JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. 1. Assailing the judgment dated 1.6.2012 of the learned Special Judge, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, passed in Sessions Trial No. 05-ST/7 of 2010, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sunil Kumar and another, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging acquittal of respondents Sunil Kumar and Buddhu Shah (hereinafter referred to as the accused). 2. It is the case of prosecution that police party headed by ASI Raj Mohd. (PW-13) was on traffic checking duty at Shillai bifurcation near Naya Road towards Paonta Sahib. At about 9:30 p.m., police party stopped vehicle bearing No. HR02T-1799, driven by accused Sunil Kumar in which co-accused Buddhu Shah was sitting. On checking the vehicle, contraband substance kept in a polythene bag, under the driver's seat was recovered. Prior thereto, on the basis of suspicion accused were informed of their statutory right and their consent obtained. The contraband substance so recovered was taken into possession after two samples of 50 grams each were drawn and sealed separately with seal impression "X". Rukka (Ex.PW13/A) sent though C. Rizwan Ali (PW-8) led to registration of FIR No. 73/2009, dated 16.11.2009 (Ex.PW8/A) at Police Station Shillai, Distt. Sirmour, H.P. for commission of offence under the provisions of Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). With the file having been brought to the spot and completion of proceedings, the accused were arrested and the contraband substance produced before the SHO Hari Ram (PW-10), who re-sealed the same with seal impression "A". The sealed parcel was entrusted to M.H.C. Virender Singh (PW-4) who sent the same for chemical analysis and report of the FSL, Junga (Ext.PW 13/H), taken on record by the police. 3. With the completion of investigation, which prima facie revealed complicity of the accused in the crime, Challan came to be presented in Court for trial. 4. Both the accused were charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 20 of the Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to establish its case, in all, prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses. 4. Both the accused were charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 20 of the Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to establish its case, in all, prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses. Statements of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were also recorded, in which they took plea of innocence and false implication. 6. Findings the testimonies of prosecution witnesses not to be inspiring in confidence, trial Court acquitted both the accused in relation to the charged offence. Hence, the present appeal by the State. 7. We have heard Mr. Vikram Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, on behalf of the State as also Mr. Lovneesh Thakur, learned Advocate, on behalf of the accused. We have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. Having done so, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. 8. It is a settled principle of law that acquittal leads to presumption of innocence in favour of an accused. To dislodge the same, onus heavily lies upon the prosecution. Having considered the material on record, we are of the considered view that prosecution has failed to establish essential ingredients so required to constitute the charged offence. 9. In Prandas v. The State, AIR 1954 SC 36 , Constitution Bench of the apex Court, has held as under: "(6) It must be observed at the very outset that we cannot support the view which has been expressed in several cases that the High Court has no power under Section 417, Criminal P.C., to reverse a judgment of acquittal, unless the judgment is perverse or the subordinate Court has in some way or other misdirected itself so as to produce a miscarriage of justice. In our opinion, the true position in regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 417, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in an appeal from an order of acquittal has been stated in Sheo Swarup v. Emperor, AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) at pp.229, 230 (A), in these words: "Sections 417, 418 and 423 of the Code give to the High Court full power to review at large the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, and to reach the conclusion that upon that evidence the order of acquittal should be reversed. No limitation should be placed upon that power, unless it be found expressly stated in the Code. But in exercising the power conferred by the Code and before reaching its conclusions upon fact, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses, (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial, (3) the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt, and (4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses. To state this, however, is only to say that the High Court in its conduct of the appeal should and will act in accordance with rules and principles well known and recognized in the administration of justice." 10. It is a settled principle of law that prior to the invocation of the statutory provisions of Section 35/54 of the Act, prima facie, prosecution has to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, recovery of the contraband substance from the conscious possession of the accused. 11. In the instant case, we find that recovery came to be effected by Raj Mohd. (PW-13) in the presence of police officials C. Rizwan Ali (PW-8), H.C. Sukhdev Singh (PW-9) and independent witnesses Kalyan Singh (PW-6) and Ved Prakash (PW-11). 12. Significantly, independent witnesses Kalyan Singh (PW-6) and Ved Prakash (PW-11) have not supported the prosecution case at all. It has come on record in the testimony of official witnesses that these witnesses were known to the police party from before. Their presence on the spot appears to be doubtful. 12. Significantly, independent witnesses Kalyan Singh (PW-6) and Ved Prakash (PW-11) have not supported the prosecution case at all. It has come on record in the testimony of official witnesses that these witnesses were known to the police party from before. Their presence on the spot appears to be doubtful. It is a matter of record that the police apprehended the accused at about 9:30 p.m. It is not the case of the prosecution that independent witnesses are local residents or otherwise had reason sufficient enough to be present on the spot. 13. That apart, independent witnesses, have not supported the prosecution case at all. They denied recovery of any contraband substance from the conscious possession of the accused in their presence. In fact, from the un-rebutted testimony, it is evident that they were called to the Police Station, where their signatures obtained. In fact, Ved Prakash (PW-11) appears to be a stock witness. 14. Thus, the version other than the one which the prosecution wants the Court to believe has emerged on record, rendering the genesis of the prosecution case of having the contraband substance recovered in the presence of independent witnesses to be doubtful. It is a matter of record that even Jameel (PW-3), owner of the vehicle, allegedly driven by accused Suni Kumar, has not supported the prosecution. 15. Even if we were to ignore the testimonies of independent witnesses, we otherwise find the testimonies of police officials of having effected the recovery of the contraband substance, not be inspiring in confidence. 16. According to Raj Mohd. (PW-13), the vehicle was searched at about 9:30 p.m. and one polythene bag containing Charas so concealed below the driver's seat recovered. On opening the bag, some black coloured substance in the shape of sticks which smelled like charas, was found. On his asking C. Rizwan Ali (PW-8) brought the scales from the shop of Satpal (PW-7) and upon weighment, the contraband substance (Charas) found to be of 700 grams. Two samples of 50 grams each were drawn and bulk parcel as also the samples were sealed with seal impression "X". Rukka (Ex.PW13/A) was sent to the Police Station through C. Rizwan Ali (PW-8). NCB form (Ex.PW10/A) was filled up at the spot. Two samples of 50 grams each were drawn and bulk parcel as also the samples were sealed with seal impression "X". Rukka (Ex.PW13/A) was sent to the Police Station through C. Rizwan Ali (PW-8). NCB form (Ex.PW10/A) was filled up at the spot. With the completion of proceedings on the spot, case property produced before the SHO, who re-sealed the same with seal impression "A", where after it was deposited in the Malkhana. 17. We find that police officials C. Rizwan Ali and H.C. Sukhdev Singh have tried to corroborate such version, but however when we peruse the cross-examination part of testimonies of these witnesses, we find material contradictions to have emerged on record. 18. Whereas C. Rizwan Ali and H.C. Sukhdev Singh are certain that columns of NCB form from serial numbers 1 to 7 were filled up by Raj Mohd. (PW-13) who, materially contradicts and belies such fact. Then the question is who filled up the NCB form, which according to Raj Mohd. was filled up on the spot itself. After all he was the senior most member of the raiding party who had carried out the search and seizure operations. If he did not fill up the NCB form then who filled it up remains a mystery. This contradiction we find to be material rendering the genesis of the prosecution story of having prepared the documents on the spot to be doubtful. 19. Also, there is contradiction with regard to the issuance of notice in compliance of Section 50 of the Act. According to Raj Mohd. such notice came to be issued prior to the vehicle being searched but according to H.C. Sukhdev Singh (PW-9), it was issued subsequently. Also, there is doubt as to whether C. Rizwan Ali actually went to the Police Station from the spot with the Rukka, for there is nothing on record to indicate the time of his having returned to the spot and the manner in which he went to the Police Station and returned. 20. Raj Mohd. Also, there is doubt as to whether C. Rizwan Ali actually went to the Police Station from the spot with the Rukka, for there is nothing on record to indicate the time of his having returned to the spot and the manner in which he went to the Police Station and returned. 20. Raj Mohd. wants the Court to believe that it was C. Rizwan Ali who had gone to the shop of one Satpal (PW-7) to fetch the scales, which fact also stands belied by the latter, according to whom, no scales were taken from him by the police, but in fact he was called to the Police Station, Shillai where he was asked to sign certain papers and nothing happened in his presence. 21. Also, there is contradiction as to who scribed the memo of recovery (Ex.PW6/E) vide which the contraband substance was taken into possession. The police officials present on the spot are not certain about such fact, for each one of them do state it not to have been prepared by them. 22. Also, there is contradiction of the place where the contraband substance was allegedly concealed by the accused. Raj Mohd. wants the Court to believe that it was concealed below the driver's seat, whereas according to C. Rizwan Ali it was under the passenger's seat. 23. Also, there is nothing on record to establish as to whether there was street light and whether recovery came to be effected in the light of a torch or that of the vehicle. 24. If the Police Station was just 400 meters away from the spot, then why is it that accused was not directly taken to the Police Station for completion of all the proceedings, remains unexplained on record. 25. Hence, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence so as to prove that the accused persons have committed the offence they have been charged for. 26. Having perused the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses on record, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable material on record. As such, the judgment passed by the Court below cannot be said to be illegal or containing any infirmity. 27. 26. Having perused the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses on record, it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing and reliable material on record. As such, the judgment passed by the Court below cannot be said to be illegal or containing any infirmity. 27. The accused persons have had the advantage of having been acquitted by the trial Court. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 , it cannot be said that the trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. 28. With the aforesaid observations, present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also pending application(s), if any. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Records of the Courts below be immediately sent back.