JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed against the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Solan, District Solan, H.P. upon Session Trial No. 17FTC/7 of 2010, whereby he pronounced an order of acquittal upon the accused qua the offences in respect whereof, they stood charged. 2. The brief facts of the case are that Minakshi Bhardwaj, S.I. Police Station State CID, Shimla, SI Rattan Singh, HC Balbir Singh, HC Tilak Raj, Constable Devinder Singh, were present at Kandaghat in Government Vehicle bearing registration No. HP-07A-0303, whose for detection of Crime. SI Minakshi Bhardwaj, SI PS State CID Shimla received a secret information that a maurti car of white colour bearing registration No. HP-18A-3456, which was occupied by three persons, was coming from Junga side to Solan. At around 6:00 p.m. when the aforesaid car came from Kandaghat side to Solan, it was signalled to stop, but the vehicle was sped away to Solan side. The driver of the vehicle and a person sitting adjoining him, appeared to be about 25-30 years of age. The said vehicle was chased and at about 6.15 p.m., the vehicle was found stationary at Salogra on the road. Near the said vehicle, three persons, all residents of village Salogra, were also found standing near the vehicle, who told the police that three persons had run away towards lower side. A screw driver was made available from the Govt. vehicle and the vehicle, which was stationary on the spot was opened with the help of witnesses. On opening the vehicle, a bag of black, red and blue colour, over which the word Nike was written in English, was found and on the front seat near the foot steps. On search of the bag, a black coloured Battinuma substance was found inside the Ambuja cemented bag, which on smelling by S.I. Minakashi Bhardwaj and the members of the raiding party, was found to be charas. On weighing the same, it was found 6 K.G 100 gram. NCB-I form in triplicate was filled in by S.I. Minakshi Bardwaj and seal impression was put on the same. Upon this information, the case came to be registered against the accused. On completion of the investigation, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, the Investigating Officer concerned filed a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Court concerned. 3. NCB-I form in triplicate was filled in by S.I. Minakshi Bardwaj and seal impression was put on the same. Upon this information, the case came to be registered against the accused. On completion of the investigation, into the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, the Investigating Officer concerned filed a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Court concerned. 3. Thereupon, the accused stood charged by the learned trial Court for theirs allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded in which they pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. They did not choose to lead any defence evidence. 5. The State of H.P. is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded upon the accused/respondents, by the learned Court below. The learned Additional Advocate General, has concertedly and vigorously contended that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below being not harbored upon a proper appreciation “by it” of the evidence on record rather theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation “by it" of the material evidence on record. Hence, he, contends that the findings of acquittal warranting reversal by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of conviction besides concomitantly, appropriate sentences being imposed upon the accused/respondents. 6. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below being based on a mature and balanced appreciation “by it” of the evidence on record, hence theirs not warranting any interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 7. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 8. Ext. PW-6/A ear-marks, a prior information being received on 1.12.2009 at 5.30 p.m., by the Investigating Officer concerned, specifically with respect to car bearing registration No. HP-18A-3456, being purportedly occupied by the accused AND theirs carrying contraband thereon. The aforesaid exhibit is in absolute consonance with the apt mandatory statutory provisions borne in Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act. 8. Ext. PW-6/A ear-marks, a prior information being received on 1.12.2009 at 5.30 p.m., by the Investigating Officer concerned, specifically with respect to car bearing registration No. HP-18A-3456, being purportedly occupied by the accused AND theirs carrying contraband thereon. The aforesaid exhibit is in absolute consonance with the apt mandatory statutory provisions borne in Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act. Subsequent to the Investigating Officer concerned, receiving the aforestated prior information, information whereof is embodied in Ext.PW-6/A, AND recitals in tandem thereof, are also borne in Rukka comprised in Ext.PW-6/D, and in F.I.R. borne in Ext.PW-8/A, she for nabbing them, hence organized a police patrol at Kandaghat. Upon arrival of the aforesaid vehicle at Kandaghat, the Investigating Officer, signalled it to stop, yet, the accused who were purportedly occupying the aforesaid car, allegedly fled therefrom uptill Salogra, where upto the aforestated car was chased by the police patrol, yet, thereat, the accused who were purportedly occupying the car, allegedly abandoned it in a locked condition and also fled therefrom. 9. A closest reading of Ext.PW-1/A, underscores, the trite fact, of, upon the Investigating Officer retrieving a screw driver from the tool box of the Government vehicle, occupied by her, hers’ with user thereof, opening the car, whereupon she effectuated recoveries therefrom, of, the item of contraband reflected in Ext.PW-1/A, Ext.PW-1/B, and in F.I.R Ext. PW-8/A. The police officials, who stepped into the witness box, have, in tandem therewith rendered testifications; (a) bereft of any inter se contradictions vis-à-vis the testifications rendered by the Investigating Officer concerned; (b) they also rendered testifications bereft of any visible taint of any intra se contradictions, occurring, in their testifications borne in their respective examinations-in-chief and in their respective cross-examinations; (c) thereupon, with hence their testifications being bereft of any stark inter se or intra se contradictions; (d) renders their testifications being amenable to imputation of implicit reliance thereon; Even though minimal contradictions occur in their respectively rendered testifications, with respect to the prosecution witnesses concerned, unveiling the factum, of, upon the vehicle being stopped for some time at Kandaghat, whereat its windowpanes were open, thereat upon, the police patrol encircling it, an observation being made by them, with respect to the person sitting on the front seat being aged 25-30 years, importantly, when the aforesaid fact is not borne in ruqua comprised in Ex. PW6/D; (e) yet the aforestated minimal contradictions, cannot, undermine the efficacy’s of the testifications rendered by the police prosecution witnesses, especially with respect to the crucial factum probandum borne in Ext.PW-1/A, in Ext.PW-1/B, and in F.I.R Ext. PW-8/A. However, all the independent witnesses, whose names stand disclosed in Ext.PW-1/A, Ext.PW-1/B, and F.I.R Ext. PW-8/A, resiled from their respectively recorded previous statements in writing; and (f) Yet when for all the hereafter ascribed reasons, this Court concludes, of, the prosecution not efficaciously proving the charges framed against the accused; (i) thereupon the effect, of imputations of reliance by this Court vis-à-vis the inspiring, testifications rendered by the police prosecution witnesses; (ii) the effect of independent witnesses deposing in contradiction thereto, is, in its entirety, being rendered wholly insignificant. The reasons’ for this Court being prodded to conclude, of, the impugned judgment of acquittal pronounced by the Court below, warranting interference, stem from; (a) at the time of preparation of Ext.PW-1/A, the accused, being not, by formidable evidence, carrying the utmost probative efficacy, hence proven, to occupy car bearing No. HP-18A-3456; (b) the arrest of accused Anant Ram, Rajinder Kumar, Pritam Singh and Abhishek respectively occurring on 3.12.2009, 17.12.2009, 17.03.2010 and 09.04.2010; (c) lack of firm evidence with respect to the trite factum, of, the accused evidently occupying the aforesaid car immediately prior to its being abandoned at Salogra; AND (d) absence of best evidence marking the factum of the accused, as canvassed, by the prosecution, of theirs prior to theirs’ abandoning the aforestated car in a locked condition, at Salogra, theirs being by persons echoed in Ext.PW-1/A, hence sighted thereat, to alight therefrom whereafter they fled. 10. Absence of the aforesaid evidences, specifically with respect to the accused evidently occupying the aforesaid car, carries the inevitable effect; (i) of want of any infirmity’s existing in NCB form, prepared at the time contemporaneous, to the preparation of Ext.PW-1/A, whereunder the recovery of the relevant, item of contraband stood effectuated from the relevant car; (ii) NCB form whereof, is borne in Ex. PW6/E. AND its carrying revelations, of the case property being initially embossed with 6 seal impressions of English alphabet “M”, whereafter, it is consistently testified, to stand carried in an untampered condition, under RC borne in Ext.PW-8/D, to the FSL concerned, wherefrom it is testified to be re-transmitted, to the Incharge of the Malkhana concerned; (iii) Whereafter, it, in, an untampered sealed condition, stands consistently testified to be produced in Court, also not, for the reasons, assigned hereinafter, constraining any conclusion, of thereupon the prosecution, (iv) merely on anvil of want of the aforestated infirmities, in all the connecting link evidences, vis-à-vis the seizure of the case property at the site of occurrence and upto its production in Court, hence succeeding in proving the charges framed against the accused. (a) The Investigating officer concerned failing, to, clinchingly establish the crucial fact of the accused, occupying car bearing No. HP- 18A-3456, immediately prior, to its being, detected at Salogra, in a locked abandoned condition, by the police patrol; (b) Abysmal failure of the I.O. concerned, to hold a valid test identification parade, besides her concomitant failure, to, elicit from, the purported independent witnesses vis-à-vis the relevant seizure, AND whose names stand disclosed in Ext.PW-1/A, especially during the course of holding, of a valid test identification parade, carried prior to the prosecution witnesses stepping into the witness box, vigorous evidence qua formidable identification of the accused, by them. De hors, the want of the aforesaid holding of a valid test identification parade, for hence firmly connecting the accused vis-à-vis the charge, also with participation therein of the accused, would render yet uneroded any identification in Court only, of the accused by them, upon all the purported independent witnesses vis-à-vis the relevant seizure, inclusive of the police witnesses, (i) in their respectively recorded previous statements in writing, echoing, the key charchaterstic features of each of the accused, who, as unfolded in Ex. PW1/A, stood sighted by them, after, theirs abandoning the relevant car in a locked condition at Salogra. PW1/A, stood sighted by them, after, theirs abandoning the relevant car in a locked condition at Salogra. (ii) However, an incisive reading of the respectively recorded previous statements in writing of the purported independent witnesses AND of the police witnesses’, omits to unfold, the factum of theirs making any echoings therein, in respect of theirs therein, delineating, the key charcterstic features of each of the accused, (ii) thereupon the Investigating Officer concerned was de-facilitated to hold a valid test identification parade, with participation therein, of the accused. (iii) Even though, reinforcingly it is, not, an inflexible rule of evidence, that identification in Court only, of the accused, by the prosecution witnesses concerned, without prior thereto, a valid test identification parade, being conducted, not per se rendering inefficacious any identification in Court only, of the accused, by the prosecution witnesses concerned, (c) nor is the aforesaid identification construable to be an infirm piece of evidence, in respect thereof, (d) yet identification only in Court of the accused, by the prosecution witnesses concerned, would carry efficacy, if the witnesses’, who identify them only in Court, had prior thereto, in their respectively recorded previous statements, (e) delineated, therein the key characterstic features of each of the accused. However, evident want thereof, in the respectively recorded previous statements, of, the purported independent witnesses, AND of the police witnesses, to the relevant seizures, begets, an inevitable corollary; (a) of the identification, if any, only in Court, of the accused, by the purported independent witnesses, AND, their identification, if any, by the police witnesses vis-a-vis the relevant seizure memo, being a frail, besides an infirm piece of evidence in respect thereof; (b) nor thereupon it can be concluded qua at the relevant time or at the time immediately preceding the preparation of Ext.PW-1/A, the accused occupying the aforesaid car; AND (c) the further sequel of the aforesaid inference is, of, the mere preparation of Ext.PW-1/A, Ext.PW- 1/B, and F.I.R Ext. PW-8/A, with earmarkings therein, qua all recoveries of contraband being effected from the aforesaid car, not per se, establishing the charges framed against the accused. 11. Furthermore, even if prior information borne in Ext.PW-1/A is in absolute consonance with the apt statutory provisions occurring in Section 42 of the Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter: “Section 42 in The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 1[42. 11. Furthermore, even if prior information borne in Ext.PW-1/A is in absolute consonance with the apt statutory provisions occurring in Section 42 of the Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter: “Section 42 in The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 1[42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation.- (1) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intellegence or any other department of the Central Government including para-military forces or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from persons knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and sunset,- (a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place; (b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry; (c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act; and (d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this Act: Provided that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief. (2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.” nonetheless, with relevant recovery’s uncontrovertedly occurring at 6.15 p.m. on 1.12.2009; (i) thereupon given the obvious prevalence thereat of darkness, hence with Sub section (1) of Section 42 of the NDPS Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) mandating, of, the Investigating Officer concerned, only, between sun rise and sun set, being, without warrants, hence enabled to make valid ingressions in the building, conveyance or a place; (ii) thereupon, with the relevant car being a conveyance, “whereas” with the ingression there into, by the Investigating officer, after hers’ using a screw driver, visibly occurring, in the intergnum inter se sun set and sun rise, whereafter she effected recovery’s of contraband therefrom, renders enlivened the second proviso to Section 42. Since it stands mandated therein, that the Investigating Officer concerned, upon, his holding tangible reasons to believe, that if time is consumed in obtaining valid search warrants/authorization, for hers, in the interregnum inter se sun set and sun rise, (i) hence holding a valid search of the relevant car, (ii) thereupon, it would sequel, concealments of evidence or would purvey latitude vis-à-vis accused fleeing from the site of occurrence, (iii) thereupon, alone the Investigating Officer concerned is statutorily empowered, to, even without holding, a valid warrant and even without an apposite valid authorization, to, hence effect a valid search of the relevant car, (iv) especially in the interregnum inter se sun set and sun rise, by his/her, making ingressions into the relevant conveyance. 12. In aftermath, the essential statutory conditions precedent, for the Investigating Officer concerned, to, in the interregnum inter se sun set and sun rise, without a valid warrants/authorizations, hence make, lawful ingressions into the conveyance; (i) is, reiteratedly comprised in the factum, of, immense consumption of time, sequelling the ill consequence of concealment of evidence, (ii) besides of the accused being hence purveyed latitude, to, flee from the site of occurrence. However, the eminent factum, of the relevant car being abandoned in a locked condition at Salogra, also the further factum of the accused after abandoning it thereaft, theirs’ fleeing therefrom, can not, constrain any conclusion from this Court, (iii) of hence there being any possibility of concealment of contraband by the accused, nor there being any possibility of theirs fleeing from the site of occurrence, given theirs, prior to the relevant seizure, evidently fleeing therefrom, nor it can be concluded emphatically, given the Investigating Officer concerned hence obviously holding sufficient besides ample time, to, before proceeding, to, with hers’ using a screw driver, occurring in the police vehicle, make prima facie unlawful ingressions, there into, rather hence proceed to obtain valid authorizations/warrants, from, the competent Magistrate concerned, for hers, hence thereupon making valid ingressions into the aforestated car. (iv) thereupon, contrarily, despite the imperative statutory conditions, attractable hereat, embodied in Sub Section (1) of Section 42 of the Act, remaining evidently unsatiated hereat, hers’ suo moto, in using a screw driver kept in her official vehicle, to, hence open the purportedly locked abandoned vehicle AND thereafter hers purportedly therefrom, effectuating recovery of contraband, under memo, embodied in Ext.PW-1/A, does eminently per se constitute gross violation of the mandatory statutory provisions borne in the second proviso, to Section 42 of “the Act”. The effect of mandatory strict non-compliance therewith, by the Investigating Officer, renders all the recitals borne in Ext.PW-1/A, to, beget entrenched vitiatory stains. Thereupon, we are constrained to conclude that the prosecution miserably failing, in proving the charges against the accused, also we are coaxed to render a conclusion, of, the Investigating Officer concerned by sheer stratagem, planting the case property in the car. 13. Be that as it may, the NCB form comprised in Ext.PW-6/E, makes revelations only with respect to the Investigating Officer concerned, (i) initially embossing, on the relevant sealed parcel bearing Ex. PW1/D, six seal impressions of English alphabet “M”, (ii) whereas, thereafter the Station House officer concerned was required to re-emboss thereon reseal seal impressions, especially upon his receiving the parcel borne in Ex. PW1/D, at the police station concerned, (iii) however, the apposite column existing in the apposite NCB form comprised in Ex. PW6/A, appertaining to the embossing of re-sealing seal impressions, on, Ex. PW1/D, at the police station concerned, (iii) however, the apposite column existing in the apposite NCB form comprised in Ex. PW6/A, appertaining to the embossing of re-sealing seal impressions, on, Ex. PW1/D, stands not scribed by the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned, (iv) thereupon also, it is to be, as a natural corollary, hence concluded, of, the aforesaid apposite non-embossing’s of re-seal seal impressions, upon Ex. PW1/D, at the relevant police station, by the SHO of the police station concerned, also not occurring, non-occurrences thereon also, hence comprise an irregularity, (v) wherefrom, it is also befitting to conclude, of, the prosecution, not hence precluding, the possibility of tamperings being done with the case property, especially when the recovery memos, do not carry thereon, the signatures of each of the accused, want whereof thereon; (vi) emanating on theirs being belatedly arrested vis-a-vis the preparation of Ext.PW-6/A. (vii) When the aforesaid inference, is in, entwinement with the open aforestated blatant transgressions made by the Investigating Officer, vis-à-vis the mandate of the second provisio, of, Subsection (1) of Section 42 of the Act, also begets the corollary, of the Investigating Officer concerned, AND of the prosecution, contriving a false case against the accused, besides BOTH obviously enabling production of a tampered case property before the learned trial Court. 14. Lastly, the learned Additional Advocate General has contended that ; (a) with the call details borne in Ext.P-15 to Ext.P-40, evidently pertaining to the cell phones respectively carried by each of the accused, (b) also with theirs categorically displaying of each of the accused, at the time contemporaneous, to the preparation of Ext.PW6/A, being positioned in vicinity of the places whereat the relevant car stood abandoned in a locked condition, (c) thereupon the identity of the accused occupying the car, especially prior to theirs abandoning it in a locked condition at Salogra, being clinchingly established, (d) also, thereupon he contends that “de hors” the lack of holding a valid test identification parade, rather the aforesaid exhibits’ adequately personify the fact of accused, occupying the aforesaid vehicle, emphatically immediately preceding, to theirs abandoning it in a locked condition, at Salogra. However, the aforesaid submission, cannot be accepted, as the mere aforesaid revelations, in the aforesaid exhibits, cannot, be an adequate substitute, for, best befitting documentary evidence, comprised in apposite photographs being clicked by the persons narrated in Ext.PW-1/A, AND who purportedly sighted the accused, to flee from the relevant car, (e) especially when clicking of photographs of the accused, by the purported independent witnesses, earmarked in Ext.PW-1/A, emphatically with a display therein, of the accused being positioned inside the car, would subsume the effect, if any, of want of a valid test identification parade being carried by the Investigating officers, also would wane the effect, if any, of, for all the aforestated reasons, of, the identification only in Court of the accused, by the prosecution witnesses concerned, not carrying any adequate probative value, (e) rather hence it is to be concluded that, want of the persons narrated in information Ex. PW1/A to click photographs of the accused, with theirs being positioned inside the relevant car, (f) renders all the revelations borne in Ex. PW1/A, being insignificant in establishing the factum of the accused at the relevant time occupying the relevant car. 15. In aftermath, the mere factum of efficacy, if any, being imputed vis-à-vis prior information borne in Ext.PW-6/A, cannot, also comprise sufficient evidence in respect of the factum of the accused being evidently proven to be positioned inside the car at the relevant time. 16. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned Fast Track Court has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by it does not suffer from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record, rather it has aptly appreciated the material available on record. 17. In view of the above, I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith. Personal and surety bonds, if any, stand cancelled and discharged.