JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. 1. State has appealed against the judgment dated 20.10.2008, passed by learned Special Judge, Una, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Case No. 4 of 2006, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Achhar Singh, challenging the acquittal of respondent Achhar Singh (hereinafter referred to as the accused), for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. It is the case of prosecution that on 14.7.2005 at 10.30 a.m., Constable Sarjiwan (PW-2) received secret information that the accused was dealing in the sale and purchase of the contraband substance and if immediate raid was conducted in his tyre repair shop, huge quantity would be recovered. The information was immediately passed on to SI Harbans Lal (PW-12), who alongwith police officials HC Nardev Singh, HHC Sher Bahadur (PW-11), Constable Mahinder Kumar (PW-7), Constables Ranjit Singh, Khushwinder, Jaswinder Singh and HC Jagtar Singh, proceeded to the spot. Prior thereto, he recorded statement (Ex. PW-2/A) of Sarjiwan and associated independent witnesses Madan Lal (PW-3) and Madan Lal (PW-10) (both by same name), for conducting the raid. Information furnished by Sarjiwan was sent to the Superior Officer, which was received in the office of Superintendent of Police, Una by SI Mohinder Sen (PW-4). After apprising the accused of his statutory rights and obtaining his consent (Ex. PW-11/A), first the accused was searched and thereafter his premises, from where opium, kept hidden in a wooden box, was recovered. On weighment, it was found to be 2 kgs. Two samples, each weighing 20 grams, were drawn. The samples and the bulk contraband substance were made into separate parcels and sealed separately with seal of impression 'A'. Sample of the seal was taken on a piece of cloth (Ex. PW-5/B) and seal, after use, was handed over to Madan Lal (PW-3). NCB form (Ex. PW-5/A) was filled up, in triplicate. On the basis of statement (Ex. PW-2/A), FIR No. 467/05, dated 14.7.2005 (Ex. PW-5/C), for commission of offence, punishable under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, was registered at Police Station, Una, Himachal Pradesh, by SHO Ajay Rana (PW-5). Accused was arrested. Case property was produced before SHO Ajay Rana, who resealed the same with his own seal of impression 'B' and deposited in the Malkhana. PW-5/C), for commission of offence, punishable under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, was registered at Police Station, Una, Himachal Pradesh, by SHO Ajay Rana (PW-5). Accused was arrested. Case property was produced before SHO Ajay Rana, who resealed the same with his own seal of impression 'B' and deposited in the Malkhana. MHC Rajesh Kumar (PW-8) handed over the sealed sample to Constable Mohinder Kumar (PW-6), who deposited the same in the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. On receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex. PW-5/D) and with the completion of investigation, which prima facie 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 18 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, was also recorded, in which he took plea of innocence and false implication. He also led defence evidence and tendered in evidence Jamabandi for year 2003-2004 (Exc. D-1). 5. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and the material on record, trial Court acquitted the accused of the charged offence. Hence, the present appeal by the State. 6. We have heard Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Kush Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, on behalf of the State as also Ms. Neelam Kaplas, learned Amicus Curiae, 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. 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. 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 S. 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 S. 417, Criminal P.C. 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. The genesis of the prosecution story of conducting search and seizure operations, upon receipt of prior information, cannot be said to be inspiring in confidence. Sarjiwan states that he immediately informed the SHO about the same. His information did not name the accused. It only referred to a tyre shop. He did not know the accused from before. It is not the case of the police that only accused had a tyre-shop in Bhikha market, Kotla Kalan. There may have been other shopkeepers. Sarjiwan admits that the shop was not visible from the place where information was received by him. SI Harbans Lal states that he recorded the information and sent it to Superior Officers. 10. It is a matter of record that accused is an illiterate person. He has studied only upto sixth class, which is so stated by SI Harbans Lal, who admits not to have explained the meaning of 'a Magistrate' or 'a Gazetted Officer' to the accused. This may not be fatal to the prosecution case, but is reflective of the manner in which the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation. 11. We find that independent witnesses Madan Lal (PW-3) and Madan Lal (PW-10) have not supported the prosecution case at all. They are not respectable members of the locality or society. According to them, police asked them to sign certain papers. In his unrebutted testimony, PW-3 admits it to be correct that police did not allow him to read the same. Significantly, PW-10 admits that the accused was no longer in possession of the shop. In the instant case, prosecution has failed to establish as to who is the owner or in what capacity accused was in possession of the shop, for according to PW-10, accused had left the shop two years prior to the occurrence of the incident. Whether the shop is owned or was under tenancy of the accused. There is no evidence to such effect. 12. Further, from the testimony of the police officials, who conducted the search and seizure operations, HHC Sher Bahadur (PW-11) and SI Harbans Lal (PW-12), we find that there are material contradictions, which have emerged on record. Whether the shop is owned or was under tenancy of the accused. There is no evidence to such effect. 12. Further, from the testimony of the police officials, who conducted the search and seizure operations, HHC Sher Bahadur (PW-11) and SI Harbans Lal (PW-12), we find that there are material contradictions, which have emerged on record. One witness states that the accused was searched first and thereafter the shop was searched and the contraband substance recovered, whereas the other one has deposed to the contrary. 13. There is no evidence on record to establish that the accused was carrying on business of tyre repair in the premises in question. 14. As per Jamabandi (Ex. D-1), the shop is owned by Hari Ram son of Lakhu. 15. Even by way of corroborative evidence, we do not find the prosecution to have established its case beyond reasonable doubt. According to MHC Rajesh Kumar, specimen seal and NCB form were sent to the Chemical Examiner alongwith the Road Certificate. The witness was confronted with his statement (Ex. DB), wherein he admits to have got recorded that two NCB forms were deposited with him. Witness admits that neither in the Malkhana register nor in the Road Certificate, there is reference of two NCB forms. Though HC Ram Avtar (PW-6) states that he deposited the NCB form but how many, he does not remember. Also, that he did not tamper with the same, he does not state. 16. We find that there is no reference of receipt or the case property having been brought back from the Laboratory in the Malkhana Register. This fact alone may not be fatal, but then when viewed cumulatively, it renders the prosecution case to be doubtful. 17. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the original seal has not been produced in Court. We find that there is contradiction in the statements of SHO Ajay Rana and MHC Rajesh Kumar, with regard to impression of seal on the samples. The seal impression was also not deposited by the SHO with the MHC. 18. Prosecution version of having informed the brother of the accused about the incident is uninspiring in confidence, in view of the fact that no record with regard thereto was prepared. 19. There is yet another improbability, unexplained circumstance, in the prosecution case. The seal impression was also not deposited by the SHO with the MHC. 18. Prosecution version of having informed the brother of the accused about the incident is uninspiring in confidence, in view of the fact that no record with regard thereto was prepared. 19. There is yet another improbability, unexplained circumstance, in the prosecution case. After forming the raiding party, how did the police officials travel to the spot, remains unexplained. 20. 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. 21. 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 opium. 22. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence so placed on record by the parties. 23. 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 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. 24. Assistance rendered by Ms. Neelam Kaplas, learned Amicus Curiae, is highly appreciable. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.