JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.8.2013 of learned Special Judge, Kullu in Sessions Trial No. 13/2011-101 of 2012 (50 of 13), the State of Himachal Pradesh is in appeal before this Court. 2. The challenge to the impugned judgment is on the grounds, inter alia, that the prosecution evidence has not been appreciated in its right perspective. The reasoning as given is manifestly wrong and unsustainable. The version of official witnesses has erroneously been discarded without there being any proof of enmity with the respondents (hereinafter referred to as accused persons). The procedural irregularities such as sample of seal sent to Forensic Science Laboratory was tampered by using fluid and minor contradictions in the prosecution evidence have been given undue weightage forgetting that error/mistakes were committed by human being while conducting investigation in the case. It was highly illegal to record findings of acquittal on account of so called tampering in malkhana register. 3. Accused persons belong to Chandigarh. On 20.12.2010, they allegedly were intercepted at Hat Bajaura around 5:00 PM by a police team headed by PW-8 ASI Nirmal Singh while travelling in an Alto car bearing registration No. CH-38T-3375. During the search of car, one green coloured bag was found kept underneath the mat of rear seat. It is in that bag charas weighing 750 grams in the shape of sticks and chapaties was recovered. Though, Constable Lal Singh, another member of the police team, was deputed to trace out someone for being associated as independent witness, however, he returned alone and apprised the I.O. that despite efforts made, no independent person could be traced out. The search and seizure, as such, had taken place in the presence of Constable Lal Singh and Constable Bhupinder Singh (PW-5). 4. All the four accused were taken to veramdah of the house of PW-7 Shiv Ram, situated nearby. The recovered charas was re-packed in the same bag and sealed with three seals of impression "A". The NCB-I form Ext. PW-1/C was completed in triplicate. The charas was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW-5/A. 5. Thereafter, rukka Ext. PW-6/A was prepared and sent to PS Bhuntar through Const. Bhupinder Singh (PW-5). On the basis of the rukka, FIR Ext. PW-6/B was recorded by PW-6 SI Narain Singh. The I.O. has prepared the spot map Ext. PW-8/A. All the four accused were arrested. The charas was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW-5/A. 5. Thereafter, rukka Ext. PW-6/A was prepared and sent to PS Bhuntar through Const. Bhupinder Singh (PW-5). On the basis of the rukka, FIR Ext. PW-6/B was recorded by PW-6 SI Narain Singh. The I.O. has prepared the spot map Ext. PW-8/A. All the four accused were arrested. They were apprised about the grounds of arrest i.e. the offence they committed and the provisions of sentence under the Act therefor, vide memos Ext. PW-5/C to PW-5/E. 6. On the completion of investigation at the spot, the accused along with case property were taken to Police Station. They were produced before SI/SHO Narain Singh (PW-6) along with seizure memo and NCB forms. PW-6 SHO Narain Singh has resealed the parcel containing case property with three seals of impression "T". He completed relevant documents through PW-1 HC Chaman Lal, the then MHC PS Bhuntar. He entered the case property in malkhana register, the abstract whereof is Ext. PW-1/A. Special report Ext. PW-4/A was prepared and sent to DSP (Hqrs.), Kullu. 7. The parcel containing case property along with sample of seals, NCB form and other relevant documents were forwarded to FSL, Junga through Const. Yashpal (PW-2). The chemical examiner's repot Ext. PA was received. On the completion of investigation, Challan was prepared by PW-6 SHO Narain Singh and presented in the Court. 8. Learned Special Judge, on finding case under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) made out against the accused, framed charge against each of them accordingly. Since they pleaded not guilty to the charge, therefore, the prosecution in order to prove its case has examined as many as eight witnesses in all and also placed reliance on the documentary evidence. 9. The accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 have, however, denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, being wrong and stated that they were falsely implicated by the police in this case. Accused Vijay Atwal, in reply to question No. 22 has stated that they were having Tea at Taxi-Stand Bhuntar where some dispute arose with police and as they were outsiders, false case was planted against them. They, however, opted for not producing any evidence in their defence. 10. Accused Vijay Atwal, in reply to question No. 22 has stated that they were having Tea at Taxi-Stand Bhuntar where some dispute arose with police and as they were outsiders, false case was planted against them. They, however, opted for not producing any evidence in their defence. 10. Learned trial Judge, on appreciation of the evidence has arrived at a conclusion that the I.O. did not associate independent persons as witnesses to witness the search and seizure intentionally and deliberately. The own testimony of the I.O. and that of Const. Bhupinder Singh (PW-5) is contradictory with each other and inconsistent also. The accused, as such, were given benefit of doubt and consequently acquitted of the charge framed against each of them. 11. Sh. Vikram Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, has very abily argued that cogent and reliable evidence having come on record by way of testimony of Const. Bhupinder Singh (PW-5) and the I.O. PW-8 ASI Nirmal Singh has been erroneously ignored. Their testimony, according to Mr. Thakur, is consistent and worthy of credence. The same, as such, should have not been ignored merely on account of they being police officials. It has also been pointed out that the recovery of charas from the physical and conscious possession of all the accused stands satisfactorily proved, as they were travelling in the same car and as such can reasonably be believed to have knowledge and notice of the charas being carried therein. The report Ext. PA amply demonstrates that the recovered contraband was charas alone and nothing else. Therefore, on reversal of the impugned judgment, all the accused have been sought to be convicted and sentenced for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, learned defence counsel, while repelling the arguments addressed on behalf of the appellant-State has urged that there is no iota of evidence to show that the charas has been recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused persons. The evidence produced by the prosecution is stated to be contradictory in nature and that the witnesses who were police officials, being interested in the success of prosecution case, cannot be relied upon. Therefore, according to Mr. Gupta, learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted all the accused from the charge framed against each of them. 13. The evidence produced by the prosecution is stated to be contradictory in nature and that the witnesses who were police officials, being interested in the success of prosecution case, cannot be relied upon. Therefore, according to Mr. Gupta, learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted all the accused from the charge framed against each of them. 13. On analyzing the given facts and circumstances and also the re-appraisal of the evidence available on record as well as rival submissions, only question arises for determination in this appeal is that the prosecution case qua recovery of charas weighing 750 grams from conscious and physical possession of the accused stands proved beyond all reasonable doubt or not and that the learned trial Judge has committed illegality and irregularity while acquitting them of the charge framed against each of them. 14. In a case of recovery of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, the gravamen for recording the finding of conviction against an offender is the recovery thereof from his/her physical and conscious possession. We are drawing support in this regard from the judgment of the Apex Court in Jagdish Rai v. State of Punjab, (2011) 4 SCC 571 . 15. In Avtar Singh and others v. State of Punjab, (2002) 7 SCC 419 , where the contraband was being transported in a vehicle, the Apex Court in has held as under : "6. Possession is the core ingredient to be established before the accused in the instant case are subjected to the punishment under Section 15. If the accused are found to be in possession of poppy straw which is a narcotic drug within the meaning of Clause (xiv) of Section 2, it is for them to account for such possession satisfactorily; if not, the presumption under Section 54 comes into play............ The word 'possession' no doubt has different shades of meaning and it is quite elastic in its connotation. Possession and ownership need not always go together but the minimum requisite element which has to be satisfied is custody or control over the goods. ............The object of examination under Section 313, it is well known, is to afford an opportunity to the accused to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. It is unfortunate that no question was asked about the possession of goods. ............The object of examination under Section 313, it is well known, is to afford an opportunity to the accused to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. It is unfortunate that no question was asked about the possession of goods. Having regard to the charge of which appellants were accused, the failure to elicit their answer on such a crucial aspect as possession, is quite significant. In this state of things, it is not proper to raise a presumption under Section 114 of Evidence Act nor is it safe to conclude that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were in possession of poppy husk which was being carried by the vehicle. The High Court resorted to the presumption under Section 35 which relates to culpable state of mind, without considering the aspect of possession. The trial court invoked the presumption under Section 54 of the Act without addressing itself to the question of possession. The approach of both the courts is erroneous in law. Both the courts rested their conclusion on the fact that the accused failed to give satisfactory explanation for travelling in the vehicle containing poppy husk at an odd hour. But, the other relevant aspects pointed out above were neither adverted to nor taken into account by the trial court and the High Court. Non-application of mind to the material factors has thus vitiated the judgment under appeal." 16. In Sorabkhan Gandhkhan Pathan and another v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 13 SCC 608 , the Apex Court has held that where four persons were travelling in an Auto Rikshaw, only one out of them, who allegedly was in possession of the contraband, could have been held responsible for illicit trafficking of such contraband and there being no evidence that the contraband was being carried by that person to the knowledge and notice of other three occupants of the Auto Rikshaw, no findings of conviction could have been recorded against them. 17. Now, if coming to the case in hand, in the light of above legal background, the present case before this Court is on better footing for the reason that bag containing the charas was not in the possession of either of the accused allegedly occupying the car when intercepted by the police at Hat Bajaura and rather was found kept underneath the mat of rear seat. No evidence is forthcoming to show that was it right side or left side of rear seat from where the bag was recovered. There is also no evidence to show as to who out of the four accused was sitting in that side of rear seat from where the bag was recovered. There is again no legal and acceptable evidence to show that the car was private vehicle or a taxi. There is also again no iota of evidence to show that the contraband allegedly charas was being carried in the vehicle to the knowledge and notice of each of the accused persons allegedly travelling in the Car. Merely that they were occupying the car when intercepted at the place of naka, though the prosecution story to this effect is highly doubtful because as per the plea of accused, they were intercepted at taxi stand Bhuntar while having tea in a shop, it is difficult to form an opinion that the accused were in physical and conscious possession of the contraband, allegedly charas. 18. Even if it is believed that the car was intercepted at Hat Bajaura, the search thereof should have been conducted in the presence of independent witnesses. Hat Bajaura is not a place which can be said to be an isolated or secluded one. Constable Lal Singh, who allegedly was deputed to trace out someone for being associated as independent witness has not been examined and may be to save him from cross-examination qua this aspect of the matter. The present, as such, is a case where independent witnesses have not been associated intentionally and deliberately to the reasons best known to the I.O., may be to implicate the accused persons falsely in this case. 19. Be it stated that the police officials are as much good as any independent person, however, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Girja Prasad v. State of M.P., (2007) 7 SCC 625 , their testimony should be relied upon with all care, caution and circumspection and if consistent and free from contradiction and embellishments. The relevant extract of this judgment reads as follows : "............There is no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of Police Officials even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. The relevant extract of this judgment reads as follows : "............There is no rule of law which lays down that no conviction can be recorded on the testimony of Police Officials even if such evidence is otherwise reliable and trustworthy. The rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. But, if the Court is convinced that what was stated by a witness has a ring of truth, conviction can be based on such evidence." 20. Similar is the view of the matter taken by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajesh Dhiman and Anr., 2012 (3) ShimLC 1583. 21. Now, if coming to the case in hand, the search and seizure by the I.O. was witnessed by Const. Lal Singh and Const. Bhupinder Singh (PW-5). Const. Bhupinder Singh (PW-5), while in the witness-box, tells us that the recovered charas along with the bag and accused was taken to a slate roofed house situated nearby and proceedings were conducted in the veramdah of that house in light. According to him, that house was of Shiv Ram (PW-7). He seems to have intentionally and deliberately concealed from the Court the number of persons residing in that house and falsely deposed that only one old person was present there. He has avoided to answer the suggestion that 8 to 10 shops are situated nearby the house of Shiv Ram (PW-7). 22. Now, if testimony of Shiv Ram (PW-7) in his cross-examination is seen, his father, mother, brother and sisters are residing in that house. It being 6:30 PM and the month December, judicial notice can be taken that it was dark outside. Therefore, it can reasonably be believed that the family members of Shiv Ram (PW-7) were very much present in the house. Though, father of Shiv Ram, according to him is an old man, however, he could speak well. Why he has not been associated during the investigation of the case has caused major dent in the prosecution story. The testimony of the I.O. in his cross-examination that father of Shiv Ram was blind, deaf and dumb is contrary to that of Shiv Ram (PW-7) as well as Const. Bhupinder Singh (PW-5) as they have not said so while in the witness-box and rather as per the version of Shiv Ram (PW-7), his father could speak well. The testimony of the I.O. in his cross-examination that father of Shiv Ram was blind, deaf and dumb is contrary to that of Shiv Ram (PW-7) as well as Const. Bhupinder Singh (PW-5) as they have not said so while in the witness-box and rather as per the version of Shiv Ram (PW-7), his father could speak well. Such contradictions in the prosecution case goes to the very root of its case and render the same highly improbable. 23. Now, if coming to further version of Const. Bhupinder Singh (PW-5), he expressed his inability to tell as to what conversation had taken place between the I.O. and the accused persons when the vehicle was intercepted and that the I.O. had checked the charas in the vehicle or after being brought out of the vehicle. He has also expressed his ignorance as to in which direction Const. Lal Singh had gone in search of the independent witnesses. Had he been present on the spot in the manner as claimed by the prosecution, he would have answered the above suggestions put to him in his cross-examination. He, however, to the reasons best known to him, has expressed his ignorance thereto and thereby rendered the prosecution story highly doubtful. 24. Shiv Ram (PW-7), no doubt, tells us that when around 6:30 PM, he reached in his house, he found the police officials and the accused present there. Also that he was apprised about the recovery of charas from the accused. However, his testimony that in the house besides his father, his mother, brother and sisters were also residing, the prosecution story that no one was there for being associated as independent witness, cannot be believed to be true by any stretch of imagination. 25. If coming to the testimony of the I.O. PW-8 ASI Nirmal Singh, in his cross-examination, he has admitted the existence of various offices at Hat Bajaura, however, denied the presence of other family members of Shiv Ram, including his old deaf and dumb father contrary to the statement of Shiv Ram (PW-7). He admitted that there exist shops of Shiv Ram (PW-7), however, his testimony that the same were lying closed cannot be believed to be true as the time was 6-6:30 PM when search and seizure had taken place on the spot. He admitted that there exist shops of Shiv Ram (PW-7), however, his testimony that the same were lying closed cannot be believed to be true as the time was 6-6:30 PM when search and seizure had taken place on the spot. It would thus be not improper to conclude that there are contradictions, inconsistencies and also improvements in the testimony of Const. Bhupinder Singh (PW-5) and I.O. PW-8 ASI Nirmal Singh have deposed contrary to the testimony of Shiv Ram (PW-7). With such type of evidence, no findings of conviction could have been recorded against the accused. The remaining prosecution evidence, as has come on record, again by way of testimony of police officials, may be of some help and termed as legal and acceptable evidence had the prosecution been otherwise able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. 26. The golden thread which runs through the administration of justice in criminal cases is the availability of cogent, clinching and reliable evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. Where two views are possible, the view most favourable to the accused should be adopted. We are placing reliance in this regard on a judgment of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Islam and others, (2011) 6 SCC 343 . The relevant extract of this judgment reads as follows : "15. The golden thread which runs through the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to the innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from a conviction of an innocent." 27. In view of the appraisal of the evidence available on record, we are satisfied that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence available on record rather reveals that on the basis thereof, two possible views emerge on record. In view of the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in Islam's case (supra), view favourable to the accused persons has to be adopted and benefit of doubt given to them. The evidence available on record rather reveals that on the basis thereof, two possible views emerge on record. In view of the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in Islam's case (supra), view favourable to the accused persons has to be adopted and benefit of doubt given to them. They, therefore, have rightly been acquitted by learned trial Court of the charge framed against each of them. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. The same is rather affirmed. 28. For all the reasons here in above, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Personal bonds executed by the accused persons shall stand cancelled and the sureties discharged.