JUDGMENT : This criminal jail appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.06.2017 passed by Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Haridwar in Special Sessions Trial no.08 of 2012, whereby the accused/appellant Baru Singh has been convicted under Section 8/20 of Narcotics Drugs and Pyschotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the N.D.P.S. Act) and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. It was also directed that in default of payment of fine, the accused will undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 27.03.2012 P.W.1 Circle Officer J.R. Joshi lodged a report at P.S. Shyampur against the accused Baru Singh stating that he along with Constable A.P. Narayan Singh was on patrolling duty. While conducting patrolling duty, when he reached near Rasigad Canal Tiraha, Constable Virendra Singh and Constable Diwan Singh, who were posted at P.S. Shyampur, met him and told that the informant has given information that one person, who is involved in Charas smuggling, and is having illegal Charas with him, is going to Haridwar. Relying upon this information, he made telephonic call to P.W.2 Pankaj Gairola, Officer-in-charge of P.S. Shyampur and directed him to arrive at the spot alongwith police force, on which PW2 Pankaj Gairola along with police party reached at the spot. Thereafter, the police party and the informant conducted search of each other to ensure that no one is having Charas. Thereafter, the complainant got boarded the informant in the vehicle and headed towards Tatwala via canal track. When they reached near Tatwala Bridge then they saw a man coming from Tatwala, upon seeing whom the informant told that he is man who is having illegal Charas with him, and after saying this, the informant got down from the vehicle and the complainant along with the police party went forward whereupon the suspected person turned back. The police party got down from the vehicle and apprehended the accused, who was the history-sheeter of P.S. Shyampur. The complainant told the accused that he is a Circle Officer of the area and he has been informed that he (accused) is having illegal charas with him and that the complainant wants to take his search upon which the accused gave his consent for search. The complainant told the accused that he is a Circle Officer of the area and he has been informed that he (accused) is having illegal charas with him and that the complainant wants to take his search upon which the accused gave his consent for search. The complainant again enquired the name of the accused and made his search, upon which the accused disclosed his name as baru Singh R/o Village Tatwala. One white polythene was found in the hand of accused, which was opened wherein some black substance was found, which smelled like Charas. In order to take exact weight of the Charas, Constable Diwan Singh was sent to bring measuring scale, who came back after 20 min. When the recovered Charas was weighed, it came 1 kg 100 gms. The accused failed to show license to carry the psychotropic substance. After being told to the accused that he has committed an offence punishable under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, accused/appellant was arrested by the police party at 05:30 pm. From the recovered item, 100 gm was sealed separately for chemical examination at the spot and specimen of seal was prepared and the remaining 1 kg charas was sealed in the same while polythene. As the place of occurrence was a lonely place, therefore, public witness was not made available. Thereafter, the accused was brought to the police station and as per the instructions of accused, information regarding arrest of accused was given to Village Pradhan Devendra Singh on his mobile, a information memo whereof was prepared by the complainant. On the basis of recovery and arrest of the accused, First Information Report was lodged at Police Station Shyampur, District Haridwar, which was registered as case crime no. 15 of 2012 relating to offence punishable u/s 8/20 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Initially, the investigation of the case was handed over to PW5 Sub Inspector Shri Dharmendra Singh Rautela but subsequently it was transferred to PW6 Shri Ajay Singh, Circle Officer (City). During the course of investigation, the I.O. recorded the statements of the witnesses, visited the spot and prepared the site-plan and perused the report received from Forensic Science Laboratory. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused under the aforesaid section. 3. During the course of investigation, the I.O. recorded the statements of the witnesses, visited the spot and prepared the site-plan and perused the report received from Forensic Science Laboratory. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused under the aforesaid section. 3. On receipt of the charge sheet, Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Haridwar, appears to have given necessary copies to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. and thereafter on 27.07.2012, framed the charge of offence punishable under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. On denial of the guilt by the accused, trial was begun. In order to prove its case, the prosecution got examined P.W.1 J.R. Joshi, Circle Officer (complainant), P.W.2 Inspector Pankaj Gairola (witness of recovery), P.W.3 Constable Kunwar Singh, P.W.4 Naresh Kumar, P.W.5 Sub Inspector D.S. Rautela (first I.O. of the case) and P.W.6 C.O. (City) Ajay Singh (second I.O.). 5. Thereafter, oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C in the form of questions, in reply to which he stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. He also stated that the police had caught one Charna R/o Haryana with the Charas but he was escaped by the police and instead he has been implicated in this case with false recovery. However, the accused did not produce any evidence in defence. 6. The trial court, after hearing the parties and perusal of evidence, by the impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant Baru Singh, as above. Feeling aggrieved, he has preferred this appeal. 7. P.W.1 Circle Officer J.R. Joshi has reiterated the contents of the F.I.R. in examination-in-chief and has fully supported the prosecution case. 8. P.W.2 Inspector Pankaj Gairola is the police officer who was telephonically called by PW1 C.O. J.R. Joshi was asked to arrive at the spot alongwith police force. He has corroborated the statement of PW1 and has also supported the prosecution case. 9. P.W.3 Constable Kunwar Singh was posted as Clerk at P.S. Shyampur on the date of incident. On the basis of recovery and arrest memo, he had registered the case in the police station against the accused. He has corroborated the statement of PW1 and has also supported the prosecution case. 9. P.W.3 Constable Kunwar Singh was posted as Clerk at P.S. Shyampur on the date of incident. On the basis of recovery and arrest memo, he had registered the case in the police station against the accused. He had kept the recovered item in the Malkhana and had made entries thereof in the Malkhana register. He has also stated that on 10.04.2012, the recovered item was sent to F.S.L. Dehradun through Constable Lakhan Singh and a report whereof was received on 21.06.2012. 10. P.W.5 Naresh Kumar is a formal witness. He is the person from whose shop measuring scale was taken by Constable Diwan Singh for the purpose of measuring the contraband. He has also corroborated the statement of PW1 J.R. Joshi to this point only. 11. P.W.5 Sub Inspector D.S. Rautela is the person to whom the investigation was handed over initially. 12. P.W.6 Ajay Singh, Superintendent of Police is the second I.O. of the case. He has stated on 27.03.2017 he was posted as C.O. (City) when he was entrusted with the investigation of the case. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no public witness of the recovery; all the witnesses are police officials and are interested witness. I do not find force in this argument. This argument has been dealt with in detail by the trial court. In this connection, the trial court has placed reliance upon judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Tahir vs. State (Delhi) 1996 (3) SCC 338 and Anil @ Andya Sadashiv Nandoskar vs. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 2 SCC 589 , wherein it has been held that there is no rule of law which lay down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence of police officials, if found reliable. Where the evidence of the police officials after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form the basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the credit worthiness of the prosecution case. Where the evidence of the police officials after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form the basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the credit worthiness of the prosecution case. In Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SCC 217, it has been held that the presumption that a person acts honestly and legally applies as much as in favour of a police officer as of other persons. It is not proper and permissible to doubt the evidence of police officers. In my considered opinion, all the prosecution witnesses have made a consistent statement in their examination-in-chief. Nothing has come out in their cross-examination which may create doubt in the prosecution story. Thus, the statements of prosecution witnesses are trustworthy and inspire confidence. 14. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that as per prosecution case, no public witness could be made available because the spot was a lonely place. She contended that the recovery has been shown on 27.03.2012 at 05.30 pm and the place of recovery is a national highway, as such it is highly improbable that on a national highway at 05.30 pm in the month of March, and when there are villages adjoining to the national highway, no person from public could be made available to the police party. She also pointed out that there are contradictions in the statements of PW1 J.R. Joshi and PW2 Pankaj Gairola. On one hand, PW1 Circle Officer J.R. Joshi (complainant) has deposed that no public witness was available at the spot, while on the other PW2 S.I. Pankaj Gairola has stated that the police party tried to procure the public witness but no one was ready to give evidence. According to her, these contradictions in the statements of above prosecution witness create doubt in the prosecution story. I do not agree with this submission. It is true that the place of recovery is a national highway, but it is also true that this national highway is not a crowded and frequent running highway; it is an interior area of Shyampur, District Haridwar, thus is quite possible that no public witness was available to the police party at the time of incident. 15. It is true that the place of recovery is a national highway, but it is also true that this national highway is not a crowded and frequent running highway; it is an interior area of Shyampur, District Haridwar, thus is quite possible that no public witness was available to the police party at the time of incident. 15. Learned counsel then contended that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case in place of one Charna R/o Haryana who was carrying illegal Charas with him but he was made scot-free by the police and instead the appellant has been implicated in this case with false recovery. Again, I do not find force in this argument. This plea was also taken by the accused while his statement was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he also stated the same fact and submitted that the police apprehended him from his house and planted a false recovery against him. In my view, opportunity was available to the accused to lead evidence and to prove his innocence in regard to the fact that alleged recovery has not been made from his possession in view of Section 54 of N.D.P.S. Act, but the accused did not lead any evidence to prove his innocence. Section 54 of N.D.P.S. Act provides that in case of recovery of illicit articles from the possession of the accused, it would be presumed that it has been recovered from his possession unless proved otherwise. For convenience, Section N.D.P.S. Act is extracted here: “[54. Presumption from possession of illicit articles.—In trials under this Act, it may be presumed, unless and until the contrary is proved, that the accused has committed an offence under this Act in respect of— (a) any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance; (b) any opium poppy, cannabis plant or coca plant growing on any land which he has cultivated; (c) any apparatus specially designed or any group of utensils specially adopted for the manufacture of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance; or (d) any materials which have undergone any process towards the manufacture of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance, or any residue left of the materials from which any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance has been manufactured, for the possession of which he fails to account satisfactorily.]” 16. Having re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, and after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has successfully proved charge of offence punishable under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, as against Baru Singh. The trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellant under the aforesaid section. 17. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment and order dated 16.06.2017 passed by Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Haridwar in Special Sessions Trial no.08 of 2012 is hereby affirmed. 18. Lower court record be sent back. 19. At last, I deem it proper to state here that the Trial Judge/Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, in his judgment, has mentioned incomplete citations, as follows: (i) Tahir 1996 (3) SCC page 338 (ii) Anil 1996 (20 SCC page 589 (iii) Ahir Raja Khima AIR 1956 Supreme Court page 217 20. Registrar General is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Judge concerned so that he may not repeat the same mistake in future.