JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed by the State against the impugned judgment rendered on 12.08.2016 by the learned Special Judge, Chamba, H.P. whereby, the latter pronounced an order of acquittal upon the accused/respondents for theirs allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 “hereinafter referred to as the Act.” 2. Brief facts, of the case are that on 18.3.2013 at about 11.00 p.m. police party headed by head constable Virender Singh alongwith male and female constables were on Nakabandi duty near Pol Technical College, Sarol. At about 11.35 p.m. HRTC bus came from Chamba and was on way to Amritsar. On seeing the police party they became perplexed and on suspicion their names and addresses were inquired by the Investigating Officer. Police party gave their personal search to both the accused. 3. On the direction of S.P. HC Virender Singh conducted personal search of accused Hoshiar Singh and one polythene was found concealed by him under his sweater containing Charas. Similarly, personal search of co-accused Shanto Devi was conducted by Lady constable Seema and she was found in possession of one bag which was kept by her on her lap under her worn shawl and on completion of the investigations, into the offences, allegedly committed by both the accused, the Investigating Officer concerned prepared besides filed a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Court concerned. 4. Thereupon, both the accused stood charged by the learned trial Court “for theirs” allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the Act, to charge whereof they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seventeen witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded wherein they pleaded innocence and claimed false implication, thereafter they did not choose to lead any defence evidence. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of acquittal upon the accused. 6. The State of H.P. is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal pronounced upon the accused/respondents, by the learned Trial Court. Mr. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of acquittal upon the accused. 6. The State of H.P. is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal pronounced upon the accused/respondents, by the learned Trial Court. Mr. R.S. Thakur, the learned Additional Advocate General, has concertedly and vigorously contended that the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court being not harbored upon a proper appreciation "by it" of the evidence on record rather theirs standing se-quelled 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. 7. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of acquittal recorded by the 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. 8. 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. 9. Recovery of charas weighing 1 Kg. “each” stood respectively effectuated from the respective purported conscious and exclusive possession of the accused “under memos” respectively comprised in Ext.PW-13/E and in Ext.PW-13/F. In sequel to recoveries the aforesaid quantum of contraband standing effectuated from the purported conscious and exclusive possession “of each of the accused” the Investigating Officer concerned prepared NCB forms, forms whereof respectively stand comprised in Ext.PW-12/E and in Ext.PW-12/F “wherein” revelations occur with respect to his “embossing upon” each of the respective bulk parcels comprised in Ext.P-1 and in Ext. P-2, “five seals each” of alphabet ‘M’. It is significant to hereat observe, that the Investigating Officer “did not” at the time contemporaneous to his effectuating recoveries of contraband from the purported conscious and exclusive possession of each of the accused “draw” any sample parcels therefrom. Also as unraveled by Ext.PW-12/E and Ext.PW- 12/F, the SHO of the Police Station concerned proceeded “to upon” the bulk parcels of charas respectively borne on Ext.P-1 and on P-2 “re-embosse “ five reseal, seal impressions of English alphabet ‘N’. Also as unraveled by Ext.PW-12/E and Ext.PW- 12/F, the SHO of the Police Station concerned proceeded “to upon” the bulk parcels of charas respectively borne on Ext.P-1 and on P-2 “re-embosse “ five reseal, seal impressions of English alphabet ‘N’. Both the aforesaid exhibits containing therein “the” bulk of charas seized respectively under exhibits Ext.PW-13/E and under Ext.PW-13/F “from the” purported conscious and exclusive possession of each of the accused “stood” under a common road certificate comprised, in Ext.PW-5/B, hence sent to the FSL concerned. The FSL Junga purveyed its report thereon, report whereof is comprised in Ext.PX, wherein it recorded a firm opinion that the contents enclosed in the aforesaid bulk parcels “sent to it” for analyses, holding ingredients of charas. The prosecution for establishing the charge to which both the accused stood subjected to, relied upon the depositions of official witnesses besides relied upon the depositions of independent witnesses “who” stood associated by the Investigating Officer concerned, in the relevant investigations conducted by him. However, both the independent witnesses resiled from their respective previous statements recorded in writing. The learned counsel appearing for accused Shanto Devi, has emphasized upon the fact of the apposite “consent memo” comprised in Ext.PW-13/B prepared by the Investigating Officer concerned, prior to her personal search being carried, personal search whereof begot “through” memo Ext. PW- 13/E effectuation of recovery of the relevant quantum of contraband borne in Ext.P-1 “standing ingrained” with a pervasive infirmity, infirmity whereof stands espoused to be comprised in the factum of ‘it’ not begetting compliance with the statutory mandate of Section 50 of the Act, also “it” infracting the verdicts of the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein it stands propounded that for a consent memo comprised in Ext.PW-13/E being construable to be holding legal leverage, for thereupon this Court being constrained, to impose an order of conviction upon the accused concerned “it” standing statutorily enjoined to contain a specific explicit communication vis-a-vis the accused concerned, with respect to “hers/him” holding an initial vested statutory right “for” hers/his personal search being initially conducted by a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate whereafter “it” making an echoing that in the event of the accused concerned “waiving” the aforesaid initial statutory right bestowed upon her/him, his/her holding an option for her/his personal search being held by the Investigating Officer concerned. For adjudicating upon the crucial factum probandum with respect to the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court appertaining to the relevant consent memo meeting compliance therewith, “an allusion” to the recitals occurring in the relevant consent memo comprised in Ext.PW-13/B, is imperative. However, a closest reading of its recitals displays that therein the Investigating Officer had made a communication to the lady/accused with respect to hers holding an initial vested statutory right for her personal search being initially conducted by a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, in addition whereof “of” the aforesaid initial statutory right vesting in the female accused, the Investigating Officer also recorded a recital therein “that” alongwith” the Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, the female accused also simultaneously holding a statutory right for “hers” alike the aforesaid “officers” being initially personally searched also by a female constable. With the Investigating Officer (a) therein disclosing “that apart” from “though” hers, solitarily holding an initial statutory right for her personal search being conducted initially “only” by a Magistrate or by a Gazetted Officer “hers” also alongwith the aforesaid also holding an alike initial statutory right for hers being personally searched by a female police officer “obviously” embodies a communication in visible gross detraction of the relevant mandate in respect thereof pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court “wherein” a preemptory mandate is cast upon the Investigating Officer concerned “to” while drawing the apposite consent memo comprised in Ext.PW-13/B “his” being enjoined to make a disclosure that she/him has an initial explicit statutory right for her/his personal search being initially conducted by either the Magistrate or by a Gazetted Officer and “not” as inappositely disclosed therein that simultaneously alongwith the aforesaid “she” holding an alike initial statutory right for her personal search being initially conducted by a lady police official besides “his” being enjoined to in the apposite consent memo make an echoing “that” in case she is willing to waive the initial apposite statutory rights, thereupon hers purveying her consent for her personal search being held by a lady police officer. 10. In aftermath “the apposite consent memo” comprised in Ext.PW-13/B prepared by the Investigating Officer concerned, with respect to the female accused, is though hence prima facie pervasively stained with a vice of its prima facie infracting the verdicts in respect thereof pronounced by the Apex Court, whereupon it is apparently imbued with a statutory blemish. 10. In aftermath “the apposite consent memo” comprised in Ext.PW-13/B prepared by the Investigating Officer concerned, with respect to the female accused, is though hence prima facie pervasively stained with a vice of its prima facie infracting the verdicts in respect thereof pronounced by the Apex Court, whereupon it is apparently imbued with a statutory blemish. However, the aforesaid misleading recitals occurring therein “cannot” perse render it to stand imbued with a gross un-erasable statutory blemish, apparently with Ext.PW-13/B making a vivid underscoring therein with respect to the lady accused “thereafter” meteing her consent for her personal search conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate “by a lady police officer”, whereupon the effect of the statutorily inapposite misleadings recitals made precedingly therein “stand” subsumed besides effaced. Dehors the aforesaid the apposite consent meted by the lady accused stands displayed therein “to” be meted on 18.3.2013. However, the Superintendent of Police concerned in whose presence in sequel thereto “the” lady Police Officer “one” Seema Devi purportedly conducted her personal search, in sequel whereof recovery of contraband occurred under memo Ext.PW-13/E, memo whereof rather “makes” a display of the Superintendent of Police concerned embossing his signatures thereon “on” 19.3.2013. Nowat, it is to be discerned whether at the time of completion of the apposite proceeding relating to search and recovery of contraband from the purported conscious and exclusive possession of the lady accused, the Superintendent of Police concerned where-before whom she had consented for her personal search being conducted by a female officer “was in fact present” in contemporanity thereof. For making the aforesaid discernments, the factum of the Superintendent of Police concerned, endorsing his signatures on Ext.PW-13/E on 19.3.2013, hence on a day subsequent to the completed execution of the purportedly prior thereto prepared consent memo comprised in Ext.PW-13/E, hence renders suspect the fact of his being present at the time of proceedings drawn with respect to recovery of charas under memo Ext.PW-13/B from her purported conscious and exclusive possession nor also the effect of the independent witnesses reneging from their respectively recorded previous statements recorded in writing “though” for hereinafter assigned reasons warranting dis-imputation of credence thereon vis-a-vis co-accused Hoshiar Singh yet their relevant exculpatory effect vis-a-vis lady accused remains un-eroded. The effect of the independent witnesses reneging from their previous statements recorded in writing “assumes” legal vigour vis-avis the lady accused “prominently” when the lady officer “one Seema Devi” who purportedly conducted the personal search of the lady accused stood given up by the Public Prosecutor concerned, hence obviously remained unexamined for lending assured unflinching proof with respect to the recitals borne in Ext.PW-13/E also when thereupon she would have eroded the effect of the independent witnesses’ reneging from their respectively recorded previous statements in writing. Consequently, when only upon the aforesaid prosecution witness, namely Seema Devi being led into the witness box would have hence provided an opportunity to the learned defence counsel (1) to subject her to cross-examination with respect to the factum of the consent purveyed under memo Ext.PW-13/B by the lady accused, hence being proven to stand efficaciously implemented. However, with the prosecution not leading her into the witness box, has hence precluded the defence from unearthing from her the trite factum with respect to the consent purveyed by the lady accused qua her personal search being purportedly conducted “by her” only in the presence of the Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer or the Superintendent of Police concerned, standing clinchingly proven to be efficaciously complied with. Contrarily, thereupon it appears hence that with the prosecution precluding emergence of truth with respect to the aforesaid fact, thereupon the recitals borne in Ext.PW-13/E whereunder recovery of charas weighing one k.g. stood effectuated from the purported conscious and exclusive possession of the lady accused “cannot” hold any tenacity in respect of the apposite factum probandum nor obviously the testimonies of the Investigating Officer concerned besides of the Superintendent of Police concerned with respect to both recording their respective presence at the time when the proceedings reflected in Ext.PW-13/E stood hence drawn, hence attain no iota of truth. In aftermath, with the aforesaid memo borne in Ext.PW-13/E hence “vividly” infracting the consent meted by the lady accused with respect to her personal search being carried by a lady police officer in the presence of the Superintendent of Police, concerned, thereupon all recitals borne thereon stand vitiated, wherefrom it is befitting to conclude that her personal search in infraction of Ext.PW-13/B hence standing not held by one Seema Devi rather her personal search being conducted by the Investigating Officer, thereupon the ensuing conclusion is that effectuation of recovery of contraband from the purported and exclusive possession of the lady accused hence in its entirety standing vitiated. 11. Be that as it may, the aforesaid inference qua Ext.PW-13/E being imbued with a pervasive taint garners enhanced momentum from of the fact “of Ext.PW-13/C”, memo whereof is a memo of the apposite Jama Talashi, prepared with respect to both the accused also with respect to all officials recited therein “not” bearing the signatures of Seema Devi “though thereunder” both accused held the personal search of all the officials disclosed therein, “one” amongst whom is Seema Devi. The omission of occurrence of signatures of Seema Devi in Ext.PW-13/C when construed with the factum of Ext.PW-13/E whereunder the relevant recoveries stood effectuated from the purported conscious and exclusive possession of the lady accused “upon hers” being purportedly personally searched by one Seema Devi “likewise” not holding her relevant signatures “stems” a formidable inference that the aforesaid Seema Devi “was not” present at the site of occurrence nor hence she conducted the personal search of the lady accused, hence the recitals occurring in Ext.PW-13/B stand imbued with a gross taint of vitiation, thereupon the entire proceeding drawn thereunder vis-a-vis the lady accused, suffer invalidation. 12. 12. Be that as it may, the effect of the aforesaid inference is that though the aforesaid “communication” made in the apposite consent memo borne in Ext.PW-13/B vividly discloses that (a) she meted her consent for her personal search being conducted in consonance with the initial statutory bestowments upon her, whereupon the effect of the preceding thereto statutorily interdicted communications occurring in consent memo borne in Ext.PW-13/B, hence stand eroded “nonetheless” with this Court drawing a conclusion that in sequel thereto her personal search stood “not” carried before the S.P. concerned “by a lady officer” rather revitalizes an inference “that the” relevant statutorily faltering communications occurring in Ext.PW-13/B, communication whereof preceded her personal search being purportedly carried in the presence of the Superintendent of Police concerned, purportedly “by a lady Police Officer” purported personal search whereof of the lady accused by the aforesaid Seema Devi “when” for reasons assigned hereinabove stands belied, thereupon hence rendering an inference that the preparation of consent memo comprised in Ext.PW-13/B being both invented besides concocted by the Investigating Officer concerned. (b) the Investigating Officer concerned by omitting to mete deference to her consent for her personal search being carried before the S.P. “by” a lady police officer, infraction whereof is comprised in the evident absence of the S.P. concerned “at the time” contemporaneous vis-a-vis one Seema Devi purportedly holding “the personal search of the lady accused, search whereof in the aforesaid manner of the lady accused is also for reasons ascribed hereinabove is hence prevaricated, thereupon the preparation of Ext.PW-13/E whereunder recovery of charas stood purportedly effectuated from the conscious and exclusive possession of the lady accused person “stems” an inference of its acquiring an alike taint of concoction besides invention. (c) leverage hence standing purveyed to an inevitable inference that bulk parcel borne in Ext.P-1 purportedly recovered under Ext.PW-13/E standing hence by contrivance and sheer machination planted upon her by the Investigating Officer concerned. 13. Concomitantly, this Court is constrained to affirm the findings of acquittal pronounced upon the lady accused Shanto Devi “by” the learned Special Court. 14. (c) leverage hence standing purveyed to an inevitable inference that bulk parcel borne in Ext.P-1 purportedly recovered under Ext.PW-13/E standing hence by contrivance and sheer machination planted upon her by the Investigating Officer concerned. 13. Concomitantly, this Court is constrained to affirm the findings of acquittal pronounced upon the lady accused Shanto Devi “by” the learned Special Court. 14. The learned Additional Advocate General, has contended that with the FSL concerned receiving “in an un-tampered condition” the bulk parcel comprised in Ext.P-2, recovery whereof stood effectuated “through” memo comprised in Ext.PW-13/F “from the” purported and conscious and exclusive possession of co-accused Hoshiar Singh, also with the FSL concerned in its report rendered in respect thereof, report whereof is comprised in Ext.PX “unveiling” the trite factum of “its” containing charas “ought to” constrain this Court, to reverse the findings of acquittal recorded upon co-accused Hoshiar Singh. He contends that with the apposite NCB form comprised in Ext.PW-12/F holding complete connectivity “with” the road certificate besides with the seizure memo also with the report of the FSL concerned comprised in Ext.PX importantly “in respect” of the relevant descriptions vis-a-vis all seal impressions initially embossed thereon “at” the relevant site of occurrence by the Investigating Officer also in respect “of” descriptions of all the re-embossed/resealed “seal” impressions thereon “by” the SHO concerned, “ultimately”, with the prosecution witnesses to whom the case property stood shown in Court, thereat categorically “voicing” that the case property “holding absolute analogity” with respect to all the apt descriptions in respect thereof respectively held in NCB form Ext.PW-12/F, road certificate Ext.PW-5/B, the report of FSL comprised in Ext.PX” thereupon the judgment of acquittal returned upon co-accused Hoshiar Singh warranting reversal. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent co-accused Hoshiar Singh, has contended with much vigour that the relevant intra se connectivity/congruity interse the seizure of bulk parcel “through” Ext.PW-13/F “from” the purported conscious and exclusive possession of co-accused Hoshiar Singh, vis-a-vis all the aforesaid relevant descriptions occurring in Ext.PX “not” standing efficaciously proven with respect to the case property “at the stage of its” production in Court. He espouses that the relevant intra se lack of analogity in respect of descriptions of all impressions embossed thereon “both” at the stage when it stood seized under memo Ext.PW-13/F and also at the stage when it stood resealed by the SHO concerned besides in respect of all the apposite seal impressions displayed in the report of the FSL comprised in Ext.PX vis-a-vis at the ultimate stage of its production in Court whereat it stood shown to the prosecution witnesses, “is aroused” by the factum of (a) the Public Prosecutor concerned “at” the stage when each of the prosecution witnesses concerned stood shown “in Court” the relevant case property “his” not adducing before the trial Court, the relevant abstract of the Malkhana Register, with portrayals therein that at the time of its standing retrieved from the Malkhana concerned by its In-charge, the latter in contemporanity thereof, recording in the relevant register apposite entries in respect thereof (b) the Public Prosecutor concerned at the time of production of the case property in Court, for its hence being shown to the prosecution witnesses concerned “not” making any communication therebefore that “it” stood delivered to him by an authorized official. Reiteratedly, he thereupon contends that the case property borne in Ext.P-2 as stood produced in Court for its being thereat shown “to” the prosecution witnesses concerned, by the Public Prosecutor concerned, hence standing rendered at the stage of “its” production in Court “to not stand” efficaciously proven with its purported seizure made from the purported conscious and exclusive possession of the co-accused “through memo” comprised in Ext.PW-13/F. However, the aforesaid submission does not obtain any strength. “Significantly” when a close reading of the depositions’ of the material prosecution witnesses “unveil” that the learned defence counsel “during” the course of holding them to cross-examination, his thereat “omitting to” put apposite suggestions to them, in respect of the apposite bulk parcel borne in Ext.P-2, seizure whereof is disclosed to be made through memo comprised in Ext.PW-13/F “not” standing related to the apposite subsequently therewith prepared NCB Form comprised in Ext.PW-12/F, road certificate comprised in Ext.PW-5/B, the report of FSL comprised in Ext.PX” “intra se un-relatability whereof” arising from their occurring apparent intra se incongruity with respect to all apposite descriptions of all seal impressions drawn thereon vis-a-vis the ones embossed on Ext.P-2. Even though, the learned defence counsel “at” the stage, of production of Ext.P-2 in Court “had” an opportunity to decipher from the case property “occurrence of” any apparent mis-discriptions/want of intra se congruity inter se all the aforesaid exhibits vis-a-vis bulk parcel Ext.P-2 also when the learned defence counsel thereat held the best opportune moment to hence make/the relevant un-earthings with respect to lack of all intra se incongruities interse the aforesaid exhibits vis-a-vis Ext.P-2 “yet/his” failing to put apposite suggestions to the prosecution witnesses “in respect of” lack of intra se analogity erupting inter se the relevant e-choings made in bulk parcel borne in Ext.P-2, seizure whereof is disclosed to be made “through” memo Ext.PW-13/F, vis-a-vis NCB Form Ext.PW-12/F, road certificate Ext.PW-5/B and the report of FSL comprised in Ext.PX” “significantly” with respect to all seal impressions embossed upon Ext. P-2 standing displayed or not displayed in all the aforesaid memos. Consequently, his omitting to hence make any apposite unearthings at the relevant stage, especially with respect to lack of intra se analogity with respect to all relevant descriptions borne thereon, conspicuously with respect to all seal impressions borne thereon vis-a-vis all seal impressions borne on all memos prepared subsequently thereto, begets an inference that hence the defence acquiesces to recovery of charas “through” Ext.PW-13/F hence occurring from the conscious and exclusive possession of co-accused Hoshiar Singh also hence it galvanizes an inference that bulk parcel Ext.P-2 standing efficaciously proven to stand recovered from the site of occurrence from the conscious and exclusive possession of co-accused Hoshiar Singh. 15. Be that as it may, on the previous date of hearing this Court had pronounced a direction upon the learned Additional Advocate General “for” his ensuring the production today before this Court “of” the relevant case property. The purpose for this Court making the aforesaid direction was for facilitating the Court to make decipherings therefrom with respect to “it” holding the signatures of both the witnesses to the apposite recovery memo whereunder “it” stood recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the co-accused Hoshiar Singh. In compliance thereof, ASI Mohar Singh ASI has today produced the case property before this Court, in respect whereof memo comprised in Ext.PW-13/F stood prepared. In compliance thereof, ASI Mohar Singh ASI has today produced the case property before this Court, in respect whereof memo comprised in Ext.PW-13/F stood prepared. A close reading of the bulk parcel of the relevant case property, makes a graphic display of its holding the signatures of the accused and also of both the witnesses to the relevant recovery memos. Consequently, when it bears the signatures of all the aforesaid “it” thereupon stands concluded that even at the time of its production before the learned trial Court “it” carried the signatures of all the aforesaid “especially” when thereat the learned defence counsel despite holding the best opportune moment for belying the occurrence thereon of the signatures of both the witnesses to the relevant recovery memo rather “omitted to” avail the aforesaid opportunity, wherefrom it is befitting to conclude “especially” also when co-accused Hoshiar Singh also did not in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. make any e-choings therein with respect to his signatures borne in Ext.PW-13/A “not” belonging to him “begets” an inference that for want of the aforesaid endeavours by the learned defence counsel “at” the stage of production, of Ext.PW-2 before the learned trial Court qua hence thereupon the defence acquiescing to the occurrence thereon of the authentic signatures of co-accused Hoshiar Singh as well as of occurrence thereon of the authentic signatures “of” each of the independent witnesses to the relevant recovery memo, comprised in Ext. PW-13/F, besides its acquiescing with respect to occurrence of intra se congruity inter se all seal impressions borne thereon vis-a-vis all seal impression displayed in all the relevant exhibits, imperatively when no proof with respect to Ext.P-2 standing tampered/ stands adduced. Also the inevitable sequel therefrom is that the defence also acquiesces that the contents held therein as displayed in the report of the FSL concerned, report whereof is comprised in Ext.PX, being charas. Also the inevitable sequel therefrom is that the defence also acquiesces that the contents held therein as displayed in the report of the FSL concerned, report whereof is comprised in Ext.PX, being charas. Furthermore, reiteratedly the descriptions of all the seal impressions occurring therein “hold” absolute intra se concurrence besides congruity with descriptions of all seal impressions displayed in recovery memo borne in Ext.PW-13/F, NCB form borne in Ext.PW-12/F, road certificate borne in Ext.PW-5/B and ultimately report of FSL borne in Ext.PX, wherefrom it can be befittingly concluded “conspicuously” with the learned defence counsel “not” at the stage contemporaneous to the production of the case property making any apposite endeavours for belying the tenacity of occurrence or intra se congruity inter se the descriptions of all seal impressions borne thereon vis-a-vis descriptions of all seal impressions displayed in all the aforesaid memos. In sequel the concomitant ensuing derivative is that bulk parcel comprised in Ext.P-2 at the stage of its production in Court standing unflinchingly connected with the apposite recitals borne in Ext.PW-13/F, “significantly” in respect of its recovery standing effectuated from the conscious and exclusive possession of co-accused Hoshiar Singh. In sequel the concomitant ensuing derivative is that bulk parcel comprised in Ext.P-2 at the stage of its production in Court standing unflinchingly connected with the apposite recitals borne in Ext.PW-13/F, “significantly” in respect of its recovery standing effectuated from the conscious and exclusive possession of co-accused Hoshiar Singh. Also, the effect of the aforesaid inference is that dehors the fact that the public prosecutor concerned at the time of its production in Court ‘his’ not adducing the relevant abstract of the Malkhana Register “with” descriptions therein that at the stage of its production in Court “it” stood retrieved from the apposite Malkhana by its In-charge nor evidence existing qua the In-charge of the Malkhana concerned in contemporanity thereof making apposite recitals in the relevant register besides dehors the fact that before “its” being shown to the prosecution witnesses concerned at the time of recording of their respective depositions, the public prosecutor concerned also omitting to make any communication to the learned trial Court that “it” stood delivered to him by an authorized official “obviously not” giving any momentum to any contention, hence reared before this Court by the learned counsel for co-accused Hoshiar Singh, that hence bulk parcel comprised in Ext.P-2, recovery whereof stood effectuated under memo Ext.PW-13/F “at” the site of occurrence from the conscious and exclusive possession of co-accused Hoshiar Singh “not” at the time of its production in Court standing proven to be connected therewith given “its” not purportedly bearing any intra se consonance in respect of descriptions of any seal impression embossed therein vis-a-vis the seal impressions borne in the aforesaid exhibits. Consequently, this Court is constrained to make a firm besides a formidable conclusion that the prosecution has discharged its duty of proving to the hilt that the relevant intra se connectivities occurring inter se seizure memo whereunder bulk parcel of charas Ext.P-2 stood recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused vis-a-vis the production of Ext.P-2 in Court. 16. The learned Additional Advocate General has contended with vigour that it was grossly inappropriate for the learned trial Court, to proceed to dispel the veracity of seizure memos comprised in Ext.PW-13/F merely on anvil of independent witnesses thereto, resiling from their respective previous statements recorded in writing. 17. 16. The learned Additional Advocate General has contended with vigour that it was grossly inappropriate for the learned trial Court, to proceed to dispel the veracity of seizure memos comprised in Ext.PW-13/F merely on anvil of independent witnesses thereto, resiling from their respective previous statements recorded in writing. 17. Nowat, the effect of independent witnesses, to recovery memo Ext.PW-13/F reneging from their respective previous statements recorded in writing, is to stand construed alongwith the factum of theirs in their respective cross-examinations, to which they stood subjected to by the learned Public Prosecutor “on” theirs standing declared hostile, hence admitting the factum of their signatures occurring thereon. Consequently, when they admit the occurrence of their signatures on the relevant memos, thereupon the mandate of Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act whereupon they “on” admitting the occurrence of their signatures thereon, hence stood statutorily estopped to renege from the recitals borne thereon, thereupon the effect of theirs orally deposing in variance or in detraction of the recitals which occur therein, gets statutorily belittled rather when they naturally emphatically hence statutorily prove the recitals comprised in the apposite memo, theirs orally reneging from the recitals borne thereon “holds no evidentiary clout” nor it is legally apt to outweigh the creditworthiness of the testimonies of the official witnesses qua the recovery of contraband under recovery memo Ext.PW-13/F standing effectuated from the conscious and exclusive possession of the co-accused. Contrarily the uncontroverted factum of their authentic signatures occurring in the relevant exhibits, concomitantly renders the apposite recitals borne thereon to hold grave probative worth. The ensuing sequel thereof, is that with the statutory estoppel constituted in Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, barring independent witnesses to orally resile from the contents of Ext.PW-13/F, especially when they admit that the apposite signatures occurring thereon belong to them, renders un-worthwhile besides insignificant the factum qua theirs orally deposing in variance of its recorded recitals, thereupon per se an inference stands enhanced qua dehors theirs reneging from their previous statements recorded in writing, a deductions standing capitalized qua thereupon theirs proving the genesis of the prosecution case also countervails the reason assigned by the learned Special Judge for its thereupon falsifying the recitals occurring in Ext.PW-13/F. 18. Be that as it may, the vigour of the aforesaid conclusion would stand benumbed only when evidence exists on record with respect to the independent witnesses concerned standing pressurized or coerced by the Investigating Officer concerned “to” emboss their signatures upon seizure memo Ext.PW-13/F. However, the independent witnesses concerned, though in their testification's make an attempt to communicate that their signatures thereon were obtained despite contents thereof being not readover to them yet the aforesaid communication “is bereft of any vigour” especially when they “do not” make any unveilings in their respective testification's that in the Investigating Officer concerned purportedly omitting to read over to them the contents of the aforesaid exhibits “besides” hence theirs obviously without understanding their contents theirs appending their signatures thereon, embossings thereon by them of their respective signatures, “hence spurring” from any compulsion or duress standing exerted upon them by the Investigating Officer “importantly” also when in respect thereof they omitted to record a complaint with the Officers superior to the Investigating Officer concerned. Consequently, the effect of the aforesaid communications occurring in the testification's of the independent witnesses does not belittle the hereinabove drawn inference anvilled upon attraction “upon” the admitted factum of their authentic signatures occurring on Ext.PW-13/F and on Ext.PW-13/B “the” mandate of Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, thereupon dehors theirs making the aforesaid frail attempts for belying the recitals borne in Ext.PW-13/F, theirs rather hence statutorily proving all the recitals occurring therein. 19. 19. The reason assigned by the learned trial Court with respect to both the accused deserving findings of acquittal being returned upon them, reason whereof stood anvilled upon non production of the original of seal in Court by the Investigating Officer concerned or by the Police Officer concerned, is also extremely fragile, especially when in verdicts pronounced by this Court, in respect of the effect of non production of the original seal “in Court” by the witness concerned or by the Investigating Officer or by the person concerned to whom it stood handed over it, it stands propounded therein that only upon evident serious prejudice standing perpetuated upon the accused on account of want of production of original seal in Court either by the Investigating Officer concerned or by the official concerned whereto-whom the original of seal stood handed over, would thereupon entail the consequence of hence the investigations being vitiated “also” especially when its production in Court is not mandatory nor preemptory. Consequently with the verdicts pronounced by this Court mandating that the production of original seal in Court, is merely directory “unless” grave prejudice on account of non production of original seal in Court stands unearthed by potent evidence. Consequently with the verdicts pronounced by this Court mandating that the production of original seal in Court, is merely directory “unless” grave prejudice on account of non production of original seal in Court stands unearthed by potent evidence. However, when it remains undemonstrated by cogent evidence that for want of non production of original seal in Court “any” grave prejudice has evidently ensued vis-a-vis the accused besides when the salutary purpose for the original seal standing produced in Court “rests upon” its facilitating apt gaugings therefrom qua occurrence of intra se compatibility inter se English alphabets of all seal impressions borne in the original seal vis-a-vis the English alphabets of all seals embossed on the bulk of parcel besides on all relevant exhibits, “nowat significantly” when the aforesaid relevant intra se compatibilities inter se Ext.P-1 vis-a-vis all the aforesaid exhibits “is” evidently existing hereat also with the learned defence counsel omitting to at the time of production of Ext.P-2 in Court make any relevant unearthings with respect to non occurrence of any intra se compatibility inter se all the English alphabets “marks” borne on the original seal with user whereof “seal impressions” stood embossed on the relevant NCB form besides stood respectively embossed on all relevant exhibits vis-a-vis all seal impressions borne in bulk parcel comprised in Ext.P-2, obviously, therefrom it is befitting to conclude that hence with the defence acquiescing to occurrence of all the relevant intra se compatibilities inter se the relevant descriptions of all seal impressions “in” the original seal vis-a-vis all descriptions in compatibility thereof displayed in all exhibits and on Ext.P-2, that hence thereupon on account of non production of original seal in Court “no” serious damage ensues vis-a-vis the accused. Consequently, on account of non production of original seal in Court the prosecution case does not suffer from any taint of vitiation. Consequently, on account of non production of original seal in Court the prosecution case does not suffer from any taint of vitiation. Importantly, the impressions of English alphabets borne on original seal stood embossed on sample parcels and also on piece of cloths, piece of cloths whereof stood produced before the learned trial Court also stood produced before this Court wherefrom it is apparent that a graphic intra se similarity exist inter se seal impressions borne thereon vis-avis seal impressions borne on all relevant exhibits, corollary whereof “is” especially with the learned defence counsel on appearing before the learned trial Court “not despite” the production of the aforesaid piece of cloths whereon seal impressions were embossed with user thereon of original seal “before the learned trial Court” making any concert while holding the Investigating Officer to cross-examination that the sample seal impressions “from the original of seal” embossed thereon, standing not embossed with user thereon of the original seal, begets an inference that the defence acquiesces to the factum that the sample seal impressions occurring on a piece of cloth, standing embossed thereon with user thereon of original of seal. In aftermath, non production of original of seal in Court by the concerned, is rendered insignificant. 20. It appears that the learned trial Court while pronouncing the impugned judgment “had” relied upon a decision recorded by this Court in 2015 (1) Criminal Court Cases 598 (HP) (DB) wherein it stands propounded that where the Investigating Officer concerned is also the complainant, thereupon for erasing any impression that he has either misconducted or slanted the holding of investigations it is hence thereupon inapt for him to hold investigations also investigations, if any, held by him hence being construable to be vitiated, “for its hence”, evidently with the Investigating Officer hereat being also the complainant, returning findings of acquittal upon the accused. It appears that this Court while pronouncing a judgment reported in 2015 (1) Criminal Court Cases 598 (HP) (DB) had relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Bhagwan Singh’s case AIR 1976 SC 985 . Apparently the investigations’ in the instant case stood conducted by the Investigating Officer who also dons the role of a complainant, consequently, the learned trial Court had relied upon a judgment titled State of H.P. vs. Atul Sharma, Latest HLJ 2015 (HP) 331. Apparently the investigations’ in the instant case stood conducted by the Investigating Officer who also dons the role of a complainant, consequently, the learned trial Court had relied upon a judgment titled State of H.P. vs. Atul Sharma, Latest HLJ 2015 (HP) 331. In making reliance thereupon the learned trial Court has obviously irrevered judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court pronounced subsequent thereto, judgments whereof stands titled as Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220 , rendering hence reliance by it upon the earlier therewith judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court, to hence attract the ill rigor of the doctrine of “per incuriam.” Conspicuously, in Bhagwan Singh’s case, the reason assigned for propagating the view that the complainant cannot proceed to investigate the case “spurs” from the factum of his evidently therein being the victim of the offence, offence whereof stood comprised in the accused making an offer of bribe to him, hence his per se thereupon slanting the course of investigations given his prima facie hence interestedness. Even though subsequently on it being noticed that he is not authorized to hold investigations, thereupon reinvestigations stood conducted by an authorized officer “yet” the subsequent reinvestigations also did not inspire the confidence of the Court “especially” when the only witnesses to the relevant re-investigations held even by an authorized officer was/were the complainant besides the constables accompanying him, wherefrom the Hon’ble Apex Court drew a conclusion that when investigations conducted by an unauthorized officer when hence stood relied upon by the reinvestigating officer, it, would ultimately reflect upon the credibility of the prosecution case. The factum that investigations held by the informant/complainant would beget unearthings of incriminating material against the accused concerned “by” an interested informant/police, given his being “the victim”, thereupon for the relevant investigation not acquiring any taint of slantedness, the informant police officer stood concluded by the Hon’ble Apex court to hence stand barred to hold investigations “yet” in subsequent verdicts rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vinod Kumar case “it” has been emphatically “observed that” there is no broad strait jacket formula delineated in its earlier judgment rendered in Bhagwan Singh’s case “with respect to” the circumstances whereupon it being omnibusly impermissible for a Police Officer while his also holding the mantle “of” a complainant “to” hence hold investigations in respect of the relevant offences in respect whereof he lodges a complaint nor also no inflexible principle standing enshrined therein that any investigations conducted/carried by an informant Police Officer being omnibusly construable to be tainted besides vitiated. However, the applicable ratio decidendi of the aforesaid judgment stands encapsulated therein “in the” hereinafter extracted paragraph:- “If at all, such investigation could only be assailed on the ground of bias or real likelihood of bias on the part of the investigating officer, the question of bias would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and it is not proper to lay down a broad and unqualified proposition in the manner in which it has been done by the High Court.” 21. A reading of the aforesaid “ratio decidendi” encapsulated therein hence obviously enjoined in compliance therewith, adduction of cogent evidence with respect “to the Investigating Officer” while being evidently also the informant, thereupon hence his investigations being vitiated, “evidently” holding a bias or his evidently holding a real likelihood of bias vis-a-vis the accused, evidence whereof stood comprised in apposite suggestions being put to the Investigating Officer concerned who hereat is also the complainant, personificatory of the factum of existence of evident inimicality inter se him vis-a-vis the accused, evidence whereof alone would enable erection or an inference of his holding a bias or a real likelihood of bias vis-a-vis the accused, thereupon also his investigations would gather an aura of skepticism. 22. 22. However, a closest reading of the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer “does not” make any bespeakings therein in respect of the learned defence counsel putting any apposite suggestions to him personificatory of his holding any animosity vis-a-vis the accused, therefrom, it cannot be inferred that the investigating officer hence held any biases against the accused. In sequel the applicable hereat “ratio decidendi” mandated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its verdict titled Vinod Kumar (supra) remains un-satiated, thereupon it was not apt for the learned trial Court to rely upon the earlier therewith view pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhagwan Singh’s case “especially” when the latter verdict stood distinguished in a subsequent verdict (supra). Significantly, the marked distinctivity hereat vis-a-vis the factual matrix prevailing in Bhagwan Singh’s case (supra) “stands comprised” in the Investigating Officer thereat while being evidently the complainant/informant “being also” the victim of the offence or also was the aggrieved “whereas hereat” the complainant, though is also the Investigating Officer yet unlike the aforesaid factual scenario available in Bhagwan Singh’s case (supra) “he” is not the aggrieved, “thereupon” also the legal principle enshrined in Bhagwan Singh’s case (supra), is un-attractable hereat. 23. The learned counsel for co-accused Hoshiar Singh submits, that with the time of preparation of the memos Ext.PW-13/B and of Ext.PW-13/F making a display therein with respect to theirs being prepared at contra distinct times hence the memos prepared with respect to co-accused Hoshiar Singh being construable to not stand prepared at the site of occurrence. Also he contends that hence no reliance being imputable upon the seizure memo Ext.PW-13/F whereunder recovery of charas stood effectuated from the conscious and exclusive possession of the aforesaid accused. However, the aforesaid submission does not hold any vigour, as the mere distinctivity in timing of preparation of the aforesaid memos, would hold vigour only when recovery of the relevant item of contraband stood effectuated from one of the accused. Contrarily when hereat recovery of parcels comprised in Ext.P-1 and Ext.P-2 stood respectively effectuated from the purported conscious and exclusive possession “of each” of the accused “preceding wherewith” separate consent memos in respect of each of the accused stood prepared. Contrarily when hereat recovery of parcels comprised in Ext.P-1 and Ext.P-2 stood respectively effectuated from the purported conscious and exclusive possession “of each” of the accused “preceding wherewith” separate consent memos in respect of each of the accused stood prepared. Consequently, with time being consumed in the preparation of one of the consent memos also with time being consumed for a personal search of one of the accused, in pursuance thereof “being hence carried”, thereupon with the other consent memo being reflected to be prepared at a time contra distinct vis-a-vis the earlier therewith prepared consent memo Ext.PW-13/A, hence does not render the prosecution case to falter. Preponderantly also when the consent memo Ext.PW-13/B though is recited to be prepared on 18.3.2013 yet when the distinctivity in the timing of its preparation vis-a-vis the earlier therewith prepared consent memo “is minimal” renders the preparation of the subsequently timed consent memo borne in Ext.PW-13/B “to be” not occurring in gross improximity with the preparation earlier therewith consent memo Ext.PW-13/B, whereupon the contra distinctivity in timing of preparation of both consent memos “cannot” give any capitalization to any inference that hence recovery of charas from the exclusive and conscious possession of the co-accused Hoshiyar Singh, being vitiated. 24. The learned Additional Advocate General contends that when the both accused stand charged for theirs committing offences punishable under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act also when their exists evidence with respect to theirs travelling together in a bus, thereupon this Court while returning findings of conviction upon Hoshiar Singh also is enjoined to return findings of conviction upon Shanto Devi. Mowever, the mere factum of theirs travelling together in a bus would not per se beget any conclusion that each held knowledge with respect to theirs holding separate parcels of charas. Mowever, the mere factum of theirs travelling together in a bus would not per se beget any conclusion that each held knowledge with respect to theirs holding separate parcels of charas. However, though evidence stands adduced in respect to theirs travelling together whereas with evidence being amiss with respect to theirs holding knowledge with respect to each/other purportedly “in” their conscious and exclusive possession purportedly holding “contraband” contraband whereof, stood separately recovered from them under separate memos, hence constrains this Court to not draw any inference that with both hence merely travelling together they also held any inter se conspiracy in the act of the other purportedly holding contraband, predominantly also when there also exists no evidence of theirs holding any intimacy nor evidence exists in respect of theirs being related to each other, thereupon the fact of theirs intra se conspiring “to hold” contraband in their respective conscious and exclusive possession, is belied. 25. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned Special Judge, Chamba, “has not” appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner in respect of charge framed against co-accused Hoshiar Singh apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned Special Judge in respect of the aforesaid co-accused suffers from a gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record. In sequel thereto, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court is modified to the extent that accused Hoshiar Singh is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. However, accused Shanto Devi is acquitted of the offences charged. Hoshiar Singh be produced before this Court on 25.07.2017 for his being heard on quantum of sentence. The Registry is forthwith directed to forthwith circulate a copy of the judgment to (a) all Superintendent of Police, (b) all the subordinate Courts (c) all public prosecutors.