JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is instituted at the instance of the State against the judgment dated 5.9.2009, rendered by the learned Special Judge (I)-cum Sessions Judge Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Sessions case No. 9-K/VII-2009, whereby the respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 20, (Act no. 61 of 85) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the ND & PS Act), has been acquitted. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that on 19.12.2008, PW-12 ASI Subhash Shashtri, HC Prabhat Nanda, HHC Desh Raj, Const. Mohinder Singh, Const. Pankaj Kumar and Const. Kuljeet Singh left CIA office for detection of crime towards the area of Police Station Kangra and Shahpur. At about 7:00 PM, they laid Naka on the National Highway at Sanoura Chowk. The I.O. associated Rajesh Thakur and Vikram Singh in Naka party and at about 7:30 PM, they noticed that one person came from Gaggal Airport side. When he saw the police, he became perplexed and tried to run away. The accused was apprehended. The accused had wrapped his body with blanket. On removing the blanket, it was noticed that the accused was carrying one bag around his shoulder. On checking, it was found containing one polythene bag in which charas in the shape of sticks was recovered. The charas weighed 6 kg 250 grams. Two samples of 25 grams each were separated from the bulk charas and sealed with three seals of seal impression “T”. The remaining charas was separately sealed with the same seal. The seal impression was obtained on a piece of cloth vide memo Ext. PW-1/A. NCB forms were also filled in and seal impression of “T” was also embossed over the same and seal after use was handed over to PW-1 Rajesh Thakur. The case property was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-1/B in the presence of witnesses Vikram Singh and Rajesh Thakur. PW-12 ASI Subhash Shashtri also prepared rukka Ext. PW-3/B and sent to the Police Station through Const. Harjeet Singh. Thereafter, FIR was registered. PW-12 ASI Subhash Shashtri produced the case property before the SHO for re-sealing. SHO resealed Ext. P-1 to P-3 with seal impression “D”. SHO also filled in the relevant columns of NCB form. PW-12 ASI Subhash Shashtri also prepared rukka Ext. PW-3/B and sent to the Police Station through Const. Harjeet Singh. Thereafter, FIR was registered. PW-12 ASI Subhash Shashtri produced the case property before the SHO for re-sealing. SHO resealed Ext. P-1 to P-3 with seal impression “D”. SHO also filled in the relevant columns of NCB form. The case property along with NCB form was deposited with MHC Kuldeep Singh vide memo Ext. PW-11/C. The chemical examiner report is Ext. P-6. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as 13 witnesses. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. According to him, he was falsely implicated. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. M.A.Khan, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate for the accused has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 5.9.2009. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the judgment and records of the case carefully. 6. PW-1 Rajesh Thakur, testified that on 19.12.2008 in the evening he had gone to Gaggal for collecting his motorcycle from the workshop. Vikram was also with him. At about 6/6:30 PM, one Mohinder from CIA staff met him and took him to the Gaggal Police Post alongwith Vikram. He was told by Mohinder that they had recovered 6/7 kg charas and they should sign some documents. They signed 4/5 papers prepared by the police. He did not know the accused. On that day, at about 7:30 PM, ASI Subhash Shashtri had not apprehended the accused at Sanoura Chowk in their presence with bag containing charas. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he denied that on 19.12.2008 at 7:30 PM, seven police officials from C.I.A. staff Dharamshala and he alongwith Vikram Singh were present at Sanoura Chowk. He denied that accused came from the Airport side towards them. On seeing the police, he returned back and started running. He denied that he was chased by Const. Mohinder Singh. He denied that accused came from the Airport side towards them. On seeing the police, he returned back and started running. He denied that he was chased by Const. Mohinder Singh. His statement was not recorded and only his signatures were obtained by the police. He has denied portion “A to A” of his statement Mark “A”. He also denied that accused had wrapped himself with blanket and on removal of the blanket he was holding one bag around his shoulder. He denied that the bag was checked and it was found containing one polythene white colour containing charas in the shape of sticks. He also denied that the charas weighed 6 kg 250 grams. He also denied the manner in which the sampling and sealing proceedings were carried out on the spot. He also denied that I.O. filled up the NCB form in his presence and embossed seal impression of seal “T” on each sample at three places and thereafter the seal was entrusted to him. Further, he has identified signatures on seizure memo Ext. PW-1/B. Vikram had signed the same in his presence but accused had not signed the same in his presence. He admitted his signatures as well as that of Vikram on bulk parcel Ext. P-1 and sample parcels Ext. P-2 and P-3. The case property was produced before the Court during the examination of PW-1 Rajesh Thakur. In his further cross-examination, he denied that the bag Ext. P-4 and polythene envelope Ext. P-5 and sticks of charas Ext. P-6 were recovered in his presence from the accused. He admitted his signatures as well as of Vikram on memo Ext. PW-1/C. He denied that the personal search of accused was conducted in their presence. He identified his signatures as well as that of Vikram on personal search memo vide Ext. PW-1/D. He denied that Ext. PW-1/B, PW-1/C and PW-1/D were read over to him though he admitted that the contents were found to be true and thereafter he signed the documents. He was not forced to sign the documents. 7. PW-2 Vikram Singh testified that he alongwith Rajesh Thakur had gone to Gaggal for collecting his motorcycle. Around 6:00 PM, one police official known to Rajesh Thakur met them and took them to Police Post Gaggal. The police obtained signatures on 3- 4 documents. The accused was not known to him. He was not forced to sign the documents. 7. PW-2 Vikram Singh testified that he alongwith Rajesh Thakur had gone to Gaggal for collecting his motorcycle. Around 6:00 PM, one police official known to Rajesh Thakur met them and took them to Police Post Gaggal. The police obtained signatures on 3- 4 documents. The accused was not known to him. He was also declared hostile and crossexamined by the learned Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he denied that on 19.12.2009 at about 7:30 PM, seven police officials from CIA staff Dharamshala alongwith him and Rajesh were present at Sanoura Chowk. He denied that the police had laid down Naka on the road. He also denied that the accused was seen coming from the side of Airport. He also denied that he was apprehended by Const. Mohinder Singh. His statement was not recorded but signatures were obtained by the police. He denied portion “A” to “A” of his statement Mark “B”. He also denied that the accused had wrapped himself with blanket and on removal of such blanket, he was holding one bag around his shoulder. He denied that bag was checked and found containing one polythene white colour containing charas in the shape of sticks. He also denied that charas weighed 6 kg 250 grams. He denied the manner in which the sealing proceedings were completed on the spot. He denied that the seal after use was entrusted to PW-1 Rajesh Thakur. He admitted his signatures on Ext. PW-1/A. He denied that the I.O. filled up the NCB forms in his presence and embossed impression of seal “T” on the same and thereafter returned the seal to PW-1 Rajesh Thakur. He identified his signatures on Ext. PW-1/B. PW-1 Rajesh Thakur had signed the same in his presence but the accused has not signed the same in his presence. He admitted his signatures on sample parcels Ext. P-2 and P-3. He denied that Ext. P-4 bag was carried by the accused. He also denied that charas Ext. P-6 was found in polythene bag Ext. P-5. He denied that charas Ext. P-6 was recovered from the bag in possession of the accused in his presence and PW-1 Rajesh Thakur. Bag Ext. P-4, polythene envelope Ext. P-5 and sticks P-6 were not recovered in his presence from the accused. He denied that rukka was handed over to Const. P-6 was found in polythene bag Ext. P-5. He denied that charas Ext. P-6 was recovered from the bag in possession of the accused in his presence and PW-1 Rajesh Thakur. Bag Ext. P-4, polythene envelope Ext. P-5 and sticks P-6 were not recovered in his presence from the accused. He denied that rukka was handed over to Const. Harjeet Singh. He identified his signatures on memo Ext. PW-1/C. He denied that the personal search of the accused was conducted in their presence, however, admitted signatures on memo Ext. PW-1/D. 8. PW-3 Const. Harjeet Pathania deposed that on 19.12.2008, he alongwith other police party went towards Gaggal Sanoura. They reached at Sanoura Chowk at 7:00 PM and laid a Naka. PW-1 Rajesh Thakur and PW-2 Vikram Singh were also associated with them at Sanoura Chowk. At 7:30 PM, they noticed one person coming from the side of Airport. He got frightened and tried to escape. He was apprehended. The accused had wrapped himself with blanket. The same was removed and accused was found carrying one bag hung on his shoulder. It was checked and found containing 6 kg 250 grms charas. Two samples were separated from the bulk charas and kept in polythene and sealed in two separate parcels by affixing three seals of seal “T” on each parcel. The remaining bulk charas was also sealed in separate parcel along with bag and polythene by affixing 6 seals of seal “T”. The case property was taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW-1/D in the presence of Vikram Singh, Rajesh Thakur and Prabhat Nanda. Thereafter, rukka Ext. PW- 3/B was prepared and handed over to him by the I.O. at 9:15 PM. In his cross-examination, he testified that in his statement Mark “C”, he has stated that Rajesh Thakur and Vikram were associated by the I.O. at the time of laying Naka. (Confronted with mark “C” wherein it is not so recorded). He admitted that he stated to the police that at around 7:30 PM, accused came from the Airport side and when he saw the police, he got frightened and tried to run away and he was apprehended by Const. Mohinder Singh. Confronted with mark “C” wherein it is not so recorded). He admitted that he stated to the police that at around 7:30 PM, accused came from the Airport side and when he saw the police, he got frightened and tried to run away and he was apprehended by Const. Mohinder Singh. Confronted with mark “C” wherein it is not so recorded). He stated in his statement that the accused was having a blanket and underneath a cloth a bag was hung by him around his shoulder and that on checking the bag a polythene envelope was found inside it. It contained charas in the form of sticks. Confronted with mark “C” wherein it is not so recorded). He stated in his statement that on weighing the charas it weighed 6 kg 250 grms and that out of which samples of 25 grams each were separated therefrom and bulk as well as sample parcels were sealed in separate parcels by applying seal impression “T”. Confronted with mark “C” wherein it is not so recorded).He has stated in his statement that recovery memo Ext. PW- 1/B was prepared in his presence which was signed by PW-1, PW-2 and HC Prabhat Nanda and accused. Confronted with mark “C” wherein it is not so recorded). He admitted that he has not signed any recovery memo as well as parcels. 9. PW-4 HC Prabhat Nanda also deposed the manner in which the accused was apprehended, search, seizure and sealing proceedings were completed at Sanoura Chowk. According to him, ASI Subhash Shashtri has prepared rukka Ext. PW-3/B. It was handed over to Const. Harjeet Singh at 9:00 PM. He took the same to the Police Station for registration of the case. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Gaggal and Sanoura falls in Panchayat area. He also admitted that there are 8/10 shops at Sanoura. He also admitted that they have not associated any local witness in the Naka. 10. PW-7 HC Surender Kumar deposed that on 22.12.2008 due to leave of MHC Kuldeep Chand, he was officiating as MHC Kangra. On that day, he handed over one sealed parcel duly sealed with seals “T” & “D”, sample seals of seals and NCB form, two in number vide R/C No. 397/08 to HHC Joginder Singh for depositing the same in FSL Junga. He proved malkhana register Ext. PW-7/B. 11. On that day, he handed over one sealed parcel duly sealed with seals “T” & “D”, sample seals of seals and NCB form, two in number vide R/C No. 397/08 to HHC Joginder Singh for depositing the same in FSL Junga. He proved malkhana register Ext. PW-7/B. 11. PW-8 HHC Joginder singh deposed that MHC Surender Kumar handed over the case property vide R/C No. 397/08 for depositing the same at FSL, Junga. He deposited it on 23.12.2008. 12. PW-11 SHO Partap Singh deposed that he received rukka Ext. PW-3/B from Const. Harjeet Singh, on the basis of which he registered FIR Ext. PW-3/C. He prepared the case file and handed over the same to Const. Harjeet. ASI Subhash Shashtri has produced before him 3 sealed parcels duly sealed with seal “T”, NCB forms and sample seal “T” for resealing. He checked the seals and found them intact. Thereafter, he resealed all the three parcels with seal “D” by putting two impressions on each parcel. He prepared memo regarding re-sealing of case property vide Ext. PW-11/C. Thereafter, he deposited the case property with MHC Kuldeep Singh at 12:45 AM. 13. PW-12 ASI Subhash Shashtri also deposed the manner in which the accused was apprehended, search, seizure and sealing proceedings were completed at Sanoura Chowk. He prepared rukka Ext. PW-3/B. It was handed over to Const. Harjeet Singh and sent to the Police Station. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he has not taken into possession the blanket on 19.12.2008. He also admitted that no independent witness was associated by him from Sanoura as well as from Gaggal. 14. PW-13 HC Kuldeep Singh deposed that he was posted as MHC in PS Kangra. On 20.12.2008 at about 12:45 AM (during night time), SHO deposited with him one bulk sealed parcel duly sealed with seals of “T” and “D”. There were six seal impressions of seal “T” and two seal impressions of seal “D” on the bulk parcel and the same was 6 kg and 200 grams in weight. The SHO, PS Kangra had also deposited with him two sealed sample parcels which were having three seal impressions of seal “T” and two seal impressions of seal “D”. He filled up column No. 12 of the NCB forms. The case property was entered by him in the malkhana register vide Ext. PW-7/B. 15. The SHO, PS Kangra had also deposited with him two sealed sample parcels which were having three seal impressions of seal “T” and two seal impressions of seal “D”. He filled up column No. 12 of the NCB forms. The case property was entered by him in the malkhana register vide Ext. PW-7/B. 15. The case of the prosecution has not been supported by PW-1 Rajesh Thakur and PW-2 Vikram Singh. According to them, the accused was not apprehended in their presence nor any contraband was recovered from the accused, though they have admitted their signatures on the documents. PW-4 HC Prabhat Nanda, in his cross-examination, has admitted that Gaggal and Sanoura falls in Panchayat area. He also admitted that there were 8/10 shops at Sanoura. He further admitted that they have not associated any local witness in the Naka. PW-12 ASI Subhash Shashtri, in his cross-examination, has admitted that no independent witness was associated by him from Sanoura as well as from Gaggal. 16. The case of the prosecution is that when the accused was apprehended he had wrapped a blanket and was carrying a bag. The police has not recovered the blanket, as per the statement of I.O. PW-12 ASI Subhash Shashtri. It is not one of those cases where the place of incident was isolated or secluded. The police should have associated local witnesses in order to inspire confidence in search, seizure and sealing proceedings on the spot. 17. The case property was produced while recording the statement of PW-1 Rajesh Thakur and PW-12 ASI Subhash Shashtri. Who has brought the case property from Malkhana to the Court has not been examined. Entry in the Malkhana register to the effect that who has taken the property to the Court, is necessary as per Punjab Police Rules, 1934. Para 22.70 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to the State of H.P., reads as under: “22.70. Register No. XIX- This register shall be maintained in Form 22.70. With the exception of articles already included in register No. XVI every article placed in the store-room shall be entered in this register and the removal of any such article shall be noted in the appropriate column. The register may be destroyed three years after the date of the last entry.” The register is to be maintained in Form 22.70. It reads as under. “FORM NO. 22.70. The register may be destroyed three years after the date of the last entry.” The register is to be maintained in Form 22.70. It reads as under. “FORM NO. 22.70. POLICE STATION_________ ____DISTRICT Register No. XIX.-Store-Room Register (Part-I) Column 1 Serial No. 2 No. of first information report (if any), from whom taken (if taken from a person), and from what place. 3 Date of deposit and name of depositor. 4 Description of property. 5 Reference to report asking for order regarding disposal of property. 6 How disposed of and date. 7 Signature of recipient (including person by whom dispatched). 8 Remarks. (To be prepared on a quarter sheet of native paper).” 18. It is necessary that as and when case property is taken out from Malkhana, necessary entry is required to be made in the Malkhana Register and also at the time when case property is re-deposited in the Malkhana. Case property in NDPS cases is required to be kept in safe custody from the date of seizure till its production in the Court. It is also necessary that when case property is taken out from Malkhana, DDR is made and also at the time when case property is re-deposited in the Malkhana. Thus, it casts doubt whether it is the same case property which was recovered from the accused and sent to FSL or it was case property of some other case. 19. Sub-rule (2) Rule 22.18 of Punjab Police Rules, reads as under: “ (2) All case property and unclaimed property, other than cattle, of which the police have taken possession shall, if capable of being so treated, be kept in the store-room. Otherwise the officer in charge of the police station shall make other suitable arrangements for its safe custody until such time as it can be dealt with under sub-rule (1) above. Each article shall be entered in the store-room register and labelled. The label shall contain a reference to the entry in the store-room register and a description of the article itself and, in the case of articles of case property, a reference to the case number. If several articles are contained in a parcel, a detail of the articles shall be given on the label and in the store-room register. The label shall contain a reference to the entry in the store-room register and a description of the article itself and, in the case of articles of case property, a reference to the case number. If several articles are contained in a parcel, a detail of the articles shall be given on the label and in the store-room register. The officer in charge of the police station shall examine Government and other property in the store-room at least twice a month and shall make an entry in the station diary on the Money following the examination to the effect that he has done so.” 20. Rule 27.18 of Punjab Police Rules, reads as under: “27.18. Safe custody of property.- (1) Weapons, articles and property sent in connection with cases shall on receipt be entered in register No. 1 and shall (excluding livestock) be properly stored in the store-room of the head of the prosecuting agency, or the police station. See Rule 22.18. When required for production in court such articles shall, at headquarters, be taken out in the presence and under the personal order of an officer of rank not less than prosecuting sub-inspector and an entry made in the register of issue from and return to the prosecuting agency's store-room, which register shall be maintained in Form 27.18 (1). Animals sent in connection with cases shall be kept in the pound attached to the police station at the place to which they have been sent, and the cost of their keep shall be recovered from the District Magistrate in accordance with Rule 25.48. (2) In all cases in which the property consists of bullion, cash, negotiable securities, currency notes or jewellery, exceeding in value Rs. 500 the Superintendent shall obtain the permission of the District Magistrate, Additional District Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Officer to make it over to the Treasury Officer for safe custody in the treasury. (3) All cash, jewellery and other valuable property of small bulk, which is not required under sub-rule (2) above to be sent to the treasury, shall be kept in a locked strong box in the store-room. Each court orderly shall be provided with a strong lock-up box in which he shall keep all case property while it is in his custody in the court to which he is attached. Each court orderly shall be provided with a strong lock-up box in which he shall keep all case property while it is in his custody in the court to which he is attached. Case property shall invariably be kept locked-up in such box except when it is actually produced as an exhibit in the course of proceedings. After being so produced it shall be immediately replaced in the lock-up box. Boxes shall be provided from funds at the disposal of the District Magistrate. (4) Property taken out of the main store-room for production in court shall be signed for by the court orderly concerned in register No. 2 and the prosecuting officer authorizing the removal shall initial this entry. Such officer shall similarly, after personal check, initial the entry of return of the property to the main store-room on the closing of the courts. (5) Every day, when the courts close, an officer of the prosecuting branch of rank not less that of sub-inspector shall personally see that the articles produced in court are returned to the store-room, restored to their proper places in the shelves, cup-boards or strong box and registered as required by sub-rule (4) above. The opening of the storeroom in the morning and its closing in the evening shall invariably be in the presence of the police officials named in this rule. Animals brought from the pound shall be repounded under the supervision of a head constable.” 21. Thus, it is evident from rule 22.18 that the case property is required to be kept in store room and each article is to be entered in store room, registered and labelled and label shall contain a reference to the entry in the store-room register and a description of the article itself and, in the case of articles of case property, a reference to the case number. If several articles are contained in a parcel, a detail of the articles is required to be given on the label and in the store-room register. Similarly, it is provided in Rule 27.18 that Weapons, articles and property sent in connection with cases shall on receipt be entered in register No. 1 and shall (excluding livestock) be properly stored in the store-room of the head of the prosecuting agency, or the police station. Similarly, it is provided in Rule 27.18 that Weapons, articles and property sent in connection with cases shall on receipt be entered in register No. 1 and shall (excluding livestock) be properly stored in the store-room of the head of the prosecuting agency, or the police station. The case property when required for production in court such articles shall, at headquarters, be taken out in the presence and under the personal order of an officer of rank not less than prosecuting sub-inspector (now APP/PP) and an entry made in the register of issue from and return to the prosecuting agency's store-room, which register shall be maintained in Form 27.18 (1). Property taken out of the main store-room for production in court is required to be signed for by the court orderly concerned in register No. 2 and the prosecuting officer authorizing the removal shall initial this entry. Such officer similarly, after personal check, is required to initial the entry of return of the property to the main store-room on the closing of the courts. It is further provided in this Rule that every day, when the courts close, an officer of the prosecuting branch of rank not less that of sub-inspector shall personally see that the articles produced in court are returned to the store-room, restored to their proper places in the shelves, cupboards or strong box and registered as required by sub-rule (4) above. The opening of the storeroom in the morning and its closing in the evening shall invariably be in the presence of the police officials named in this rule. In case property is required to be committed to the higher Court, then under Rule 27.19, the parcel shall be sealed with the seal of the court and made over to the head of the police prosecuting agency, who shall produce it with unbroken seals before the superior court, or, if so ordered by competent authority, shall make it over to some other officer authorized so to produce it. 22. In Punjab Police Rules, also applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, Malkhana register is assigned serial number-19. It is in a tabular form. There are different columns like who has deposited the case property and when it was taken out and deposited back. 22. In Punjab Police Rules, also applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh, Malkhana register is assigned serial number-19. It is in a tabular form. There are different columns like who has deposited the case property and when it was taken out and deposited back. These details are very material and every deposit made in the Malkhana /Store Room is to be recorded and also at the time when it is re-deposited. 23. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to suggest that these Rules were followed while producing case property in the Court and on returning the same. These Rules have been framed to ensure that case property from its initial stage of seizure till production in the Court remains safe/intact and is restored to store room in the presence of senior police officer. Property taken out of the main store-room for production in court is required to be signed by the court orderly concerned in register No. 2 and the prosecuting officer authorizing the removal is required to initial this entry. Such officer shall similarly, after personal check, initial the entry of return of the property to the main store-room on the closing of the courts. 24. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused under Sections 20, (Act no. 61 of 85) of the ND & PS Act that the charas was recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused. This Court has no occasion to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned trial Court dated 5.9.2009. 25. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.