JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. 1. Assailing the judgment dated 16.10.2014, passed by Special Judge, Bilaspur, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 11/3 of 2010, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shyam Lal, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is the case of prosecution that on 28.9.2010, police party headed by Inspector Sita Ram (PW-11), comprising of police officials namely ASI Mohinder Singh (PW-9), ASI Roop Lal (PW-4), HC Roshan Lal (PW-5) and C. Rakesh Kumar (PW-10), was on patrol duty at Swarghat bazaar, Nalagarh. At about 7:30 p.m., accused, who was carrying a bag, seeing the police party tried to flee away, as such on suspicion, was nabbed. Suspecting that he may be carrying some contraband substance, police party after associating Rehmat Ulla (PW-1) and Dalip Kumar (PW-2), searched the accused and from the bag carried by him, Poppy straw, which upon weighment, was found to be 1 Kilogram and 250 grams, recovered. The contraband substance was weighed with the scales, which were brought from the shop of Ranjeet Singh (PW-3). Rukka (Ex. PW4/A) was carried to the Police Station by ASI Roop Lal (PW-4), which led to registration of FIR No. 77/10 dated 28.9.2010 (Ex. PW12/A) for commission of offence, under the provisions of Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act), at Police Station, Swarghat, District Bilaspur, H.P. With the completion of the proceedings on the spot, case property was handed over to SHO Sita Ram (PW-11), who re-sealed the same and entrusted it to H.C. Gian Chand (PW-7), who in turn, sent the same for chemical analysis through HHC Duni Chand (PW-6). During investigation, report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Himachal Pradesh, Junga (Ex. PW8/A), was taken on record. On completion of investigation, which, prima facie, revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, Challan was presented in the Court for trial. 2. The accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 15 of the NDPS Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses. 2. The accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 15 of the NDPS Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 3. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses. Statement of the accused, under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was also recorded, in which he took the plea of innocence and false implication. 4. Finding the prosecution story of having recovered the contraband substance from the conscious possession of the accused, not to have been established, beyond reasonable doubt, by the prosecution witnesses, Trial Court, acquitted the accused. Hence the present appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. Vikram Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General on behalf of the State as also Mr. T.S. Chauhan, 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. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice. 6. 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 the essential ingredients so required to constitute the charged offence. 7. 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 P.C. in an appeal from an order of acquittal has been stated in - 'Sheo Swamp 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."" 8. Record reveals that independent witnesses Rehmat Ulla (PW-1) and Dalip Kumar (PW-2) have not supported the prosecution case. According to Inspector Sita Ram (PW-11), police party was comprising of ASI Mohinder Singh (PW-9) and HC Roshan Lal (PW-5) etc., but it has come on record in the testimony of HC Gian Chand (PW-7) that HC Roshan Lal (PW-5) was not present in the Police Station at the relevant point in time. It has come on record that the Police Station was just within a stone's throw from the spot where the accused was allegedly apprehended. Hence, version of HC Roshan Lal (PW-7), of having searched the accused, has rendered the prosecution case to be extremely doubtful. 9. It has come on record that the Police Station was just within a stone's throw from the spot where the accused was allegedly apprehended. Hence, version of HC Roshan Lal (PW-7), of having searched the accused, has rendered the prosecution case to be extremely doubtful. 9. The genesis of prosecution story of having left the Police Station and laid Nakka in the bazaar for checking the vehicles, itself appears to be doubtful, more so, in the absence of any rapat/D.D. entry having been recorded in the register. In this backdrop, we do not find the version of HC Roshan Lal of having conducted the search and seizure operations and thereafter having brought the scales from the shop of Ranjeet Singh (PW-3) to be inspiring in confidence. 10. We also find that Ranjeet Singh (PW-3) does not disclose the identity of police officials who had come searching for the scales. 11. Be that as it may, we find that there are material contradictions in the timings at which the scales were taken from the shop of Ranjeet Singh (PW-3). According to him, it was at 8:00 p.m., whereas according to HC Roshan Lal (PW-5) it was brought at 7:40 p.m. One cannot forget that the spot of crime, Police Station and the place from where the scales were allegedly brought were within a distance of stone's throw. 12. The genesis of the prosecution story of having recovered the contraband substance in the presence of Rehmat Ulla (PW-1) and Dalip Kumar (PW-2) is also rendered extremely doubtful, in fact, belied through their testimonies, who have not supported the prosecution case at all and in fact, in their unrebutted testimonies have deposed that no search ever took place in their presence and were informed by the police that Poppy straw was to be weighed in their presence in the shop of one Sanjay. Now who is this Sanjay, remains unexplained. 13. We do not find prosecution to have proved its case, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading clear, cogent, convincing piece of evidence with regard to recovery of contraband substance from the conscious possession of the accused. Contradictions in the statements of police officials are glaring, material and relevant, totally shaking the edifice of prosecution story. Witnesses are unreliable and their testimonies not free from embellishments/contradictions/variations. 14. Contradictions in the statements of police officials are glaring, material and relevant, totally shaking the edifice of prosecution story. Witnesses are unreliable and their testimonies not free from embellishments/contradictions/variations. 14. The Court below, in our considered view, has correctly and completely appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. It cannot be said that judgment of trial Court is perverse, illegal and erroneous or based on incorrect and incomplete appreciation of material on record resulting into miscarriage of justice. The accused has had the advantage of having been acquitted by the Court below. 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 , since it cannot be said that trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice, no interference is warranted in the instant case. For all the aforesaid reasons, present appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Record of the trial Court be immediately sent back.