that the mobiles phones belonged to PW10 Parma Nand and PW 9 Tikam Ram. Phone No. 98058-25957 was found to be used by accused Shiv Ram and another phone No. 98054-04905 by accused Sita Ram. PW10 Parma Nand and PW9 Tikam Ram had also given their affidavits in this regard. It was found in the investigation that the accused Sita Ram had called accused Shiv Ram to his house, where he handed over a bag containing charas to him. It was also found in the investigation that after alighting from the vehicle at Chowai, accused Shiv Ram was in constant touch with accused Sita Ram. Accused Shiv Ram was also arrested. Thus, the accused persons were booked for the offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Act. The matter was investigated and the challan was put up in the trial court after completing all codal formalities. 3. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses, in all, to prove its case against the accused persons. Statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded, in which they pleaded that they were falsely implicated. The trial court acquitted the accused persons vide impugned judgment dated 6.8.2011. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant-State, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. 5. Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned Advocate appearing for the accused Shiv Ram and Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the accused Sita Ram have supported the impugned judgment dated 6.8.2011. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment and record meticulously. 7. PW1, HHC Kashmi Ram, testified that on 14.8.2010, at about 7.45 P.M., a vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration No. HP-01K-0548 came from Chowai side and it took turn to move towards Kandugad side. The SHO signalled the vehicle to stop. The driver of the vehicle disclosed his name Jinder Lal. He produced the documents including R.C. of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle further disclosed that he was going to drop the passenger sitting on rear seat at Banigad, who told his name Shiv Ram. The SHO signalled the vehicle to stop. The driver of the vehicle disclosed his name Jinder Lal. He produced the documents including R.C. of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle further disclosed that he was going to drop the passenger sitting on rear seat at Banigad, who told his name Shiv Ram. The passenger was found to have kept a bag on his lap. The accused Shiv Ram was apprised of his legal right to be searched either before the Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer. The accused Shiv Ram gave his consent to be searched by the police party. The SHO also gave his personal search. The SHO opened the bag. It contained charas. It weighed 8.6 kg. Thereafter, the sealing proceedings of contraband were completed on the spot. The seal, after use, was handed over to Jinder Lal. According to him, since there was no proper arrangement of light and the place was not suitable, the accused Shiv Ram along with police party came to Police Station Ani. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the place of occurrence was at a distance of about 3 kms from Police Station. 8. He admitted that there were 5 shops nearby the spot. He also admitted that there was house of R.L. Sood, Retired I.G. at a distance of about 100-150 feet towards Ani. According to him, the Investigating Officer tried to associate other witnesses also in addition to driver of the vehicle, but they were not available on the spot because the shops were closed. Till they remained on the spot, neither any vehicle nor any pedestrian came. 9. PW2, Devinder Verma, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel, testified that he had supplied call details of Mobile Phone Nos. 98058-25957 and 98054-04905 w.e.f. 1.8.2010 to 15.8.2010 along with billing addresses of both the mobile numbers vide Ext.PW2/B. In his cross-examination, he admitted that whenever SIM card is issued, application is filled in accompanying with photograph and I.D. proof of the customer. On verification from the company, it was found that both the aforesaid SIM cards were issued in the names of Parma Nand and Tikam Ram. He admitted that the location of SIM card could be known where it was put to operation. As per call details, no such location was supplied. 10. PW3, Jinder Lal, was driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01K-0548. He admitted that the location of SIM card could be known where it was put to operation. As per call details, no such location was supplied. 10. PW3, Jinder Lal, was driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01K-0548. According to him, on 14.8.2010, he had taken the passengers to Nagali in his vehicle. When he came back after dropping the passengers some persons had taken the lift in the vehicle. The accused Shiv Ram had not taken lift in his vehicle. He was declared hostile. In his cross-examination conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted his signatures on memos, Ext. PW1/A, Ext.PW1/B and Ext.PW1/C and Ext.PW4/A. He deposed that he was beaten up by the police. He had not made any report to the S.P. and D.C. in this regard. 11. PW4, HC Tain Singh, deposed that on 16.8.2010, accused Shiv Ram in the police custody had given demarcation of the place at Odi Dhar where he was handed over bag by the accused Sita Ram. In his cross-examination, he deposed that they had gone to Odi Dhar in a private vehicle. He did not know owner of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle was local. He did not know whether the fare of the vehicle was paid on not. 12. PW6, Constable Puran Chand, deposed that on 16.8.2010, MHC Anup Kumar had handed over to him case property along with requisite documents vide R.C. No. 73/2010. He after depositing the same at FSL Junga on 17.8.2010 handed over the receipt on R.C. to MHC. 13. PW7, Madan Lal, deposed that on 20.2.2011, he was called in the Police Station, where his signatures were taken on a document. He was declared hostile. In his cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel for the accused, he deposed that he was called to the Police Station by SHO, who told him that he was to sign regarding Nishandehi. He admitted that he came, signed and then left the Police Station. When he signed at that time Rajesh was not present. He was not taken to Odi Dhar. 14. PW9, Tikam Ram, deposed that he had purchased SIM card bearing mobile No. 98058-25957. He had not given the SIM card to accused Shiv Ram. He was also declared hostile. In his cross-examination conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted that he had given affidavit, Ext.PW1/A to the Police. He was not taken to Odi Dhar. 14. PW9, Tikam Ram, deposed that he had purchased SIM card bearing mobile No. 98058-25957. He had not given the SIM card to accused Shiv Ram. He was also declared hostile. In his cross-examination conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted that he had given affidavit, Ext.PW1/A to the Police. In his cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel for the accused, he deposed that the SIM card was being used by his children. His children used to recharge the SIM card. The police made him to prepare affidavit with particular contents therein. 15. PW10, Parma Nand, deposed that the accused, Sita Ram, is son of his Bua (aunt). Neither he met him at Ani nor he took anything from him. He was also declared hostile. In his cross-examination conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor, he denied that he had stated to the Police that in the month of November 2009, he had gone to open an account in PNB, Ani and the accused Sita Ram met him at Ani and took his I.D. card and one photograph and told him that he was to purchase a SIM card. Accused Sita Ram purchased SIM card bearing mobile No. 98054-04905 in his name and he used that SIM card. He had never purchased the aforesaid SIM card. He was confronted with his statement, Mark X10, wherein it was not so recorded. He admitted that he had given affidavit, Ext.PW10/A to the police. The affidavit, Ext.PW10/A was written by the Document Writer. In his cross-examination conducted by the learned counsel for the accused, he deposed that he did not know the contents of affidavit, Ext. PW10/A. He had to execute the affidavit due to fear of the police because they had threatened to implicate him in the case. 16. PW11, HC Anup Kumar, deposed that on 14.8.2010 at 9.30 P.M., SI/SHO Gurbachan Singh handed over to him Ruka, Ext. PW11/A on the basis of which he registered FIR, Ext.PW11/B. On the same day, SI/SHO Gurbachan Singh handed over to him one sealed parcel duly sealed with 9 seals bearing seal impression ‘C’ along with sample seal and NCB form in triplicate. He made entry of the case property in Malkhana register No. 19 at Sr. No. 252. He proved the abstract of Malkhana register, Ext. He made entry of the case property in Malkhana register No. 19 at Sr. No. 252. He proved the abstract of Malkhana register, Ext. PW11/C. On 16.8.2010, he handed over the case property along with sample seal, docket and requisite documents vide R.C. No. 73/2010 to Constable Puran Chand, who after depositing the same at FSL Junga, handed over the receipt to him. So long as the case property remained in his custody, it was not tampered with. 17. PW12, S.I. Gurbachan Singh, deposed the manner in which the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01K-0548 was stopped on routine checking and 8.6 kg charas was recovered from the accused Shiv Ram. He completed all codal formalities including filling in NCB form. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. During investigation, accused Shiv Ram disclosed that the contraband was handed over to him by accused Sita Ram and the aforesaid SIM card belonged to Tikam Ram, who was his relative. He prepared the spot map, Ext.PW4/B. He also recorded the statements of Tikam Ram and Parma Nand, Ext.PW12/F and Ext.PW12/G respectively. He also obtained their affidavit, Ext.PW9/A and Ext.PW9/B. 18. PW1, HHC Kashmi Ram, has categorically deposed that on 14.8.2010, at about 7.45 P.M., a vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration No. HP-01K-0548 coming from Chowai side was signalled to stop. The driver of the vehicle PW3 Jinder Lal disclosed that he was going to drop the accused Shiv Ram sitting on rear seat in the vehicle. The accused Shiv Ram was found to have kept a bag in his lap. On search of the bag, contraband weighing 8.6 kg was recovered. Codal formalities were completed on the spot. He also deposed that since there was no proper arrangement of light on the spot being an isolated place, the accused Shiv Ram along with police party came to Police Station, Ani. In his cross-examination, though he admitted that there were 5 shops nearby the spot, but he volunteered that the Investigating Officer tried to associate other witnesses also, in addition to driver of the vehicle, but they were not available and the shops were closed at that time. So long as they remained on the spot, neither any vehicle nor any pedestrian came. Statement of PW1 HHC Kashmi Ram has been duly corroborated by PW12, SI/SHO Gurbachan Singh. So long as they remained on the spot, neither any vehicle nor any pedestrian came. Statement of PW1 HHC Kashmi Ram has been duly corroborated by PW12, SI/SHO Gurbachan Singh. Since the charas was recovered from the bag Section 50 of the Act was not required to be complied with. However, in the case in hand, Section 50 of the Act has been complied with as the accused Shiv Ram was apprised of his legal right to be searched either by Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. Though, PW3, Jinder Lal, driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. HP-01K-0548, in which the accused Shiv Ram was travelling, has not supported the case of the prosecution, but in his cross-examination conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor, he has categorically admitted his signatures on memos, Ext. PW1/A, Ext.PW1/B and Ext.PW1/C and Ext.PW4/A. The case property from its seizure till production before the learned trial court remained intact. Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the accused Shiv Kumar has been falsely implicated by the police personnel, who inimically deposed against him, but he miserably failed to lead any evidence to substantiate his plea. Moreover, the contraband so recovered from the accused Shiv Ram was a huge quantity (8.6 kg). There was no occasion for the police to falsely implicate the accused Shiv Ram. Therefore, the prosecution has proved that accused Shiv Ram was found in exclusive and conscious possession of the charas weighing 8.6 kg. 19. Now, as far as the accused Sita Ram is concerned, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against him. According to PW2, Devinder Verma, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel, he had supplied the call details of Mobile Phone Nos. 98058-25957 and 98054-04905 w.e.f. 1.8.2010 to 15.8.2010 along with billing addresses vide Ext.PW2/B. However, he has not issued any certificate as required under Section 65- B of the Indian Evidence Act. The case of the prosecution has not been supported by PW7, Madan Lal, PW9 Tikam Ram and PW10 Parma Nand. All of them were declared hostile. The prosecution has failed to prove that accused Sita Ram had handed over the contraband. 20. There are no major contradictions in the statements of the official witnesses and their statements are trustworthy and inspire confidence. Thus, learned trial court has erred in law by not relying on the statements of the official witnesses. All of them were declared hostile. The prosecution has failed to prove that accused Sita Ram had handed over the contraband. 20. There are no major contradictions in the statements of the official witnesses and their statements are trustworthy and inspire confidence. Thus, learned trial court has erred in law by not relying on the statements of the official witnesses. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 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, testimonies of the police officials cannot be relied upon. Presumption that person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons. Their Lordships have held as under:- “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. 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. 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.” 21. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment dated 6.8.2011, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. in N.D.P.S. Act Case No. 02 of 2011 is set aside to the extent it acquitted the accused Shiv Ram under Section 20 of the Act. Accordingly, accused Shiv Ram is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act. He be produced in the Court to be heard on the quantum of sentence on 16.9.2016. The acquittal of accused Sita Ram is upheld. The bail bonds are cancelled. 22. The registry is directed to prepare the production warrant.