JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Impugned is the judgment dated 27.02.2013 passed by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Ramban (with powers of Special Judge under NDPS Act). By virtue of the said judgment, respondent has been acquitted. Case registered as FIR No. 12/2009, P/s. Banihal for commission of offence punishable under Section 8/20 NDPS Act on completion of investigation culminated in filing of charge sheet (challan) to the effect that the accused during investigation is established to have committed the aforesaid offence. 2. Trial commenced with the framing of the charge in the year 2009 itself. Prosecution in support of its case out of 12 listed witnesses has examined 11 witnesses. Learned Trial Court on proper appreciation of the evidence has summed up and drawn the conclusions that the case against the accused is not proved. 3. Learned Trial Court has rightly observed that PW-1 SI Gh. Mohd. Runyal, PW-2 HC Mohd. Razak, PW-3 Ct. Gh. Nabi have stated that accused was found standing on a verandah of a locked shop at Chamal was Sherbibi on 16.01.2009 possessed a shawl containing Cannabis Balls. PW-4 Ishwer Singh and PW-5 Arjun Singh shopkeepers have been cited as witnesses who have denied the prosecution story. PW-6 Gulzar Ahmad had made it clear that police neither searched accused nor obtained his option for search. He has also failed to identify his signature on the memo of the option for search and recovery. PW-7 Imtiaz Ahmad stated 5/6 passengers have been travelling in his vehicle from Khari to Banihal. The vehicle was stopped at Khari. Some persons escaped whereas three persons were apprehended. He has admitted seizure memo Ext. P-7 regarding cannabis from a bag, however has stated that he does not know where from the bag was brought by the police. PW-8 Mohd. Iqbal as per prosecution was a witness, regarding weighing the seized contraband, its sealing and regarding Superdnama, he has denied the same and has claimed that it has been attributed to him. PW-9 Ghulam Mohi-ud-din had photographed the seized contraband which contraband according to him was shown to him by the SHO and he had been informed by the SHO that the cannabis is recovered from the vehicle (Tata Sumo). 4. When all the eye-witnesses had been declared hostile and nothing favourable to the prosecution has been elicited. PW-9 Ghulam Mohi-ud-din had photographed the seized contraband which contraband according to him was shown to him by the SHO and he had been informed by the SHO that the cannabis is recovered from the vehicle (Tata Sumo). 4. When all the eye-witnesses had been declared hostile and nothing favourable to the prosecution has been elicited. All links for connecting the accused with the commission of the crime got snapped. The edifice of the prosecution case is further destroyed by non examination of the Magistrate in whose presence search is claimed to have been made. Withholding of such witness without any satisfactory explanation gives rise to drawing of adverse inferences. 5. The evidence lead by the prosecution being shaky, incoherent, full of doubts does not provide any foundation so as to inspire confidence for holding that the charge is proved against the accused. The prosecution has miserably failed to support the charge leaving no scope for interference with the judgment impugned. 6. The judgment impugned is legally perfect. The appeal is devoid of merit, dismissed. The seized contraband shall be destroyed under the supervision of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramban. Copy of the order be sent to the trial court for information. Copy be also sent to the learned CJM, Ramban for information and compliance.