JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, State has challenged judgment passed by the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, in Sessions Trial No. 54/2010 dated 29.09.2011, vide which, the accused has been acquitted for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on the intervening night of 26/27th December, 2009, ASI Satish Kumar, Investigating Officer, Police Station Jogindernagar alongwith other police officials had set up a Naka at Cinema Chowk, Jogindernagar. HHG Amar Singh and HHG Kali Dass, were on patrolling duty in beat No. 2. They were also associated in the Naka by the Investigating Officer. At around 12.45 A.M., one HRTC bus of Keylong Depot bearing registration No. HP-66-1307 came from Manali which was on its way to Dharamshala. This bus was stopped for checking. Accused was found sitting on Seat No. 37. As soon as he saw the police party, he got perplexd, as a result of which, the police party became suspicious. During his personal search, he was found to have tied some material with Cello Tapes to both his legs. He was alighted from the bus. The Cello Tapes tied to his legs were removed and some material of black colour in the shape of chapattis and sticks was recovered from the accused, which he had tied to his legs. On smelling, this material was found to be Charas and when weighed it was found weighing 1 kilogram 550 grams. Biri Chand was the driver of the bus and Duni Chand was conductor of the said bus. When asked, conductor Duni Chand disclosed that the accused had boarded the bus from Kullu to Baijnath. The bus ticket of the accused was attested by Duni Chand which was taken into possession by the police. Recovered Charas was packed in a cloth parcel which was sealed with six seals of ‘S’. The socks of the accused and Cello Tape used for tying the Charas in legs, were put in another cloth parcel, which was also sealed with seal ‘S’. NCB form was filled on the spot. The seal after its use was handed over to Constable Inder Dev. The socks of the accused and Cello Tape used for tying the Charas in legs, were put in another cloth parcel, which was also sealed with seal ‘S’. NCB form was filled on the spot. The seal after its use was handed over to Constable Inder Dev. Recovered case property was taken into possession by the police vide seizure memo Ext.PW1/B. Constable Inder Dev and HHG Rvainder Kumar put their signatures on the seizure memo as witnesses and accused also put his signatures on it. Rukka Ext. PW-8/B was scribed and sent to the Police Station through HHG Amar Singh on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW-8/A was registered. Site plan etc. were prepared. Accused was arrested and after completion of formalities, the case property as well as the accused were taken to the Police Station. Case property was produced before the then S.H.O. Police Station Jogindernagar for resealing, which was resealed with three seals of ‘N’. Case property was thereafter deposited with MHC Mangat Ram. The same was sent to the laboratory vide R.C. No. 213/09 through Constable Karam Singh. The recovered contraband on chemical examination was found to be Charas as per report of the Expert certificate Ext. PX. 3. After completion of the investigation, challan was filed in the Court and as a prima facie case was found against the accused, he was charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. On the basis of evidence led both ocular as well as documentary, learned trial Court held that in view of non-association of independent witnesses coupled with the contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses who were police officials, the alleged recovery of Charas from the possession of the accused from his personal search was doubtful. It further held that the evidence adduced by the prosecution could not be said to be sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that 1 kilogram 550 grams Charas was recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused during his personal search. It was further held by learned trial Court that there was non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act and as such, the prosecution could not be said to have proved the guilt of the accused. It was further held by learned trial Court that there was non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act and as such, the prosecution could not be said to have proved the guilt of the accused. On these basis, learned trial Court acquitted the accused. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment passed by learned trial Court, the State has filed this appeal. 6. Mr. Vikram Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, has strenuously argued that the judgment of acquittal returned by learned trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law as learned trial Court erred in not appreciating that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and learned trial Court had erred in discarding the well reasoned and consistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses on material points. It was further argued by learned Deputy Advocate General that learned trial Court failed to appreciate and take into consideration the statements of PW-1 HC Inder Dev, PW-6 HHG Amar Singh and PW-10 ASI Satish Kumar in its correct perspective. According to Mr. Thakur, a perusal of the statements of these three witnesses clearly demonstrated that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, however, learned trial Court had erred in returning the conclusion to the contrary. It was further argued by Mr. Thakur that learned trial Court had erred in not appreciating the testimony of the Investigating Officer to the effect that the statement of conductor could not be recorded for valid reasons that had been given by him. It was further argued by Mr. Thakur that the conclusion arrived at by learned trial Court that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act were not complied with was totally a wrong conclusion in the facts and circumstances of the case as it was a ‘chance recovery’. On these grounds, it was urged by Mr. Thakur that the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court was perverse and was liable to be set aside and the accused was liable to be convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. 7. Mr. On these grounds, it was urged by Mr. Thakur that the judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court was perverse and was liable to be set aside and the accused was liable to be convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. 7. Mr. Ajay Chandel, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that the judgment passed by learned trial Court was neither perverse nor the findings of acquittal returned by learned trial Court were incorrect. Mr. Chandel argued that learned trial Court after taking into consideration the entire evidence placed on record by the prosecution held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused. Mr. Chandel argued that in fact non-compliance of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act was done by the prosecution because in fact no contraband was recovered from the accused by the prosecution and the accused had been framed in a false case. He further argued that no cogent explanation was there from the prosecution that as to why independent witnesses were not associated with search and seizure when it was the case of the prosecution that the alleged recovery of the Charas was made from the accused who was travelling in the bus. He further argued that contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the official witnesses were not minor but were major contradictions and they created serious doubt over the story of the prosecution and in this background, it could not be said that learned trial Court had erred in acquitting the accused. On these basis, it was argued that the judgment of acquittal returned by learned trial Court do not warrant any interference. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case as well as judgment passed by learned trial Court. 9. As per the prosecution, the contraband was seized from the person of the accused on the intervening night of 26/27th December, 2009, while he was travelling in a bus which was proceeding from Manali to Dharamshala. The contraband was so seized when the said bus was stopped for checking at Jogindernagar at Cinema Chowk at around 12.45 A.M. Further, as per the prosecution, the accused was found sitting on Seat No. 37 and as he got perplexed when he saw police party. The contraband was so seized when the said bus was stopped for checking at Jogindernagar at Cinema Chowk at around 12.45 A.M. Further, as per the prosecution, the accused was found sitting on Seat No. 37 and as he got perplexed when he saw police party. The police party became suspicious and during his search, it was found that he had tied some material with Cello Tapes in both of his legs. Taking the story of the prosecution as it is, we fail to understand as to when the police found that the accused had tied some material with Cello Tapes in both of his legs and he was alighted from the bus why no independent witness was associated with the search and seizure of the contraband. Not only this, admittedly, when the search and seizure was conducted by the prosecution on suspicion being raised by the conduct of the accused, no cogent explanation is there as to why the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act were not complied with. Incidentally, it is not a case where the alleged recovery of the contraband was made by the prosecution from the accused either at an isolated place or secluded place. Though the prosecution has tried to explain non-joining of the independent witnesses and non-recording of the statement of the conductor on the ground that it was a cold night and the passengers were raising hue and cry, but according to us, the explanation which has been so given by the prosecution, does not seem to be creditworthy because it belies prudence that the police party did not record the statement of the conductor or the driver of the bus neither did it associate any independent witness from amongst other passengers present in the bus simply because it was a cold night or the passengers were raising hue and cry. It has come in evidence even otherwise that it is not as if immediately after the accused was nabbed by the police party, the bus was allowed to go. On the contrary, PW-6 has stated that bus remained at the spot during entire proceedings on the date in issue. 10. Besides this, even otherwise, story as has been put forth by the prosecution does not inspire confidence. The testimony of official witnesses is neither cogent or trustworthy nor does the same appear to be believable. On the contrary, PW-6 has stated that bus remained at the spot during entire proceedings on the date in issue. 10. Besides this, even otherwise, story as has been put forth by the prosecution does not inspire confidence. The testimony of official witnesses is neither cogent or trustworthy nor does the same appear to be believable. The contradictions and inconsistencies in their statements have not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. 11. As per the prosecution, the Investigating Officer had associated Constable Inder Dev and HHC Ravinder Kumar as witnesses of search and seizure. HHC Ravinder Kumar was not examined by the prosecution and in fact he was given up by the prosecution on 13.06.2011 as being repetitive. 12. Inder Dev entered the witness box as PW-1 to corroborate the case of the prosecution and he has stated in his cross-examination that when the accused saw them (police party), he got frightened and they (police party) became suspicious that he must be possessing some contraband. He further stated that the search of the accused was carried out inside the bus. He also stated that the police officials did not give their personal search to the accused. He also stated that the Investigating Officer after having become suspicious that the accused was in possession of narcotic substance, did not give any option to the accused to be searched before Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. In our considered view, testimony of this witness creates a serious doubt over the version of the prosecution that it was a case of ‘chance recovery’. It has come in his cross-examination that the bus was almost full except 3-4 seats and only three persons out of the police party went inside the bus. 13. HHG Amar Singh, who entered the witness box as PW-6 stated that when the police party entered the bus, accused who was sitting on seat No. 37 got frightened when he saw the police party and ASI Satish Kumar became suspicious. He further deposed that during checking, legs of accused were found to be swellon and when his pent was lifted, it was noticed that under the socks accused had tied something. He further deposed that thereafter the accused was taken out of the bus and on search, the tied material was found to be in shape of sticks and chappati of black colour which was charas. He further deposed that thereafter the accused was taken out of the bus and on search, the tied material was found to be in shape of sticks and chappati of black colour which was charas. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that when accused became frightened, the police party became suspicious that he was possessing some narcotic substance. He also stated that there were 2-3 passengers sitting on the same bench alongwith the accused. He also stated that on suspicion, accused was alighted from the bus by the police and thereafter, his search was taken. He also stated that HHG Ravinder Singh and Constable Inder Dev had brought weight and scale from nearby vegetable shop. He also stated that bus remained at the spot till the completion of entire proceedings and the entire proceedings were completed at about 1:45 a.m. He also stated that none of the passengers were associated as witness at the time of search and thereafter self stated that driver and conductor were associated as witnesses. He also stated that no file was taken by him from Police Station. He also stated that during the course of proceedings, he never visited the Police Station. Incidentally, in his examination-in-chief, PW-6 stated that Investigating Officer gave him ruqua which he gave to MHC and thereafter he handed over case file to Investigating Officer in the Police Station. 14. The Investigating Officer entered the witness box as PW-10. When we peruse the statement of PW-10 ASI Satish Kumar Investigating Officer, there is no mention in his examination-in-chief that while they were checking the bus in question, the accused was sitting on Seat No. 37 got perplexed when he saw the police party or raised a suspicion on account of his conduct. He has deposed in the Court as under:- “During the checking of the bus one person was found sitting on seat No. 37. During the checking of that person, it was found that he had tied some material in both his legs below knee. He was taken out of the bus. During the checking, it was found that he had wrapped a tape around his both legs.” 15. It has further come in the testimony of PW10 that he brought weights and scale from a vegetable shop of Chota Walla alias Krishan from his servant Kripal Singh. He was taken out of the bus. During the checking, it was found that he had wrapped a tape around his both legs.” 15. It has further come in the testimony of PW10 that he brought weights and scale from a vegetable shop of Chota Walla alias Krishan from his servant Kripal Singh. While Kripal Singh has not been examined by the prosecution, the testimony of Investigating Officer that he brought weights and scale from a nearby shop is belied by the statement of PW-6 who has stated that the weights and scale were brought from the nearby shop by Ravinder and Inder Dev. 16. Moreover, while it has come in the cross-examination of PW-10 that the accused was sitting alone on the bench of Seat No. 37, whereas it has come in the statement of PW-6 that 2-3 persons were also sitting on the same bench. 17. Not only this, while as per PW-10 ASI Satish Kumar, there were 15-20 passengers in the bus, however, it has come in the statement of PW-1 that the bus was almost full except 3-4 seats. 18. Further, whereas in his cross-examination PW-10 has stated that the case file was brought from Police Station by HHG Amar Singh and handed over to him at around 03.00 A.M. Amar Singh (PW-6) on the contrary has stated that he did not bring any file from the Police Station to the spot. Not only this, whereas PW-10 has stated that the file was handed over to him at the spot at around 03.00 A.M. PW-6 has deposed that the entire police party had left the spot at around 01.45 A.M. 19. In our considered view, these are major contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of main prosecution witnesses on the strength of whose testimonies prosecution wants the conviction of the accused. Statements of these official witnesses are neither cogent nor trustworthy at all and these cannot be made basis for convicting the accused. The contradictions and inconsistencies in their statements cannot be terms as minor but are major and these contradictions create very serious doubt as to whether any contraband was in fact recovered from the accused by the police party on the date, time and place as the prosecution wants this Court to believe. 20. The contradictions and inconsistencies in their statements cannot be terms as minor but are major and these contradictions create very serious doubt as to whether any contraband was in fact recovered from the accused by the police party on the date, time and place as the prosecution wants this Court to believe. 20. As we have already discussed above, apparently it does not seem to be a case of ‘chance recovery’ and the prosecution has made it a case of ‘chance recovery’ just to get out of the rigors of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, which are mandatory. Neither the driver of the bus nor the conductor of the bus has been examined by the prosecution nor other passengers travelling in the bus has been examined by the prosecution to substantiate its case that the contraband was recovered from the accused in the mode and manner in which the prosecution wants this Court to believe. Non-joining of independent witnesses with the search and seizure on the pretext that it was a case of ‘chance recovery’ also does not seem to be believable. It has clearly come in the deposition of PW-1, PW-6 as well as in cross-examination of PW-10 that before the search of the accused, police party had become suspicious that he was possessing some narcotic substance. Whereas PW-1 has stated that the accused was searched inside the bus, it has come in the statements of PW1 and PW- 10 that he was searched after being alighted from the bus. 21. Therefore, in our considered view, it cannot be said that on the basis of evidence both oral as well as documentary prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. A perusal of the judgment passed by learned trial Court also demonstrates that it has exhaustively taken into consideration the entire evidence produced on record by the prosecution and after appreciation of the same has held that the prosecution was not able to prove its case against then accused on the strength of evidence placed on record. We concur with the findings so returned by learned trial Court. The findings so returned by learned trial Court are neither perverse nor it can be said that the same are not borne out from the records of the case. 22. We concur with the findings so returned by learned trial Court. The findings so returned by learned trial Court are neither perverse nor it can be said that the same are not borne out from the records of the case. 22. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, we do not have any reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by learned trial Court in favour of the accused and while upholding the judgment so passed by learned trial Court, we dismiss the present appeal being devoid of any merit. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.