Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this appeal, the State challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Special Judge-I, Sirmaur at Nahan, in Sessions Trial No. 34-ST/7 of 2011, dated 26.09.2011, vide which, learned Trial Court has acquitted the present respondent/accused (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’) for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’). 2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that on 27.02.2011, at about 6:55 p.m., at place Haripur Dhar, accused was found in conscious and exclusive possession of 3.7 kgs. of charas by a police party comprising of PW8 Inspector Meenakshi Bhardwaj, SI Balbir Singh, ASI Kalyan Singh, ASI Pratap Singh, HC Balbir Singh, HC Bhoom Prakash, HHC Laik Ram and Constable Naginder. This police party was present at Haripur Dhar village in connection with patrolling of contrabands etc. and went there in two vehicles bearing registration Nos. HP-07B-0324 and HP-07B-0407, which were being driven by drivers Brij Lal and Ramesh Kumar respectively. It was further the case of the prosecution that at Haripur Dhar, PW8 SI Meenakshi Bhardwaj received a secret information that one person namely Rai Singh indulged in illegal sale of contraband and that said person had proceeded towards Sangrah side about 20-25 minutes ago for sale of contraband and he was wearing black coloured Loiya and Kurta-Pajama and was carrying a bag, on which word ‘OM’ was scribed. It was further the case of the prosecution that this information was reduced into ‘reasons of belief’ by PW8 vide memo Ext. PW7/A, which was handed over to Constable Nagender for being taken to DSP, CID, Shimla. Thereafter the police party proceeded towards Sangrah and at about 6:55 p.m. when the said police party reached about 2-3 kilometres away from Haripur Dhar towards Sangrah side, one person was found standing on the road who was wearing a black coloured Loiya and while this person was looking towards the police vehicle, he was overpowered by the police party. It was further the case of the prosecution that no private witness was available at that time as it was Jungle there and the entire area was surrounded by snow. The said person on asking revealed his name as Rai Singh and PW8 informed him that she had information against him that he may be in possession of some contraband article. The said person on asking revealed his name as Rai Singh and PW8 informed him that she had information against him that he may be in possession of some contraband article. Rai Singh (accused) was apprised about his right to get his personal search effected in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer by PW8, but he (Rai Singh) agreed to get his person search done by the police officials at the spot and said consent of his was reduced into writing vide memo Ext. PW1/A. Further as per the prosecution, before personal search of the accused was conducted, PW8, the Investigating Officer as well as other police officials gave their personal search to the accused qua which memo Ext. PW1/B was prepared. Thereafter personal search of the accused was effected on the spot and he was found carrying a bag on his shoulder underneath the Loiya and from inside said bag, black coloured substance in the shape of sticks was recovered which on smelling was found to be charas. Further as per the prosecution, the Investigating Officer prepared identification memo of charas Ext. PW1/C and the charas was weighed with the help of scale, which was being carried by her (Investigating Officer) in the I.O. Kit which on weighing was found 3.700 kgs. The charas so recovered was put into a parcel and sealed with eight seals of impression ‘N’. Search and seizure memo Ext. PW1/D was prepared and the material was also taken into possession and NCB forms in triplicate were prepared. Seal after use was handed over to PW1. Search and seizure memo was witnessed by PW1 and ASI Pratap Singh. Rukka Ext. PW8/A was prepared on the spot by the Investigating Officer and the same was sent to Police Station, Bharari through SI Balbir Singh alongwith sample seal, parcel of contraband, NCB form and seizure memo for registration of the case, on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW6/A was registered at Police Station, State CID, Shimla. Site plan etc. were also prepared by the Investigating Officer and case property i.e. charas Ext. P-1 and bag Ext. P-2, was produced before SI Rattan Singh at Police Station, State CID, Bharari, Shimla, who resealed the same with seal impression ‘P’. PW6/A was registered at Police Station, State CID, Shimla. Site plan etc. were also prepared by the Investigating Officer and case property i.e. charas Ext. P-1 and bag Ext. P-2, was produced before SI Rattan Singh at Police Station, State CID, Bharari, Shimla, who resealed the same with seal impression ‘P’. It was further the case of the prosecution that thereafter case property alongwith sample seals and NCB forms was deposited with MHC, Prakash Chand at Police Station, State CID, Shimla. Thereafter, the case property after entering in the Malkhana was sent to SFSL, Junga for chemical analysis. As per the report of the Chemical Examiner Ext. PW8/D, sample was found containing the contents of charas. After the completion of investigation, challan was filed in the Court and as a prima-facie case was found against the accused, accordingly, he was charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. Learned trial Court vide its judgment under challenge acquitted the accused of the charge framed against him by holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. While concluding so, learned trial Court held that though it is not that on account of non-association of independent witnesses by the Investigating Officer, the testimony of the police officials can be discarded, however, in the case at hand, place Haripur Dhar was located at a distance of two kilometers from the site where the accused was apprehended and there was ample time with the Investigating Officer to have had associated independent witnesses in the proceedings relating to search and seizure of the contraband. Learned trial Court took note of testimonies of PW1 and PW2 in this regard who interalia deposed that Haripur Dhar was at a distance of two kilometers from the place where accused was apprehended and there was number of government offices and residential houses at Haripur Dhar. Learned trial Court further held that Investigating Officer had stated in her cross examination that she had received secret information of accused being allegedly in possession of the contraband at Haripur Dhar market which was open at that time and a number of people were available there. Learned trial Court further held that Investigating Officer had stated in her cross examination that she had received secret information of accused being allegedly in possession of the contraband at Haripur Dhar market which was open at that time and a number of people were available there. On these bases, it was held by the learned trial Court that non-association of independent witnesses engineers the inference that the proceedings were ridden with suspicion and hence were unreliable or suspicious. Learned trial Court further held that accused has propounded the defence that police officials had nabbed two other persons namely Kuldeep and Kewal Ram and that the contraband was allegedly recovered from them by the police party headed by the Investigating Officer and the contraband was planted upon him. Learned trial Court held that it was necessary that any vestige of truth which the contention of the defence so carried was dispelled by the prosecution. It further held that in the case at hand, one of the Police Officer i.e. Investigating Officer was a lady and it disbelieved the contents of the search memo Ext. PW1/B wherein it was mentioned that the personal search of the police party was conducted by the accused on the ground that it was improbable that the personal search of a Lady Officer was done by the accused. On these bases, it was concluded by the learned trial Court that the contents of the personal search memo Ext. PW1/B could not be believed. It further held that as no lady was associated for the purpose of conducting personal search of the Investigating Officer, it gave credence to the contention of the accused that the contraband might have been planted against him. Learned trial Court further held that the Investigating Officer had admitted in her cross examination that on the night of 27th and 28th of February, 2011, the police officials stayed at Police Station Renuka Ji. Learned trial Court held that it had come in the statement of PW1 during his cross examination that Police Station, Sangrah and Police Station, Renuka Ji were situated in close proximity to the place where accused was nabbed, despite this, Rukka was sent to Police Station, State CID, Shimla, which was at a distance of 145 kilometres from the place of occurrence. This according to the learned trial Court was not in consonance with the mandate of Sections 52 and 53 of the NDPS Act. Learned trial Court also held that ‘reasons of belief’ Ext. PW7/A, Special Report Ext. PW7/C and Rukka Ext. PW8/A respectively were sent through different police officials to Police Station, State CID, Shimla and were received there at different times on 28.02.2011, which invited the inference that they were not prepared simultaneously but were prepared at different times. On these bases, learned trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State has filed the present appeal. 5. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused. We have also gone through the records of the case as well as the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. 6. Coming to the facts of the present case, in order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 10 witnesses. Out of them, PW1 ASI Kalyan Singh, PW2 SI Balbir Singh and PW3 HC Bhoom Prakash were part of the police party, which was headed by PW8 Investigating Officer, SI Meenakshi Bhardwaj. 7. Before we refer to the testimony of these witnesses as well as statements of other prosecution witnesses, it is pertinent to mention at this stage that FIR which was registered at Police Station, State CID, Shimla i.e. FIR No. 4/2011 Ext. PW6/A was registered at 3:00 a.m. on 28.02.2011. SI Rattan Singh entered the witness box as PW6 and he stated that on 28.02.2011, Rukka (Ext. PW8/A) was received through SI Balbir Singh alongwith case property and on the basis this Rukka, FIR was registered which is Ext. PW6/A. S.I. Balbir Singh who entered the witness box as PW2 interalia stated that after the recovery of the contraband from the accused, the same was put in a parcel and same was sealed with eight impressions of ‘N’ and thereafter the material was taken into possession through seizure memo Ext. PW1/D after which Investigating Officer prepared NCB form in triplicate and thereafter Investigating Officer prepared Rukka and handed over the same to him alongwith case property as well as NCB form and seizure memo, which he deposited at Police Station, State CID, Shimla with SI Rattan Singh. 8. PW1/D after which Investigating Officer prepared NCB form in triplicate and thereafter Investigating Officer prepared Rukka and handed over the same to him alongwith case property as well as NCB form and seizure memo, which he deposited at Police Station, State CID, Shimla with SI Rattan Singh. 8. In the light of above discussion, when we peruse consent memo of accused Ext. PW1/A, memo regarding personal search of the witnesses and Investigating Officer Ext PW1/B, memo regarding identification of contraband substance Ext. PW1/C, search and seizure memo Ext. PW1/D and NCB form Ext. PW6/C, one thing which strikes to us is this that in all these documents, FIR number ‘4/11’ finds mentioned in the same hand, same flow and with same pen with which other contents thereof have been filled. Not only this, a perusal of the NCB form demonstrates that against column No. 1, initially it seems that ‘7/2011’ was written and thereafter ‘7’ has been converted into ‘4’. In our considered view, it belies prudence as to how author of these documents i.e. the Investigating Officer was aware of the FIR number when Ext. PW1/A, Ext. PW1/B, Ext. PW1/C and Ext. PW1/D were filled on 27.02.2011 by her, which FIR, as per records of the case was registered in the early hours of 28.02.2011, at 3:00 a.m. This, in our considered view, creates serious doubt over the story of the prosecution as to whether the accused was actually apprehended by the police party and contraband was actually recovered from him by the police party in the mode and manner in which prosecution wants this Court to believe. 9. Besides this, we are unable to appreciate as to why the Rukka was sent by the Investigating Officer to a Police Station which was more than 140 kilometres away from the alleged spot where the accused was apprehended by the police party when it has already come on record that there were police stations available in near vicinity including the police station within whose jurisdiction purportedly the contraband was recovered from the accused. 10. ASI Kalyan Singh who was a member of the police party entered the witness box as PW1. 10. ASI Kalyan Singh who was a member of the police party entered the witness box as PW1. He interalia stated that the secret information qua accused being in possession of the contraband substance was received by the Investigating Officer Inspector Meenakshi Bhardwaj when the police party was present near Haripur Dhar village in connection with some clues of illicit liquor and contraband substance etc. In his cross examination, he stated that he could not say as to whether Inspector Meenakshi Bhardwaj received secret information personally or through telephone. He further stated that Haripur Dhar was thickly populated area with number of shops, residential houses and Government Offices. He also stated that police party did not associate any independent witness from Haripur Dhar in the raiding party. He also stated that why independent witnesses were not associated in the raiding party could be explained by the Investigating Officer only. He also stated that Haripur Dhar- Sangrah road was a busy road with public and private vehicles plying in abundance and people walking on foot on this road. He also stated in his cross examination that there was a Helipad nearby the spot and there were residential houses also near the alleged spot. He admitted in his cross examination that no male person can conduct the personal search of a woman but also stated that Inspector Meenakshi Bhardwaj was searched by the accused. 11. PW2 S.I. Balbir Singh who was also a member of the police party in his cross examination deposed that they were not required to meet the team led by Inspector Meenakshi Bhardwaj at Rajgarh, but it was a co-incidence that they met the team led by Meenakshi Bhardwaj at Rajgarh on 27.02.2011. He further stated that Inspector Meenakshi Bhardwaj compelled them to accompany her from Rajgarh to Haripur Dhar. He also stated that they had not received any information on their way from Rajgarh to Haripur Dhar and he was not aware as to from which source the Investigating Officer received the secret information. He also stated that when they reached Haripur Dhar, many people were there. He further stated that they did not associate any independent witness from Haripur Dhar while proceeding from Haripur Dhar to alleged spot of occurrence. It has also come in his cross examination that the spot was about two kilometers from Haripur Dhar on Sangrah road. He also stated that when they reached Haripur Dhar, many people were there. He further stated that they did not associate any independent witness from Haripur Dhar while proceeding from Haripur Dhar to alleged spot of occurrence. It has also come in his cross examination that the spot was about two kilometers from Haripur Dhar on Sangrah road. He further stated that he reached Police Station, State CID, Shimla at 3:00 a.m. on 28.02.2011. He also stated that Constable Nagender who was directed to deliver report under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act had not reached in the Police Station in his presence nor had he met him anywhere. 12. Inspector Meenakshi Bhardwaj who entered the witness box as PW8 in her examination in chief stated that before the accused was searched, raiding party had given its personal search to accused Rai Singh. In her cross examination, she stated that she did not accompany any independent witness from Haripur Dhar while proceeding to alleged spot and self stated that there was no need to accompany any independent witness. She also stated that she did not call for any independent witness during the course of proceedings and she also did not make any effort to take the accused before any Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate for personal search. 13. One thing which emerges from the testimony of these three witnesses is that the so called secret information to the effect that accused was in possession of contraband was received by the Investigating Officer at Haripur Dhar, which was a populated area and just two kilometers away from the spot where the accused was allegedly apprehended by the police party with the contraband. Neither any effort was made by the Investigating Officer while proceeding towards the spot to associate any independent witness with the raiding party nor after the alleged apprehension of the accused, any effort was made by the Investigating Officer to associate any independent witness with the proceedings. Why no independent witness was associated by the Investigating Officer despite the fact that independent witnesses were available in the vicinity has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. Why no independent witness was associated by the Investigating Officer despite the fact that independent witnesses were available in the vicinity has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. This Court is not even remotely suggesting that the case of the prosecution cannot be believed in the absence of the prosecution version being supported by independent witnesses, however, when police party fails to associate independent witnesses despite their availability in the near vicinity, then this creates a serious doubt and suspicion over the mode and manner in which the proceedings in fact were conducted by the police. 14. Coming to the facts of this case, as we have already mentioned above the entire case of the prosecution is shrouded with the suspicion, in view of the fact that the documents which were purportedly prepared by the Investigating Officer at the spot before the registration of the FIR were containing FIR number on them in the same hand, in the same flow and with the same pen, with which other contents thereof were written by Investigating Officer. Not only this, there is a clear cut alteration made in NCB form wherein FIR number apparently has been altered from “7/11 to 4/11”. 15. Besides this, another relevant aspect of the matter is that in this case the Investigating Officer was a lady and she wants this Court to believe that she gave her personal search to the accused who was a male. Why no lady was associated with the search of the Investigating Officer has also not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution because in such like situation, the accused shall have been taken to some nearby place where ladies were available to give credence to the case of the prosecution. 16. Therefore, when we perceive all these facts collectively, then the only conclusion which can be drawn is this that on the basis of evidence produced on record by the prosecution, it could not be said that the prosecution was able to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Besides this, accused has the benefit of acquittal in his favour by the learned trial Court. 17. Besides this, accused has the benefit of acquittal in his favour by the learned trial Court. 17. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court also demonstrates that learned trial Court after taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter held that the prosecution was not able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The findings so returned by the learned trial Court are duly substantiated by reasoning which are duly borne out from the records of the case. 18. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Ankoos and Others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 94 “12. This Court has, time and again, dealt with the scope of exercise of power by the Appellate Court against judgment of acquittal under Sections 378 and 386, Cr.P.C. It has been repeatedly held that if two views are possible, the Appellate Court should not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of acquittal. This Court has laid down that Appellate Court shall not reverse a judgment of acquittal because another view is possible to be taken. It is not necessary to multiply the decisions on the subject and reference to a later decision of this Court in Ghurey Lal v. State Of Uttar Pradesh1 shall suffice wherein this Court considered a long line of cases and held thus : (SCC p.477, paras 69 -70) "69. The following principles emerge from the cases above: 1. The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law. 2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when (2008) 10 SCC 450 he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. 3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial court's decision. This is especially true when a witness' credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was wrong. 70. 3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial court's decision. This is especially true when a witness' credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was wrong. 70. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the wellsettled principles crystallised by number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal: 1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when: (i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong; (ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law; (iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice"; (iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; (v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; (vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc. (vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. 2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court. 3. If two reasonable views can be reached-one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction--the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused." 19. In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Kahan Chand, 2016 (1) Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 576, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held as under “19. 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 Mohamed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 , it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Mohamed Ankoos and others versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 , it cannot be said that the Court below has not correctly appreciated the evidence on record or that acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice. No ground for interference is called for. The present appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged.” Therefore, while concurring with the findings of acquittal returned by the learned Trial Court, we dismiss the present appeal being devoid of any merit, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.