JUDGMENT : This Criminal Acquittal Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 27.06.2013 passed by the trial court, by which the respondent has been acquitted of offences under sections 8/15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The prosecution story in a nutshell is that on 21.08.2009 information was received from the reliable sources that the respondent, who is a resident of Bihar was transporting Poppy Straw in his vehicle bearing registration No. PB10D-9772 (Truck) from Srinagar to Punjab for sale. Thereupon, First Information Report No. 64/2009 for offences under sections 8/15 of the Act was registered at Police Station, Batote. The vehicle was subjected to checking at Bagu Nallah and after obtaining option of search from the respondents, 130 Kg. of poppy straw was found being transported by the respondent. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was presented in the Court against the respondent for the offences as aforesaid. The trial court vide impugned judgment has acquitted the respondent of the aforesaid offences. 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its correct perspective, which has resulted in erroneous findings and consequent judgment. It is further submitted that there is enough material on record to connect the respondent with the alleged offence. 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Statements of PW-2 Abdul Qayoom and PW 3- Rayaz Ahmed cannot be accepted in evidence as the respondent has not been afforded opportunity of cross-examination of the aforesaid witnesses. PW 5-Mohd Saleem has stated that the vehicle had been taken to the office of the Executive Magistrate at 5.00 p.m. whereas the Investigating Officer has stated that the vehicle had been taken to that office at 5.00 a.m. PW 6-Jasbir Singh has stated that the bags had been weighed on his shop by the Police officials, whereas the prosecution case is that the same was weighed in front of the office of the PW-7, Girdhari Lal, who has been cited as a witness to the seizure, however, PW-Girdhari lal has denied that anything was seized in his presence. He even denied his statement recorded under section 164-A Cr.P.C. PW 8-Abdul Rashid Rather, Executive Magistrate has not stated anything that the poppy Straw was recovered and seized in his presence as claimed by the prosecution. PW 9- Rohit Koul, Forensic expert, has stated that he had tested the sample weighing 990 grams having been forwarded by the Dy. S.P. Ramban with seal impression forwarded by Executive Magistrate 1st Class Batote. The sample was found to belong to poppy plant ‘Papaver Somniferum’ and Morphine’ was detected in it. PW 10-Inspector Manpreet Singh, Investigating Officer in his evidence has candidly deposited that no information had been transmitted as required under section 42(1) of the Act. 5. The trial court has recorded the findings, which are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence available on record. It is well settled in law that this Court while hearing an acquittal appeal can re-appreciate the evidence, however, it should not interfere with the order of acquittal if the view taken by the trial court is also a reasonable view of the evidence on record and the findings recorded by the trial court are not manifestly erroneous, contrary to the evidence on record or perverse (see Ram Swaroop and others vs. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 13 SCC 134, Vijay Kumar v. State by Inspector General, (2009) 12 SCC 629 and Upendra Pradhan vs. State of Orissa, ( 2015 11 SCC 124 ). 6. From perusal of the judgment of the trial court, we find that the findings recorded by the trial court can neither be termed as perverse, contrary to the evidence or erroneous, therefore, no case for interference in this acquittal appeal is made out. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.