JUDGMENT : SANJAY KAROL, J. 1. State has appealed against the judgment dated 6.1.2009, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in Case No.5-S/7 of 2008, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Kahan Chand, challenging the acquittal of respondent Kahan Chand (hereinafter referred to as the accused), of the offence, punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 24.3.2008, a police party, comprising of ASI Ram Chand (not examined), HC Hukan Singh (PW-3), Constables Yash Pal (PW-4), Kamal Kumar (not examined), HHG Jagdish Kumar (not examined) and headed by SI Baldev Singh (PW-12), was on patrol duty and was checking vehicles on National High Way in front of the gate of Police Station, Dharampur. At about 12.15 a.m. of the night intervening 23.3.2008/ 24.3.2008, a Bus (HRTC) bearing No.HP-03B-6309 was checked. The bus was being driven by Desh Raj (not examined) and Bhim Singh (PW-2) was the Conductor. During checking of the Bus, accused was found sitting on Seat No.31, carrying a plastic bag on his knees. On checking, the plastic bag was found containing one packet duly packed with adhesive tape. The packet was opened, from which black coloured substance, which on smelling appeared to be Charas, was recovered. Accused was taken to the Police Station, where the contraband substance was weighed and found to be 2.750 kgs. Two samples, each weighing 25 grams, were drawn in the presence of independent witnesses Umesh Chand (PW-1) and Bhim Singh (PW- 2). Samples as also the bulk Charas were made into separate parcels and sealed separately with four seals of seal impression 'B'. NCB form was filled up in triplicate. Original seal, after use, was handed over to Bhim Singh and with the registration of FIR No.33 dated 24.3.2008 (Ex.PW12/F), for commission of offence, punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, at Police Station, Dharampur, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, the accused was arrested. Case property was entrusted to HC Praveen Kumar (PW-9), who sent the sealed sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory, for analysis, through Constable Rakesh Kumar (PW-7). Report of the FSL (Ex.PX) was obtained and with the completion of investigation, which revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Case property was entrusted to HC Praveen Kumar (PW-9), who sent the sealed sample to the Forensic Science Laboratory, for analysis, through Constable Rakesh Kumar (PW-7). Report of the FSL (Ex.PX) was obtained and with the completion of investigation, which revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, challan was presented in the Court for trial. 3. Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and statement of the accused, under the provisions of section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was also recorded, in which he took defence of innocence and false implication. 5. Based on the testimonies of the witnesses and the material on record, trial Court acquitted the accused of the charged offence, inter alia, on the grounds (i) version other than the one which the prosecution wants the Court to believe, has emerged through the testimonies of the independent witnesses, (ii) testimonies of the police officials are contradictory and uninspiring in confidence, and (iii) original seal was not produced in Court. Hence, the present appeal by the State. 6. We have heard Mr. Kush Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, on behalf of the State as also Ms Monika Shukla, learned Legal Aid Counsel, 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. 7. 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. 8. 7. 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. 8. 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." " 9. We find that Umesh Kumar is a Software Engineer. He was travelling in the bus at the time when the search and seizure operations were carried out. In no uncertain terms, he has deposed that the police found an unclaimed bag lying on the rack and the person sitting below the rack was taken to the Police Station. The bag was not opened. After about 20-25 minutes, he was called to the Police Station and made to sign certain papers, which were blank. He denies having made any statement to the police or recovery of the contraband substance having been effected in his presence. 10. Version of Conductor Bhim Singh is also to similar effect. He has not supported the prosecution. He has stated that police had taken the passenger sitting on Seat No.31 to the Police Station and bag carried by the police was checked only inside the Police Station. No doubt, the witness admits his signatures on recovery memo (Ex.PW-2/A), but then categorically states that proceedings of recovery did not take place in his presence. He further admits that there were very few passengers in the bus and anyone could sit anywhere, which means luggage could belong to anyone. 11. With this version emerging on record, we now proceed to examine the testimonies of the police officials, HC Hukam Singh, Constable Yash Pal and SI Baldev Singh. 12. SI Baldev Singh states that the accused was found sitting on Seat No.31. He was carrying a bag on his knees, which was checked and charas recovered. Accused alongwith the bag was taken to the Police Station. Driver and Conductor of the Bus accompanied them. In the Police Station, proceedings of recovery were conducted. Accused was also searched and search memo prepared. FIR (Ex.PW-12/F) was registered and accused arrested. Case property was handed over to the MHC. Also, Special Report was sent to the Superior Authorities. Now, this witness does not record presence of Umesh Sharma at the time of conduct of proceedings on the spot. Accused was also searched and search memo prepared. FIR (Ex.PW-12/F) was registered and accused arrested. Case property was handed over to the MHC. Also, Special Report was sent to the Superior Authorities. Now, this witness does not record presence of Umesh Sharma at the time of conduct of proceedings on the spot. Further, version of this witness that bus was full with the passengers stands contradicted by Bhim Singh (Conductor) and there is no rebuttal on the same. HC Hukam Singh states that the person from whom Charas was recovered was sitting on Seat No.31. He is categorical about the same. The witness admits that passengers had kept luggage on the rack inside the bus and the police had asked all the passengers to keep the belongings with themselves. This only probablizes the defence taken by the accused, to some extent. 13. Now, if the police had asked the passengers to keep their belongings with themselves, the accused, being carrier of the contraband substance, in normal circumstances, would not have taken out the bag from the rack and kept it on his lap. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused identified the luggage so found by the police. 14. Version of HC Hukam Singh is also corroborated by Umesh Sharma. Thus, there is material contradiction with regard to the seat on which the accused was sitting and in the absence of any corroborative evidence, version of the police officials cannot be said to be believable, on the question of recovery from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused. 15. What we find intriguing is the fact that police did not have any weighing scales, which were brought from the shop of Chand Kishore (PW-5). Surprisingly, the incident took place in the night intervening 23.3.2008/24.3.2008. It is not the case of Chand Kishore that the shop was open in the middle of the night or that he sleeps inside the shop. Firstly, why would police not keep weighing scales in the Police Station, and secondly, why would police associate this person in investigation, remains unexplained. It appears that padding was done only to strengthen the case, which in fact has proven to be fatal. 16. We find that the original seal has also not been produced in Court. Firstly, why would police not keep weighing scales in the Police Station, and secondly, why would police associate this person in investigation, remains unexplained. It appears that padding was done only to strengthen the case, which in fact has proven to be fatal. 16. We find that the original seal has also not been produced in Court. Perusal of the FSL report establishes that there is increase in the weight of the sample, which was sent for analysis, which remains unexplained by the prosecution. 17. From the material placed on record, prosecution has failed to establish that the accused is guilty of having committed the offence, he has been charged with. The circumstances cannot be said to have been proved by unbroken chain of unimpeachable testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The guilt of the accused does not stand proved beyond reasonable doubt to the hilt. The chain of events does not stand conclusively established, leading only to one conclusion, i.e. guilt of the accused. Circumstances when cumulatively considered do not fully establish completion of chain of events, indicating to the guilt of the accused and no other hypothesis other than the same. 18. 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 was found in conscious and exclusive possession of Charas. 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 Mohammed Ankoos and others v. 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. 20. Assistance rendered by Ms Monika Shukla, learned Legal Aid Counsel, is highly appreciable. 21. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.