JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. 1. The respondents have been acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, Camp at Nalagarh vide judgment dated 09.04.2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 13-S/7 of 2007 in case FIR No. 151/2006, Police Station, Parwanoo, District Solan H.P. who were charged sheeted under Section of 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 having found in possession of 10 Kgs. charas. 2. Being aggrieved by acquittal of the respondents, the State has preferred the present appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General for the appellant-State on behalf of the State as also Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate, learned counsel for the accused. 4. It is the case of prosecution that on 13.12.2006, respondent No. 2 had been driving a white Maruti Car with different/incomplete number plates on front and rear sides which was signalled to be stopped on Solan-Parwanoo road by PW-13 SHO, K.D. Khan, Police Station, Parwanoo during his patrolling duty alongwith PW-11 SI Hoshiar Singh, PW-10 Prem Singh and Constable Gurbax Singh and at that time, respondent No.1 was sitting on co-driver seat in the said car. The respondent-accused had not stopped the car and PW-13 K.D. Khan, SHO had relayed the message, Highway patrol for stopping the said car going towards Parwanoo from Solan Side. On the basis of said message PW-3 HC Sat Pal and PW-4 Constable Dalel Singh who were on Motor Cycle had signaled the car to stop near the Chaki Mour for which the respondents have not responded. Therefore, PW-3 HC Sat Pal and PW-4 Constable Dalel Singh had intercepted the vehicle on their Motor Cycle by parking Motor Cycle in front of the car after chasing it near Tambu Mour. It has been further alleged that beneath the rear seat of the car 10 Kgs. charas had been recovered lying in white sheet(Khesi) in 20 packets of polythene. As per the prosecution story, two independent witnesses PW-1 Sunder Lal and PW-2 Ram Swarup had also stopped on the spot and after completing paper work of the investigation, the vehicle and accused were taken to the Police Station, Parwanoo. 5. In the present case PW-1 Sunder Lal and PW-2, Ram Swarup are independent witnesses who had not supported the prosecution case and also turned hostile and were cross examined. 5. In the present case PW-1 Sunder Lal and PW-2, Ram Swarup are independent witnesses who had not supported the prosecution case and also turned hostile and were cross examined. PW-3 HC Sat Pal, PW-4 Constable Dalel Singh, PW-5 ASI Prem Singh, PW-11 ASI Hoshiar Singh, PW-13 SHO K.D. Khan are the official witnesses, who have been examined as spot witnesses in support of prosecution case. PW-6 Shri Nasib Singh had been examined with respect to delivery of special Report Ex. PW-6/A submitted to the Superintendent of Police and handing over the copy of said report back after endorsement by Additional Superintendent of Police, Solan. PW-7 HHC Dharam Singh had taken the parcel with seal impression ‘H’ (Ex. P-2) alongwith NCB form, copy of FIR, the sample of seal and a forwarding letter to CFSL, Chandigarh vide RC No. 108/6. PW- 8 ASI Yoginder Singh was the Reader to Superintendent of Police, on 14.12.2006 and he has been examined regarding receipt of Special Report, submission of the same to Additional Superintendent of Police as the Superintendent of Police was not present in the office at that time and perusal and signing of the said report Ex. PW-6/A by the Additional Superintendent of Police. PW-9 Sub Inspector Asha Ram has recorded the FIR Ex. PW-4/B after receiving Rukka Ex. PW-4/A from PW-4 Dalel Singh. PW-10 MHC Prem Singh was posted as MHC at Police Station Parwanoo at that time. He has produced copy of DD No. 33(A) Ex. PW-10/A, copy of station diary No. 44(A) Ex. PW- 10/B, Copy of certificate Ext. PW-10/C, copy of RC Register Ex. PW-10/D and copies of Malkhana Register Ex PW-10/E and Ex. PW-10/F. He deposed that SHO had also deposited seal impression on cloth, parcels and NCB form. The vehicle which was taken into possession alongwith its key and other documents was also handed over to him. He has further deposed regarding sending of one parcel of contraband to CFSL, Chandigarh vide RC No. 108/2006 which was bearing three impressions of seal ‘H’ alongwith the NCB form, the sample of the seal, copy of the FIR, recovery memo and docket through PW-7 HHC Dharam Singh. PW-12 ASI Phool Singh has recorded statements of witnesses namely Yoginder, Ganga Ram, Dalel Singh and Constable Nasib Chand has recorded statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 6. PW-12 ASI Phool Singh has recorded statements of witnesses namely Yoginder, Ganga Ram, Dalel Singh and Constable Nasib Chand has recorded statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 6. It is settled law that the statements of hostile witnesses cannot be outrightly discarded but can be relied upon in favour of prosecution or defence after subjecting to close scrutiny. 7. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paulmeli and Another versus State of Tamil Nadu (2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 90 have held as under:- 22. ‘In State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra, this Court held that evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused but required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the cases of the prosecution or defence can be relied upon. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh, Subbu Singh v. State, C Muniappan v. State of T.N. and Himanshu v. State (NCT of Delhi). Thus, the law can be summarized to the effect that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and the relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence’. 8. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Selvaraj Alias Chinnapaiyan v. State (2015) 2 Supreme Court Cases 662 have held as under:- 19. ‘It is settled principle of law that benefit or reasonable doubt is required to be given to the accused only if the reasonable doubt emerges out from the evidence on record. Merely for the reason that the witnesses have turned hostile in their cross-examination, the testimony in examination-in-chief cannot be outright discarded provided the same (statement in examination in-chief supporting prosecution) is corroborated from the other evidence on record. In other words, if the court funds from the two different statements made by the same accused, only one of the two is believable, and what has been stated in the cross-examination is false, even if the witnesses have turned hostile, the conviction can be recorded believing the testimony given by such witnesses in the examination-in-chief. However, such evidence is required to be examined with great caution’. 9. However, such evidence is required to be examined with great caution’. 9. It is settled law that the prosecution case cannot be rejected on the ground that independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and conviction can be based on the basis of official witnesses, in case the said evidence is trustworthy, credible, unimpeachable and beyond reproach. However, relying upon official witnesses for conviction the said evidence of official witness is to be subjected to close scrutiny with more care and caution keeping in view the personal liberty of a person. 10. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kulwinder Singh and another v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 674 have held as under:- 23. ………‘When the evidence of the official witnesses is trustworthy and credible, there is no reason not to rest the conviction on the basis of their evidence’. 11. It is also settled law that onus to prove the offence upon the prosecution increases with severeness of the punishment. 12. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kulwinder Singh and Another v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 674 has held as under:- 16. … … … … It is well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that more stringent the punishment, the more heavy is the burden upon the prosecution to prove the offence’. When the independent witness, PW-1 and DW- 2 have not supported the prosecution case and the recovery of the contraband has not been satisfactorily proved, the conviction of the appellant under Section 15 of the NDPSD Act cannot be sustained. 17. …… … … …… …..’Since in the case of NDPS Act the punishment is sever, therefore, strict proof is required for proving the search, seizure and the recovery’. 13. Therefore, strict scrutiny is required, especially, when independent witnesses are hostile and present case is to be tested only on testimony of official witnesses. 14. The evidence in the presence case is to be considered in the light of aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 15. PW-1 who is a Press Reporter has stated that on 13.12.2006, he was travelling alone whereas the case of the prosecution is that he was travelling alongwith PW-2 Shri Ram Swarup. He has stated that he did not know PW-2 Shri Ram Swarup but PW-2 Ram Swarup was introduced to him by the police. 15. PW-1 who is a Press Reporter has stated that on 13.12.2006, he was travelling alone whereas the case of the prosecution is that he was travelling alongwith PW-2 Shri Ram Swarup. He has stated that he did not know PW-2 Shri Ram Swarup but PW-2 Ram Swarup was introduced to him by the police. He has stated in examination-in-chief that he had not verified different number on plates of car on the spot, however, in cross examination he had admitted that number on front and rear number plates were found to be different. He has stated that the vehicle was not searched in his presence and the samples were prepared in the Police Station on 3rd day. He has stated that he has seen car and both accused at the spot. However, in cross-examination, he has stated that no nakka was witnessed by him on the date of occurrence and he had not seen the accused and car on the spot on the said date. He has stated that ‘charas’ which was shown to him and which was smelt by him was in the shape of sticks. However, he has denied that 20 packets of polythene were recovered during the search. He has denied that seal after use was entrusted to him. He has admitted his signatures on Ex. PW-1/A regarding the identification of the contraband, receipt Ex. PW-1/B and facsimile of the seal Ex. PW- 1/C, Memo. Ex. PW-1/D, Memo. PW-1/G and NCB form Ex.PW- 1/H but has denied filling up of the same on the spot. However, he has stated that the signatures of accused had already been obtained on the Memo. He has admitted that Ram Swarup was present at the spot. He has stated that he had not signed the documents out of coercion, threat or inducement. In cross examination by the Public Prosecutor he has stated that the charas which was shown to him and which he had smelt was in the shape and sticks and the contraband and two accused were taken to Police Station, Parwanoo. In cross-examination by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents accused, he has stated that the vehicle and accused were taken by the police to Police Station Parwanoo and search and recoveries were not effected on the spot and he was called in the Police Station on 3rd day by the police telephonically. In cross-examination by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents accused, he has stated that the vehicle and accused were taken by the police to Police Station Parwanoo and search and recoveries were not effected on the spot and he was called in the Police Station on 3rd day by the police telephonically. He has stated that police had given him a statement being his statement and copy of such statement had also been produced by this witness in the Court. He has further stated that signatures on all documents were taken by the police on 3rd day at Police Station. 16. The PW-2, Ram Swarup has also been declared hostile. He has denied the prosecution story in toto except admitting his signatures on PW-1/A,PW-1/C PW-1/D, PW-1/F and PW-1/G. He has admitted the taking of samples of seal impression ‘H’ on cloth parcel Ex. PW-1/C in his presence. However, he has denied signing of Memo. Ex. PW-1/D by Mohd. Ahkam and Jasmer Singh in his presence. He has stated that he had gone to Parwanoo to meet his relatives where he was accompanied by PW-4 Constable Dalel Singh to the Police Station who was known to him as Constable Dalel Singh belongs to Nalagarh. He has denied search and recovery in his presence. He has stated that no proceedings had taken place in his presence. He has admitted that photographs of the vehicle were taken by the police in Police Station Parwanoo. 17. Scrutiny of statement of PW-1 Sunder Lal and PW-2 Ram Swarup indicates that no portion of their statements can be relied in favour of the prosecution, rather the statements of these witnesses as a whole cast serious doubt with respect to the recovery of contraband near Tambu More from the vehicle in question being driven by the respondent no.1 in the company of respondent No. 2. 18. In view of declaring independent witnesses hostile, the statements of official witnesses require to be scrutinized carefully, cautiously and minutely. Though, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-9, PW-11 and PW-13 have supported the prosecution case in examination-in-chief, however, there are material contradictions in the statements which go to the root of the prosecution story. 19. PW-3 HC Sat Pal, PW-4 Constable Dalel Singh, PW- 11 ASI Hoshiar Singh and PW-13, K.D. Khan in certain terms stated that the vehicle, accused and contraband were photographed on the spot. 19. PW-3 HC Sat Pal, PW-4 Constable Dalel Singh, PW- 11 ASI Hoshiar Singh and PW-13, K.D. Khan in certain terms stated that the vehicle, accused and contraband were photographed on the spot. Whereas, there are no such photographs on record. There are only four photographs Ex. PW-2/A to PW-2/D on record but the said photographs are not the spot photographs as it is clearly visible in these photographs that the vehicle in question at the time of snapping these photographs has been parked in some parking compound besides the road. There are no photographs of the accused or the contraband on record. Though, PW-13 SHO K.D. Khan had tried to justify non-production of spot photographs by stating that remaining photographs had been washed but in the cross-examination, he has admitted that nothing has been mentioned in the challan that few photographs, taken on the spot, had been washed. PW-11 has stated that photographs of ‘charas’ were also taken inside the car. He has further stated that the photographs of the accused were also taken alongwith car whereas, PW-13 has stated that the photographs were not taken alongwith the car on the spot. However, he has claimed that photographs were taken separately at the Police Station. In cross- examination, PW-13 had claimed that photographs Ex. PW-2/A to Ex. PW-2/D were taken on the spot whereas Ex. PW-2/A to Ex. PW-2/D are of a place which cannot be said to be a highway from any angle. 20. In Ruka Ex.PW-4/A, it has been mentioned that photographs were taken with personal camera whereas, PW-11, Hoshiar Singh had stated that photographs were taken with official camera. 21. The day of occurrence is 13.12.2006 and in the month of December, it gets dark after 6.00 PM. The alleged recovery on spot is stated to be at about 6.00 PM. As per PW-3, Sat Pal the police was on the spot for 2-3 hours. It has also been claimed by PW-13 that at the spot search was conducted with the help of search light and with the help of head lights of the vehicle. However, it is admitted that he had nowhere reflected in the investigation and challan that help of search light or other light was taken for conducting the proceedings on the spot. 22. However, it is admitted that he had nowhere reflected in the investigation and challan that help of search light or other light was taken for conducting the proceedings on the spot. 22. PW-3 Sat Pal, PW-4 Dalel Singh and PW-5, Prem Raj are silent about the efforts made by the police party to join the independent witnesses available near the spot. Whereas, PW-11 has stated that he was directed by the SHO PW-13 by way of Hukamnama to summon independent witnesses from Khokha and Ganghut which was about 2-4 metres away from the spot. As per him, none was found in the said two places and he had reported the same to the PW-13 K.D. Khan. However, after examining the documents on record, this witness had failed to show any Hukamnama or any endorsement on any such Hukamnama on his report or any report submitted by him. 23. PW-13 has stated about issuance of Hukamnama to summon Chowkidar of Ganghut or a person from tea stall through PW-11, in examination-in-chief, however, no such Hukamnama was placed on record. In cross examination, he had stated that he had not verified about attendance of the Chowkidar of PWD store. Absence of Hukamnama and report on record shakes credibility of prosecution story 24. Further, PW-4 constable Dalel Singh was sent to fetch weight and scale from Chaki Mour from one Shri Ganga Ram but interestingly, the said Ganga Ram had not been asked to join the investigation as independent witness. PW-4 has stated that he did not know that shop of Ganga Ram is juice bar. He has further stated that he had not read the board of the Shop but stated that Ganga Ram was vegetable vender. 25. PW-10 had claimed sending forwarding letter to CFSL and keeping copy of the same letter but he had failed to show in record the forwarding letter issued to CFSL, Chandigarh. In cross examination he had admitted that in entry No. 473 of the Malkhana Register pertaining to the FIR, there was no reference of NCB form having been tendered. He had admitted that six more FIRs had been registered in the month of December, 2006 after 13.12.2006 but the entry made in the Malkhana register pertaining to this FIR is the last entry of the Malkhana register for the year, 2006. He had admitted that 50 blank pages were available after last entry. He had admitted that six more FIRs had been registered in the month of December, 2006 after 13.12.2006 but the entry made in the Malkhana register pertaining to this FIR is the last entry of the Malkhana register for the year, 2006. He had admitted that 50 blank pages were available after last entry. However, the entries related to the subsequent FIRs were not in the register. This witness has tried to give explanation that new Malkhana Register was started in the year, 2007. However, there is no explanation that why entries pertaining to case property of six FIRs lodged subsequent to FIR in the present case in the year 2006, were not made in the register in running use since 1998 and under which circumstances entries related to the FIRs of 2006 were made in the Register started for the year, 2007. It renders act of police suspicious and probability of fictitious entry cannot be ruled out. PW-10 has also admitted that the signatures of the persons who had deposited articles in Malkhana have not been shown in the column of Malkhana Register. PW-10 has also admitted that all entries No. 473, 474 and 475 were made at the same time which are entries related to case property and personal search of the accused persons. 26. It is evident from the aforesaid discussion that the statements of official witnesses cannot be treated as cogent, reliable, and credible and evidence of the official witnesses suffers from serious infirmity. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused-respondent beyond reasonable doubt. 27. 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. 28. For the reasons stated hereinabove, it would be evident that in the present case the evidence of the official witnesses is not trustworthy, credible and sufficient to prove the guilt of the respondent-accused and sufficient to convict the respondents-accused. 29. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others Versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 have held as under:- 15. 29. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Ankoos and others Versus Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (2010) 1 SCC 94 have held as under:- 15. This Court has, time and again, dealt with the scope of exercise of power by the Appellate Court against judgment of acquittal under Sections 378 and 386, Cr.P.C. It has been repeatedly held that if two views are possible, the Appellate Court should not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of acquittal. This Court has laid down that Appellate Court shall not reverse a judgment of acquittal because another view is possible to be taken. It is not necessary to multiply the decisions on the subject and reference to a later decision of this Court in Ghurey Lal v. State Of Uttar Pradesh1 shall suffice wherein this Court considered a long line of cases and held thus : "69. The following principles emerge from the cases above: 1. The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law. 2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when (2008) 10 SCC 450 he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. 3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial court's decision. This is especially true when a witness' credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was wrong. 70. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the well-settled principles crystallised by number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal: 1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when: (i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong; (ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law; (iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice"; (iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal; (v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; (vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballistic expert, etc. (vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. 2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court. 3. If two reasonable views can be reached—one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction--the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused." 30. The accused have been acquitted by the trial court. From perusal and scrutiny of evidence, it cannot be said that the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence correctly and completely and acquittal of the accused has resulted into travesty of justice or has caused mis-carriage of justice. After considering arguments of respective counsel for the parties and minutely examining the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence placed on record, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out. 31. The present appeal, devoid of any merit, is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused are discharged. Records of the Court below be immediately sent back.