JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Cr.MP(M) No.1452 of 2015. Heard. This application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner-State for condonation of delay of 10 days as has occurred in the institution of the appeal before this Court against the impugned judgment rendered on 02.06.2015 the learned Special Judge (II), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Session Trial No.4/2013. Good, sufficient and abundant cause, which deterred or precluded the petitioner to move this Court within time, stands detailed in paragraphs No.2 and 3 of the application, whose contents stand duly supported by an affidavit. The said ground does not divulge of there being any element of deliberateness on the part of the petitioner to not move this Court within time. Accordingly, delay in the institution of the appeal before this Court stands condoned and the application stands allowed. Cr.MP(M) No. 1451 of 2015. 2. The State of Himachal Pradesh stands aggrieved by the findings of acquittal recorded in favour of the respondent/accused by the learned Special Judge, (II), Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Being aggrieved, it has sought the leave of this Court for instituting an appeal therefrom for assailing it. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 1.1.2014, HC Jagdish, HC Hari Singh, HHC Suresh Kumar, HHC Sanjay Kumar, C. Vijay Kumar and C. Kamal Kishore were on patrolling duty who were going from Pandoh Dam to Deod side on foot. At about 4.30 p.m., when they reached near Pandoh Dam towards Kenchimore, the accused came from Kullu side having bag on his left shoulder. The accused stopped after seeing the police and started moving back swiftly. On suspicion, the accused was apprehended. No independent witnesses were there and therefore the bag of the accused was searched in front of police officials. On search 3kgs. And 800 grams of cannabis was recovered from the bag. The bag itself was sealed at the spot and case property was taken into possession. The NCB form-1 in triplicate was filled at the spot. Rukka was sent to the police station and FIR was registered. Other formalities were completed during investigation as required under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter to be referred as ND&PS Act for short). 4. On conclusion of the investigation into the offence allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stood prepared and filed in the Court. 5. Other formalities were completed during investigation as required under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter to be referred as ND&PS Act for short). 4. On conclusion of the investigation into the offence allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stood prepared and filed in the Court. 5. The accused was charged by the learned trial Court for allegedly committing offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to in short as the Act). In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stood recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein the accused claimed innocence and pleaded false implication. The accused opted to lead defence evidence and in his defence he examined Inder Singh as DW-1. 6. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused/respondent. 7. The State of H.P. stand aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned trial Court. The learned Additional Advocate General has concerted to vigorously contend qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court being not based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record, rather, theirs being sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends for leave being granted to the State of H.P. to institute an appeal therefrom for assailing it. 8. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General at length and have also gone through the entire material on record. 9. Three Kilograms, 800 grams of cannabis stood recovered from bag, Ex.P-2 slung on the left shoulder of the accused. 8. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General at length and have also gone through the entire material on record. 9. Three Kilograms, 800 grams of cannabis stood recovered from bag, Ex.P-2 slung on the left shoulder of the accused. Recovery of the aforesaid item of contraband stood effectuated under recovery memo comprised in Ex.PW1/A. Even though the prosecution witnesses have deposed in tandem and in harmony qua each of the links in the chain of circumstances commencing from the proceedings relating to search, seizure and recovery till the consummate link comprised in the rendition of an opinion by the FSL on the specimen parcels sent to it for analysis, portraying proof of unbroken and unsevered links, in the entire chain of circumstances, hence it stands argued that given the prosecution case hence standing established, it would be legally unwise for this Court to acquit the accused. 10. Besides when the testimonies of the official witnesses, unravel the fact of theirs being bereft of any inter-se or intra-se contradictions hence, consequently they too stand espoused to enjoy credibility for sustaining thereupon findings of conviction recorded against the accused by the learned trial Court. Apparently, proof of the prosecution case is endeavored to be sustained on the strength of the unblemished testimonies of police witnesses. A close and studied perusal of the depositions of the police witnesses underscores the factum of theirs neither rendering a version qua the factum of recovery of contraband from the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused inconsistent with the manner thereof as recited in the F.I.R. for begetting a conclusion of hence their testimonies comprised in their respective examinations in chief being ridden with a vice of inter se contradictions vis-à-vis their testimonies comprised in their respective crossexaminations, rather lack of inconsistencies aforesaid render their respective testimonies on oath to be both unimproved as well as unblemished for hence implicit reliance being placed thereupon, nor when their depositions stand afflicted with any vice of intra se contradictions rather when they have deposed qua the manner of recovery of contraband from the alleged conscious and exclusive possession of the accused bereft of any disharmony or inconsistency gives leverage to an inference of hence the prosecution succeeding in sustaining its charge against the accused of cannabis weighing 3 Kgs. 800 grams standing recovered under recovery memo (PW-1/A) from his conscious and exclusive possession while his carrying it in a bag slung on his left shoulder. 11. However, even though the unblemished testimonies of the official witnesses who have hence proven the factum of recovery of Cannabis from the alleged conscious and exclusive possession of the accused while his carrying it in a bag slung on his left shoulder stand on a solemn legal pedestal especially when their testimonies comprised in their respective examinations in chief are bereft of any taint of either inter se contradictions vis-à-vis their depositions comprised in their respective cross-examinations nor also when their testimonies stand un-ingrained with any vice of intra se contradictions necessarily then when their testimonies inspire confidence reinforcingly render their testimonies being amenable to implicit reliance being placed thereupon for concluding qua the guilt of the accused. Nonetheless before proceeding to place implicit reliance upon their testimonies, it is also imperative for this Court to gauge or discern from the available evidence on record qua availability of independent witnesses in the immediate vicinity of the locality where the proceedings relating to search, seizure and recovery of contraband from the alleged conscious and exclusive possession of the accused in the manner as deposed by the official witnesses stood launched and concluded. The Investigating Officer, is not obliged to associate independent witnesses in his holding proceedings for carrying out search and recovery of contraband from the alleged conscious and exclusive possession of the accused nor also the non-association of independent witnesses by the investigating officer in the proceedings relating to search and recovery of contraband from the alleged conscious and exclusive possession of the accused would oust or discount the probative worth of the testimonies of the official witnesses. However, when independent witnesses despite proven evidence of their availability in close proximity to the location where the proceedings relating to search and recovery of contraband from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused stood launched or were concluded, stand not associated, such non association of independent witnesses by the Investigating Officer despite their proven availability would nurse an inference of their non association in the apposite proceedings by the Investigating Officer being both deliberate or intentional. Concomitantly also it would give succor to an inference of the Investigating Officer omitting to join independent witnesses despite their availability in the vicinity of the location where the proceedings relating to search and recovery of contraband from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused stood launched or concluded, as he intended to smother the truth qua the genesis of the prosecution version. The genesis of the prosecution version would gain credence with this Court only when it is free from any taint of its standing reared by a partisan or a slanted investigation standing conducted by the investigating officer. The investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer would garner an element of slantedness or distortion when the investigating officer despite proven availability of independent witnesses in proximity to the site of occurrence deliberately omits to join them in the proceedings relating to search and recovery of contraband from the purported exclusive and conscious possession of the accused. Consequently, a slanted or a distorted investigation by the Investigating Officer would erode the genesis of the prosecution story. Now the apt evidence for discerning the factum of availability of independent witnesses in the immediate vicinity or in close proximity to the location or the site of search and recovery of contraband from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused besides concomitantly of any omission to join them being deliberate as well as intentional, for sprouting a further inference of hence the investigation held by the Investigating Officer being both slanted and tainted besides distorted whereupon no reliance can be placed by this Court, stands comprised in the testimonies constituted in the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2. 12. A reading of the cross-examination of PW-1 surges forth an inference of the site of occurrence standing located on a National Highway and of thereon being a regular flow of traffic. Even though therein he has deposed of the Investigating Officer concerting to by stopping vehicles plying on the national highway solicit their participation in the apposite proceedings yet his efforts proving abortive arising from theirs refusing to accede to the solicitations of the Investigating Officer for their participation as witnesses in the apposite proceedings. Even though therein he has deposed of the Investigating Officer concerting to by stopping vehicles plying on the national highway solicit their participation in the apposite proceedings yet his efforts proving abortive arising from theirs refusing to accede to the solicitations of the Investigating Officer for their participation as witnesses in the apposite proceedings. Nonetheless, when there is no evidence on record denoting the factum of any action standing initiated by the Investigating Officer against the passengers occupying vehicles stopped by him, who refused to accede to the entreaties purportedly made upon them by the Investigating Officer for their participation in the apposite proceedings constrains, an inference of PW-1 standing falsified when he communicates in his crossexamination, of the Investigating Officer by stopping vehicles plying on the national highway hence making serious beside arduous efforts to associate passengers occupying vehicles stopped by him at the national highway as witnesses in the apposite proceedings. In sequel, with falsity percolating the testimony of PW-1 comprised in his cross-examination of the Investigating Officer making concerted efforts to solicit the participation in the apposite proceedings of passengers occupying the vehicles which at the relevant stage plied on the national highway whereat apposite proceedings relating of search, recovery and seizure of the contraband were initiated and concluded by stopping the vehicles occupied by them. In aftermath, the ensuing effect thereof is of palpably the Investigating Officer not ever endeavouring in making any efforts to solicit the participation in the apposite proceedings of any independent witnesses despite their proven availability in the close proximity to the site of occurrence as a corollary arouses an inference of his deliberately and intentionally omitting to despite their availability join them as witnesses in the apposite proceedings. Even otherwise falsity to the aforesaid fact is lent by PW-2 contrarily in his cross-examination deposing of the Investigating Officer not concerting to join independent witnesses comprised in his stopping vehicles plying on the national highway for beseeching passengers occupying them to participate in the apposite proceedings. Even otherwise falsity to the aforesaid fact is lent by PW-2 contrarily in his cross-examination deposing of the Investigating Officer not concerting to join independent witnesses comprised in his stopping vehicles plying on the national highway for beseeching passengers occupying them to participate in the apposite proceedings. Moreover, with an emanation in the cross-examination of PW-2 of one or two dhaba's standing located in close proximity to the site of occurrence besides bespeaking therein of theirs incessantly standing frequented by customers whereas his underscoring in his cross-examination of the Investigating Officer omitting to join the customers thronging the dhabas located in close vicinity to the site of occurrence constrains an inference of the Investigating Officer deliberately and intentionally omitting to join them as witnesses in the apposite proceedings. Furthermore, the omission on the part of the Investigating Officer to join independent witnesses in the apposite proceedings despite their availability at the site of occurrence engulfs the prosecution case with a shroud of doubt besides renders it to display a slanted version emanating qua the genesis of the prosecution case whereupon no reliance is imputable. 13. The further omission on the part of the Police Officials as evident from their testimonies of theirs not purveying an opportunity to the accused for his holding their personal search prior to the Investigating Officer holding search of the bag held by him wherefrom 3 kg, 800 grams of cannabis stood recovered, especially when the aforesaid opportunity to the accused to hold a personal search of the police officials would subdue and mitigate any inference of the police officials planting 3 Kg, 800 grams of cannabis in bag, Ex.P-2 wherefrom it stood recovered under memo Ex.PW1/A. As a corollary its non affording to the accused boosts an inference of the entire proceedings being invented and manipulated and of 3 kg, 800 grams of cannabis standing recovered in a manner other than as portrayed by the prosecution. 13. Further more, the prosecution was required to prove the fact that the case property, as shown to PW—2, PW-7 and identified by them on its production in court by the learned P.P, being linkable to the case property as stood recovered from the site of occurrence in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. 13. Further more, the prosecution was required to prove the fact that the case property, as shown to PW—2, PW-7 and identified by them on its production in court by the learned P.P, being linkable to the case property as stood recovered from the site of occurrence in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. However, there is an omission in the statement of the learned PP while his seeking permission of the Court to open it in court for its being shown to PW-2 and PW-7, of it standing received by him from an official on its retrieval from the Malkhana concerned. Moreover, there is no evidence comprised in apposite entries qua its retrieval standing displayed in the apposite record of the Malkhana concerned contemporaneous to its production in Court at the instance of the learned PP for its being shown to PW-2 and PW-7. Consequently, for omission on the part of learned PP while seeking the permission of the Court to open it for its being shown to PW-2 and PW-7 to make a statement before it of its standing received by him from the Malkhana concerned through a named official after its retrieval therefrom with an apposite contemporaneous entry standing recorded therein, facilitates an apt conclusion of the case property as shown to PW-2 and PW-7 being vulnerable to skepticism, in as much, as, it being not the case property as stood recovered at the site of occurrence from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused. In addition a formidable conclusion is of the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-7 being ridden with a taint of theirs deposing disharmoniously qua the case property vis-a-vis PW-1 and PW-9 warranting an inference of the prosecution adducing discrepant evidence in display of the case property as shown in Court being linkable to the one as stood purportedly recovered from the alleged exclusive and conscious possession of the accused. 14. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court below has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non-appreciation of evidence on record, rather it has aptly appreciated the material available on record. Consequently, the instant application is dismissed, in sequel, the prayer of the State of Himachal Pradesh for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned trial court is refused.