Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1905 (HP)

Dev Raj v. State of H. P.

2016-09-06

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. 1. Since both these criminal revision petitions have been filed against the common judgment, this Court has taken them together for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present criminal revision petitions filed under Sections 397/401 of the Cr.PC read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC, are directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 2.12.2006, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Criminal Appeal No. 24-G/X-2006, affirming the judgment dated 31.5.2006, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. 2, Dehra, District Kangra-HP, in Criminal Case No. 44-III/2004, whereby the accused-petitioners (in both the petitions), have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each, and in case of default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, (In short ?the Act?), as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. 3. Briefly stated facts as emerged from the record are that on 27.5.2004, when ASI Geeta Parkash along with other police personnels, was on patrolling/checking duty at Dohag Dehrian National Highway, at about 1:30 am, they intercepted a vehicle coming from Ranital side. Though, driver of the vehicle tried to evade the barrier but was restrained by the police jeep. As per prosecution story, vehicle was bearing registration No. HP-01D-2537, wherein three persons including driver were sitting. The driver disclosed his name as Dev Raj, while the other co-accused told their names as Vivek Dutt and Darshan Singh. Police on checking of the vehicle, recovered cartons of the liquor lying in the rear of the vehicle, wherein 144 bottles of ?Patiala Orange? 750 ml. each were found without any permit/licence. As per prosecution story, police after recovery of aforesaid bottles, separated 12 bottles, one from each carton for drawing samples for chemical test. Police sealed the drawn samples with seal =J' and the sample of seal was also retained. Police while taking recovery of liquor into possession also impounded the aforesaid vehicle in the presence of witnesses namely Constable Rakesh Kumar and Constable Pardeep Kumar. Police sealed the drawn samples with seal =J' and the sample of seal was also retained. Police while taking recovery of liquor into possession also impounded the aforesaid vehicle in the presence of witnesses namely Constable Rakesh Kumar and Constable Pardeep Kumar. After the aforesaid recovery, Rukka was prepared and sent to the Police Station Jawalamukhi for registration of FIR under the aforesaid Act and Endorsement qua the registration of FIR was made. Police also procured spot map and recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.PC. After recovery of the contraband, case property was deposited with MHC Thakru Ram and thereafter, sample bottles and seal impressions were sent hrough Constable Rakesh Kumar to the CTL Kandhaghat, from where chemical report videExt.PW5/D was received, wherein it was revealed that each sample of country liquor had 49.0% proof of alcohol strength. Police on the basis of material adduced by it, prepared challan and presented the same in the court of learned JMIC, Court No.2, Dehra, District Kangra, HP. 4. Learned trial Court after satisfying itself that prima facie case exists against the accused persons put a notice of accusation, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence adduced on record by the prosecution, found the accused guilty of having committed offence under the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the accused persons, description whereof, as already been given above. 5. The present petitioners-accused being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court, filed an appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.PC before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, HP, who vide judgment dated 2.12.2006, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this criminal revision petition before this Court. 6. Mr. Ashish Jamalta, learned counsel, representing the petitioners vehemently argued that the judgments passed by both the courts below are not sustainable and same deserve to be quashed and set-aside as the same are not based upon the correct appreciation of evidence available on record. Mr. Jamalta, contended that the courts below while passing the judgments have acted with material irregularities as is evident from the bare perusal of the impugned judgments. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid argument, Mr. Mr. Jamalta, contended that the courts below while passing the judgments have acted with material irregularities as is evident from the bare perusal of the impugned judgments. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid argument, Mr. Jamalta, invited attention of this Court to the judgment passed by the learned trial Court to demonstrate that evidence led by the prosecution has been not dealt with by the courts below in its right perspective, rather, court below has returned finding of conviction on mere conjectures and surmises and as such, great injustice has been caused to the petitioners who have been convicted under Section 61 (1) of the Act. He further contended that the courts below have miserably failed to appreciate that prosecution was not able to prove the most essential ingredient of the conscious possession of the alleged liquor from the accused. Similarly, he stated that there is no sufficient compliance of Section 104 of the Cr.PC because no independent witness was associated in accordance with law. He stated that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that they had prior knowledge that accused persons are carrying liquor in the vehicle and as such, they ought to have associated independent witnesses to prove the recovery of liquor, if any, from the conscious possession of the accused. Mr. Jamalta forcefully contended that bare perusal of the depositions made by the witnesses adduced on record by the prosecution itself suggests that there are major contradictions and same could not be accepted on its face value in the absence of some independent witnesses. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioners that the case of the prosecution is that based on some information, police intercepted the vehicle but there is nothing available on record, wherefrom it could be inferred that police intercepted the vehicle on the basis of some secret information. Mr. Jamalta, strenuously argued that though story of prosecution vis-à-vis recovery of liquor is itself un-believable because country liquor is never packed incartons but only in kattas. Mr. Jamalta, strenuously argued that though story of prosecution vis-à-vis recovery of liquor is itself un-believable because country liquor is never packed incartons but only in kattas. Moreover, as per prosecution, only 12 bottles (one from each carton) were separated for chemical test, meaning thereby, only 12 bottles were sent for the analysis and as such recovery if any, of liquor can be said of 12 bottles only because none of other remaining bottles were sent/examined, hence, it can only be concluded that police had recovered only 12 bottles of country liquor from the possession of three persons and as such, no offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioners-accused. Mr. Jamalta vehemently argued that it was incumbent upon the police to get all the recovered bottles chemically analyzed to ascertain the nature of material packed in the bottles. Since 12 bottles were sent for chemical analysis, recovery, if any, made by police is only of 12 bottles and as such, no case is/can be made out against the accused and entire recovery is vitiated with the aforesaid omission of the police. In he aforesaid background, Mr. Jamalta prayed that the petitioners-accused deserve to be acquitted of the charges framed against them after setting aside and quashing the impugned judgments of conviction passed by the Courts below. 7. Per contra, Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, duly assisted by Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, appearing for respondent No.1-State vehemently argued that bare perusal of the judgments passed by the courts below suggests that same are based upon the correct appreciation of the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution and as such, same deserve to be upheld. Mr. Thakur, made an attempt to demonstrate that prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that 144 bottles of the country liquor were recovered from the conscious possession of three persons at the time of interception of the vehicle. While refuting the contention put forth on behalf of the counsel representing the petition that entire recovery is vitiated since all bottles allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioners accused were not sent for chemical analysis, Mr. While refuting the contention put forth on behalf of the counsel representing the petition that entire recovery is vitiated since all bottles allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioners accused were not sent for chemical analysis, Mr. Thakur argued that 12 bottles (one each from 12 cartons ) separated for drawing samples were sufficient enough to prove the content and nature of the bottles and as such, there is no illegality whatsoever, committed by the police while sending only 12 bottles of the samples. As per Mr. Thakur, only purpose of drawing samples is to confirm the contents of alcohol contained in the bottles recovered by the police, which fact could be sufficiently proved by only sending of 12 bottles only. Since chemical analyst in its report specifically opined that it contained 49.0 % alcohol, which was sufficient for police to prove on record that accused were carrying 144 bottles of liquor without there being permit/licence. Similarly, Mr. Thakur stated that case of prosecution could not be brushed aside solely for the reason that no independent witness was associated by the police at the time of recovery because admittedly recovery, if any, was effected at very odd hours i.e. at 1:30 am. Mr. Thakur, stated that since vehicle was intercepted during the night between 26th May and 27 the May, 2004 by the police after laying naka near Dohag Dehrian, no independent witness/person could be associated and as such courts below rightly concluded that non-citing of independent witness is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Mr. Thakur further stated that had the police waited for independent witnesses, present petitioners accused would have fled away with the contraband and as such, there is no force in the contention put forth on behalf of the accused. While praying for dismissal of the present petition, Mr. Thakur, vehemently argued that courts below have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously and as such, no interference whatsoever, of this Court is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case, especially when both the courts have returned concurrent findings. He further stated that this Court has very limited powers while exercising its revisionary powers under Section 397 of the Cr.PC to re-appreciate the evidence when it stands duly proved on record that the courts below have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously. He further stated that this Court has very limited powers while exercising its revisionary powers under Section 397 of the Cr.PC to re-appreciate the evidence when it stands duly proved on record that the courts below have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter very meticulously. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case State of Kerala Vs. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri (1999)2 Supreme Court Cases 452, wherein it has been held as under:- ?In its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court can call for and examine the record of any proceedings for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order. In other words, the jurisdiction is one ofsupervisory jurisdiction exercised by the High Court for correcting miscarriage of justice. But the said revisional power cannot be equated with the power of an appellate court nor can it be treated even as a second appellate jurisdiction.Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal, unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.? 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and gone carefully through the record. 9. True, it is that while exercising the power under Section 397 of Criminal Procedure Code, this Court has very limited power to re-appreciate the evidence available on record. But in the present case, where accused has been found guilty having committed offence under Section 61 (1) (a) of the Punjab Excise Act, as applicable to the State of HP, this Court solely with a view to ascertain that the judgments passed by both the Courts below are not perverse and same are based upon correct appreciation of evidence available on record, undertook an exercise to critically examine the evidence available on record to reach fair and just decision in the case. 10. As far as scope of power of this Court while exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 397 is concerned, the Hon' ble Apex Court in Krishnan and another Vs. 10. As far as scope of power of this Court while exercising revisionary jurisdiction under Section 397 is concerned, the Hon' ble Apex Court in Krishnan and another Vs. Krishnaveni and another, (1997) 4 Supreme Court Case 241; has held that in case Court notices that there is a failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality or sentence or order. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced herein below:- ?8.The object of Section 483 and the purpose behind conferring the revisional power under Section 397 read with Section 401, upon the High Court is to invest continuous supervisory jurisdiction so as to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularity of the procedure or to mete out justice. In addition, the inherent power of the High Court is preserved by Section 482. The power of the High Court, therefore, is very wide. However, the High Court must exercise such power sparingly and cautiously when the Sessions Judge has simultaneously exercised revisional power under Section 397 (1). However, when the High Court notices that there has been failure of justice or misuse of judicial mechanism or procedure, sentence or order is not correct, it is but the salutary duty of the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process or miscarriage of justice or to correct irregularities/ incorrectness committed by inferior criminal court in its judicial process or illegality of sentence or order.? 11. In the present case, prosecution with a view to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt examined as many as five prosecution witnesses. Courts below also examined petitioners accused under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, wherein they pleaded innocence and claimed trial. However, they did not lead any evidence in their defence. 12. During the proceedings of this case, this Court had an occasion to peruse entire evidence led on record, it clearly emerges that on 26/27.5.2004, police intercepted the vehicle bearing No. HP 01D-2537, wherein petitioners accused were found sitting with 12 cartons of country liquor. However, they did not lead any evidence in their defence. 12. During the proceedings of this case, this Court had an occasion to peruse entire evidence led on record, it clearly emerges that on 26/27.5.2004, police intercepted the vehicle bearing No. HP 01D-2537, wherein petitioners accused were found sitting with 12 cartons of country liquor. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that after recovery of aforesaid cartons of country liquor, 12 samples of bottles one each from 12 cartons were sealed along with specimen seal =J' for sending the same to CTL Kandhaghat. Chemical examiner opined that samples contained 49.0 percent liquor strength. At this stage, it would be profitable to refer to the judgment passed by this Court in State of HP v. Jagjit Singh, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 919 wherein this Court has observed in paras 6 and 7 as under:- ?6.At the very outset, I would like to say that neither the non-compliance of subsection (6) of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will render the search illegally nor the respondent can be acquitted on this sole ground. However, in the instant case the regrettable feature is that as per the case of the prosecution 72 pouches of country liquor of ?Gulab? brand country liquor containing 180 ml. each were recovered from the possession of the respondent. Admittedly, one pouch of 180 ml. out of the recovered quantity was retained as a sample, which was of licit origin as opined by the Chemical Analyst. 7. There is nothing on record to show that the remaining 71 pouches alleged to have been recovered from the respondent also contain the country liquor more than the permissible quantity without the permit or licence. Before the respondent could be convicted for the offence charged, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the respondent was in actual and conscious possession of the licit liquor in excess of the prescribed limit.? The aforesaid judgment clearly suggests that before convicting the accused for offence qua which, they were charged it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that they were in actual and conscious possession of the illicit liquor in excess of the prescribed limit. The aforesaid judgment clearly suggests that before convicting the accused for offence qua which, they were charged it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that they were in actual and conscious possession of the illicit liquor in excess of the prescribed limit. In the instant case, as emerged from the record that 12 cartons containing 12 bottles each were allegedly recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioners-accused but interestingly, only one bottle each from 12 cartons was retained as sample and sent for opinion of chemical analyst. Now, if action of police in sending only 12 bottles and 144 bottles for chemical analysis/examination is tested in light of aforesaid judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it could be concluded that prosecution could only prove recovery of 12 bottles of country liquor from their possession, which is admittedly not an offence. In the aforesaid case, as discussed supra, 71 pouches were alleged to have been recovered from the accused but only one pouch was retained as sample and sent for analysis and accordingly, Court came to conclusion that prosecution could only prove that respondent accused was in a possession of one pouch of 180 m.l. of country liquor in their possession. If the aforesaid ratio laid down in Jagdish case (supra) is applied in the present case, it can be safely concluded that accused was not carrying liquor beyond permissible limit. If the story of prosecution is taken to be correct on its face value then in that event also, only recovery of 12 bottles is required to be taken into consideration, not 144 bottles. 13. Admittedly, in view of the recovery of 12 bottles accused may be considered carrying 6 bottles beyond permissible limit. Hence, no appeal, if any, was maintainable in terms of Section 378 1 (A) as far as the bailable offence is concerned, which reads as under:- 378. Appeal in case of acquittal-[ (1) Save as otherwise provided in Sub-Section (2), and subject to the provisions of Sub-Sections (3) and (5),-- (a) the District Magistrate may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Court of Session from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence; (2). If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946) or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, [the Central Government may, subject to the provisions of Sub-Section (3), also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal— (a) to the Court of Session, from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence; (b) to the High Court from an original or appellate order of an acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court [not being an order under clause (a) or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision]. 14. At this stage, Mr. Thakur, stated that sending of one bottle from each box was sufficient to ascertain the content of other bottles recovered from the twelve boxes and entire recovery cannot be said to be vitiated on account of alleged omission, if any, on the part of the police. But this Court is unable to accept the aforesaid contention put forth on behalf of Mr. Thakur solely on the ground that police by sending 12 bottles one from each carton was only able to prove the contents of liquor in the 12 bottles only. Since Chemical Examiner in his report stated that each sample of the bottle was containing 49.0 percent liquor, recovery if any, can be said of bottles which were actually sent for chemical analysis. 15. Since all bottles were not sent for chemical analysis, it is not proved/established on record by the prosecution that remaining bottles were also containing liquor and as such, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that entire recovery allegedly effected by the police stands vitiated on account of aforesaid serious omission on the part of the police. 16. Interestingly in this case, material prosecution witnesses while deposing before the trial Court stated that the case property was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW4/B and one bottle from each carton was taken out as sample and seal after use was handed over to witness namely Sh. Pardeep. 16. Interestingly in this case, material prosecution witnesses while deposing before the trial Court stated that the case property was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext.PW4/B and one bottle from each carton was taken out as sample and seal after use was handed over to witness namely Sh. Pardeep. Similarly, this PW also stated that they identified bottles No. 1 to 32 and 31 to 42 but none of the PWs stated something qua the tag of FIR if any, on the boxes allegedly recovered from the car of the accused. None of them stated anything qua the tag of FIR on the case property, hence this Court is compelled to infer that after drawing samples from 12 bottles one each from each carton, remaining case property was sealed Ext.P1 to P142 but no tag of FIR was put on the same and as such identification, if any by the prosecution witnesses of the case property produced as Ext.P1 to Ext.P142 cannot be said to be in accordance with law. Since no FIR tag was put on alleged recovered contraband, it is not understood how PWs later on identified the same before the Court in the absence of tag of FIR on it. 17. Similarly, this Court though finds mention in the statement of PWs qua the seal- =J' with which, samples were sealed. Constable Ramesh Kumar PW4 categorically stated that one bottle from each carton was taken out as sample and seal after use was handed over to witness Partap but interestingly, there is no mention if any, qua the production of seal in the Court. 18. PW1 Head Constable Thakru Ram stated that ASI Geeta Parkash deposited with him the case property along with specimen seal impressions and he sent 12 samples of bottles with seal impression =J' to CTL Kandhaghat through Constable Rakesh Kumar. PW4 constable, Rakesh categorically stated that seal after use was handed over to witness Pardeep but this Court is unable to lay its hand to any statement made by the aforesaid witness Pardeep, to whom seal after use was handed over as stated by PW4 Constable Rakesh Kumar. 19. PW5 I.O. Geeta Parkash, ASI, though stated in his statement that one bottle from each carton was taken out as sample and he sealed the sample with Seal ?J? and thereafter sample bottles were deposited with MHC same night. 19. PW5 I.O. Geeta Parkash, ASI, though stated in his statement that one bottle from each carton was taken out as sample and he sealed the sample with Seal ?J? and thereafter sample bottles were deposited with MHC same night. He has not stated anything with regard to custody of seal after sealing the samples. Since it is an admitted case of the prosecution that seal –=J' after sealing samples was hand over to Pardeep, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to cite him as witness to prove the factum of sealing of samples, if any, with the seal having impression seal ?J? but interestingly, Pardeep has been not cited as prosecution witness, hence, factum qua the sealing of samples by seal having impression ?J? cannot be said to be proved in accordance with law. Both the courts below have overlooked the aforesaid glaring discrepancy in the case of proseuciton while recording the conviction against the present accused-petitioners. In the absence of seal, it cannot be said that prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that present petitioner accused were found carrying illicit liquor. 20. Apart from above, it clearly emerges from the reading of the depositions made by the prosecution witnesses as has been discussed above, that no number of FIR was put/tagged upon the 12 boxes allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused, which itself makes the story of recovery doubtful. Moreover, it also emerge from the statement of prosecution witnesses that boxes of the liquor were not sealed and admittedly there is no mention of seal, if any, on the cartons of liquor allegedly recovered from the conscious possession of the accused. 21. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that story of prosecution qua the sealing of the sample is also doubtful and especially, in view of the statement of PW4, who stated that seal having impression ?J? was handed over to Pardeep after its use. But seal was never produced before the Court. This very omission on the part of the prosecution has rendered story of prosecution unreliable and untrustworthy. The aforesaid omission on the part of the police not to seal the bulk case property at the time of alleged recovery, is not a minor discrepancy, rather, it has vitiated the entire recovery. But seal was never produced before the Court. This very omission on the part of the prosecution has rendered story of prosecution unreliable and untrustworthy. The aforesaid omission on the part of the police not to seal the bulk case property at the time of alleged recovery, is not a minor discrepancy, rather, it has vitiated the entire recovery. Similarly as has been discussed in detail that there is a glaring discrepancy qua the withdrawing of samples by police after recovery. 22. In the present case, as has been mentioned earlier, police withdrawn 12 bottles one each from 12 cartons for sending the same for chemical analysis but no seal whatsoever, was produced in the court. Aforesaid glaring discrepancy has rendered the story of withdrawing samples by police after recovery unreliable and could not be relied upon by the courts below while recording conviction of the present petitioners-accused in totality of facts and circumstances. Rather this Court after perusing the evidence led on record by the prosecution is compelled to conclude that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the recovery of liquor from the conscious possession of the accused. It clearly emerge from the depositions from all the material prosecution witnesses that neither there is any seal nor any tag of FIR on the case property coupled with the fact that the seal with which case property was sealed, was not produced in the Court. None production of sealing in the Court has rendered the story of prosecution untrustworthy and unreliable. 23. In this regard, reliance is placed on judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Gopal, 1998 (8) SCC 499 , relevant paras of the aforesaid judgments is reproduced herein below: ?2. In passing the order of acquittal, the High Court has noted that the seizure of the narcotic substance was doubtful because the seal on the sample sent for chemical analysis could not be compared with the seal on the seized article kept in the Police Malkhana because the seal on the sample sent to analyst could not be produced in the Court for verification. Even the seal which was put on the seized article kept in the Police Malkhana could not be ascertained excepting the word ?Ajmer?. Even the seal which was put on the seized article kept in the Police Malkhana could not be ascertained excepting the word ?Ajmer?. It may be stated here that since the said article had been seized on the railway platform according to the prosecution case, the seal of the Stationmaster had been used, but the Stationmaster was not examined to prove whether the seal put on the sized article and kept in the Police Malkhana really contained the seal of the Stationmaster.? 24. Reliance is also placed on judgment passed by our own High Court in Nanha v. State of H.P., Latest HLJ 2011 (HP) 1195. Paras No. 7 to 9 are extracted herein below:- ?7. Adverting to the points urged by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the seal used has not been produced in court, we note that this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 308 of 1996, decided on October 21, 2009, State of H.P V. Tek Chand, reported in Latest HLJ 2010 (HP)497,Holds- ?9 PW1 Hukam Chand , MHC, with whom the case property was deposited by PW 4 Ravinder Singh, also did not say that any specimen seal impression has been deposited along with parcel containing the samples and the bulk Charas. It is only PW2 HC Raj Sigh , who took over the charge of MHC from PW1 Hukam Chand, who stated that he sent one of the two samples along with sample seals to the Chemical Examiner, through Constable Mani Ram. Mani Ram who was examined as PW3, did not say that any specimen seal impressions were also carried by him along with the sample. He simply stated that he carried one sealed parcel which was handed over to him PW2 HC Raj Singh. On the docket with which the sample was sent to the Chemical Examiner i.e. Ext.PC, facsimiles of the seals used in sealing the parcels are not there. That means specimen impressions of the seals used in sealing the sample parcels, which was sent to the laboratory, were not available with the Chemical Examiner, for comparison with the seal impressions on the parcel containing sample . Therefore , the report Ext. PC cannot be said to have been sufficiently linked with the samples allegedly separated from the recovered stuff. 8. Adverting to the facts on record, we find from Ext. Therefore , the report Ext. PC cannot be said to have been sufficiently linked with the samples allegedly separated from the recovered stuff. 8. Adverting to the facts on record, we find from Ext. PW-8 /A that the facsimile of the seal not having been affixed on this document. Further we also note that PW- 5 Constable Yoginder Singh states; ?………All the parcels were sealed with seal =D' initially. The seal =S' was made of some metal. The seal has not been brought by me today as the same has been lost. No report qua missing of the seal was lodged by me with anyone. 9. The seal was in possession of the prosecution as established form the evidence of PW-7 Constable Ramesh Kumar, who says that he had deposited this in the Kandaghat Laboratory. What happened to the seal after that is not clear neither it is clear as to why the facsimile is not affixed on the NCB form.? 25. Though this Court is of the view that statements of prosecution witnesses cannot be easily brushed aside solely on the ground that they are official witnesses and version put forth on behalf of the PWs cannot be solely rejected on the ground that no independent witness is associated at the time of occurrence/recovery but in the present facts and circumstances, this court sees force in the contention put forth on behalf of the counsel representing the petitioners accused that statement given by PW3 could not be accepted on its face value by the courts below in the absence of independent witnesses. In view of glaring discrepancies as have been pointed above, this Court is of the view that omission on the part of the prosecution to associate independent witnesses at the time of alleged recovery was itself sufficient to render the story of prosecution untrustworthy and unreliable. 26. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion, present petition is allowed and the judgments passed by both the courts below are quashed and set-aside and the petitioners accused are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Bail bonds, if any, are discharged. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.