JUDGMENT : VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. Present appeal has been preferred by appellant against the conviction imposed upon him vide impugned judgment, dated 2nd July, 2016, passed by learned Special Judge (I), Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Court') in Sessions Trial No. 28S/ 7 of 2015, arising out of FIR No. 35 of 2015, registered under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act') resulting into sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. one lac and in case of default in payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 17th May, 2015 at 2.30 a.m., under the instructions recorded in GD Entry No. 4 (A) (Ex. PW4/ A) by SHO Inspector Gopal Singh Verma, police party headed by PW11 ASI Het Ram consisting of PW6 HC Suresh Kumar, PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar and PW8 HC Harish Kumar Garg left the Police Station for patrolling in Government vehicle No. HP07 A – 0685, being driven by HHG Sanjog Kumar. During patrolling, when the police party was moving from Navbahar side to Ramchandra Chowk and had reached near Ramchandra Chowk, it noticed a person coming on foot, having a carry bag in his hand, becoming perplexed on seeing the police vehicle and running after turning back, causing the police party to suspect the said person of being in possession of stolen articles whereupon he was asked to stop, but, when he did not stop, he was chased and overpowered. On inquiry, he disclosed his name, age and address. On checking his carry bag, another carry bag, containing sticks of black substance, was found therein. On the basis of experience, the said substance was identified as charas and on weighing the same with the help of electronic weighing machine available with the police party in its kit bag, the same was found to be weighing 2 kilograms 900 grams. The said charas was put in a cloth parcel and was sealed with six seals of seal impression 'M'. Seizure memo Ex. PW6/ B, prepared on the spot, was witnessed by PW6 HC Suresh Kumar and PW8 Harish Kumar. Form NCBI (Ex. PW10/ F) was filledin in triplicate and facsimiles of seal 'M' were taken thereon. The said charas was put in a cloth parcel and was sealed with six seals of seal impression 'M'. Seizure memo Ex. PW6/ B, prepared on the spot, was witnessed by PW6 HC Suresh Kumar and PW8 Harish Kumar. Form NCBI (Ex. PW10/ F) was filledin in triplicate and facsimiles of seal 'M' were taken thereon. Sample seal Ex. PW6/ A of seal 'M' was also taken on the spot on a piece of cloth, which was signed by the appellant and witnessed by PW6 HC Suresh Kumar and PW8 Harish Garg. 3. Rukka Ex. PW10/ A, prepared by PW11 ASI Het Ram at 4.45 a.m., was sent to the Police Station through PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar, who handed over the same to PW10 Inspector Gopal Singh Verma, who, in turn, on the basis of it, at 5.15 a.m., registered FIR No. 35 of 2015 (Ex. PW10/ B) and after making endorsement (Ex. PW10/ C) to that effect on the rukka, handed over the case file to PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar, who delivered it to PW11 ASI Het Ram on the spot. PW11 ASI Het Ram recorded the statements of spot witnesses PW6 HC Suresh Kumar, PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar and PW8 HC Harish Kumar, prepared the site plan Ex. PW11/ A, interrogated and arrested the appellant vide memo Ex. PW11/ B, intimation whereof was given to Sandeep Thakur, brother of the appellant. 4. As per prosecution case, police party reached back in the Police Station at 7.40 a.m. and PW11 ASI Het Ram handed over the sealed parcel to PW10 SHO Inspector Gopal Verma, who resealed the same with four seals of seal impression 'X' after putting the said parcel in another cloth parcel and after filling in the remaining columns of NCB Form (Ex. PW10/F), to be filledin by him and imprinting facsimile of seal 'X' thereon, deposited the case property in the malkhana at 8.05 a.m. by handing over it to MHC PW5 Subhash. Certificate of resealing (Ex PW10/ E) was also issued by him. 5. Thereafter, on 18th May, 2015, ASI Het Ram, under the instructions of PW10 SHO Inspector Gopal Verma, had handed over the investigation to another Investigating Officer PW12 LHC Seema for further investigation. She sent a special report Ex. Certificate of resealing (Ex PW10/ E) was also issued by him. 5. Thereafter, on 18th May, 2015, ASI Het Ram, under the instructions of PW10 SHO Inspector Gopal Verma, had handed over the investigation to another Investigating Officer PW12 LHC Seema for further investigation. She sent a special report Ex. PW3/ B, under Section 57 of NDPS Act, to Deputy Superintendent of Police (City), Shimla through PW2 Constable Naresh Kumar, who handed over the same to PW3 HC Anand Negi, Reader of Deputy Superintendent of Police, whereupon PW3 HC Anand Negi made an endorsement of receipt thereof on its copy, which was handed over by PW2 Constable Naresh Kumar to PW12 LHC Seema. She also recorded statements of PW1 Constable Kanwar Singh, PW3 HC Anand Negi, PW4 Constable Naresh, PW5 HC Subhash, PW9 Constable Kushal and Constable Bhushan (not examined). 6. On 18th May, 2015, PW5 HC Subhash, vide RC No. 52 of 2015 (Ex. PW5/ B), handed over the parcel along with documents to PW1 Constable Kanwar Singh to deposit the same in State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga (hereinafter referred to as 'SFSL') for chemical analysis. The said case property, along with copy of FIR, seizure memo, NCB Form in triplicate and sample seals of 'M' and 'X', was handed over in SFSL Junga by PW1 Constable Kanwar Singh and on return, he deposited the receipt thereof with PW5 HC Subhash. On 10th June, 2015, PW9 Kushal brought the case property and chemical examination report (Ex. PW9/ A) from SFSL Junga to the Police Station and deposited the same with PW5 HC Subhash in the Police Station. After receiving the chemical examination report from SFSL Junga (Ex. PW9/ A), obtaining abstract of malkhana register (Ex. PW5/ A), copy of RC (Ex. PW5/ B) and abstract of register from the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Ex. PW3/ A), LHC Seema (PW12) handed over the case file to PW10 SHO Inspector Gopal Verma, whereafter challan was prepared and presented in the Court. 7. On finding prima facie complicity of the appellant in commission of offence, charge under Section 20 of NDPS Act was framed against him. During trial, prosecution has examined twelve witnesses to establish its case. After recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), appellant has chosen not to lead any evidence in his defence. During trial, prosecution has examined twelve witnesses to establish its case. After recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), appellant has chosen not to lead any evidence in his defence. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant, as detailed supra. Hence, the present appeal. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Advocate General for the State and have gone through the record carefully. 9. Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that there is tampering in Malkhana entries as evident from the abstract of malkhana register (Ex. PW5/ A); overwriting in column No. 10 of NCB Form (Ex. PW10/ F); and there are material contradictions in the statements of spot witnesses with respect to manner of search and seizure of appellant, his carry bag and contraband allegedly recovered, timings of sending the rukka from the spot, witnesses in whose presence search was conducted, the spot where the appellant was apprehended and the persons who had signed the seizure memo (Ex. PW6/B) as witnesses. Contradictions have also been pleaded to be there with regard to timing of reaching the spot and coming back to the Police Station by the police party and also in the statements of PW2 Constable Naresh Kumar and PW3 HC Anand Negi with regard to manner in which the special report was produced before Deputy Superintendent of Police (City), Shimla. 10. It has further been argued on behalf of the appellant that in the statements of PW6 HC Suresh Kumar, PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar and PW8 HC Harish Kumar recorded under Section 161 CPC, the date of the incident mentioned on the top is 19.03.2015' and as per deposition of PW5 HC Subhash in Court, date of incident is 7.5.2015' whereas as per prosecution story, the date of incident is 17.05.2015'. Further that as per PW1 Constable Kanwar Singh and PW9 Constable Kushal, their statements were recorded on the same day when they respectively deposited and brought back the case property in/from SFSL Junga on 18th May, 2015 and 10th June, 2015, whereas as per their statement(s) (Ex. PW12/ A) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it transpires that their statements were recorded by PW12 LHC Seema on 10th July, 2015, but not on 18th May, 2015 and 10th June, 2015. PW12/ A) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it transpires that their statements were recorded by PW12 LHC Seema on 10th July, 2015, but not on 18th May, 2015 and 10th June, 2015. It is canvassed that material contradictions and discrepancies in statements of persecution witnesses, going to the root of the case, are warranting for setting aside conviction. 11. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant that in arrest memo (Ex. PW11/ B), the column of time of arrest as well as place of arrest is blank. He has also contended that though in the documents as well as per statements of PW6 HC Suresh Kumar, PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar and PW8 HC Harish Kumar, driver HHG Sanjog was also member of the patrolling party, but, PW11 ASI Chet Ram has not stated that said Sanjog was also with them on duty at that time. It is also submitted that as per prosecution story, PW1 Constable Kanwar Singh had taken the parcel of contraband resealed with seal impression 'X', but, in his statement, he has mentioned that he had taken the sealed parcel sealed with seal impressions 'M' and 'X', which creates doubt about the fair investigation as he could not have noticed seal impression 'M' put on the internal parcel which was kept in another cloth parcel at the time of resealing duly sealed with seal impression 'X'. 12. It is also case of the appellant that police party remained on the spot till 7.15 a.m. and despite the fact that there are residential houses, VIP area, Satsang Bhavan of Radhaswami near the spot where the appellant has been claimed to have been apprehended and also for the fact, as admitted by PW11 ASI Het Ram, that number of people uses the said road for morning walk, any independent witness has neither been associated nor any effort to associate the independent witness has been made by the Investigating Officer. Further that, in the site plan, labour tents have been shown near the alleged place of apprehension of the appellant, but, there is nothing on the record to establish that the police party had ever made any effort to find out availability of any independent witness in those labour tents. 13. Further that, in the site plan, labour tents have been shown near the alleged place of apprehension of the appellant, but, there is nothing on the record to establish that the police party had ever made any effort to find out availability of any independent witness in those labour tents. 13. Lastly, it is contended that at the time of considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed upon the appellant, the trial Court has mentioned the date and time of the incident as 18.11.2014' at about 5.30' p.m. against 17.05.2015' and 3.30 a.m.', the alleged date and time of incident, which again reflects that there is total non-application of mind on the part of the trial Court. 14. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the reasons recorded by the trial Court for convicting and sentencing the appellant with further submission that in the entire judgment, correct date and time with regard to the incident and recovery of contraband from the appellant has been mentioned and mention of wrong date at one place, that too, at the time of adjudicating the quantum of sentence, is nothing, but inadvertent typographical mistake, which may not have been corrected due to oversight. Similarly, mention of date of incident as 19.03.2005, while recording statements on the spot, is also inconsequential. He has also contended that keeping in view the odd hours during which the appellant was apprehended, it was not possible to associate the witnesses. According to him, the overwriting, tampering, wrong mentioning of date and contradictions pointed out by the appellant are not only minor in nature, but, are natural one, which may occur in the normal course of business and these discrepancies and contradictions are not affecting the genesis of the prosecution case, rather, keeping in view other overwhelming, convincing and reliable evidence on record, these are liable to be ignored. 15. Plea of appellant, that PW1 Constable Kanwar Singh could not have noticed seal 'M' used for sealing the contraband at the time of recovery as the said parcel was put in another cloth parcel which was resealed with seal having seal impression 'X', is not tenable for the reason that he was not only carrying the resealed parcel but also the sample seals having seal impressions 'M' and 'X', copy of FIR and seizure memo, docket and NCB Form in triplicate. facsimile of both sample seals was there on piece of cloths, including impression of seal 'M' put on the parcel at the time of seizure of contraband, and NCB Form in triplicate was also having the seal impressions as well as details of both the seals. Therefore, it was not impossible for this witness to notice and depose about seal ‘M’ used for sealing internal parcel at the time of seizure on spot. Sealing of parcels with seals ‘M’ and ‘X’ also find mention in RC (Ex.PW5/ B). Moreover, PW1 Constable Kanwar Singh, in his statement, has not stated that he himself had seen the sealing of the internal parcel with seal impression 'M', but, he has deposed that PW5 HC Subhash, vide RC No. 52/2015 (Ex. PW5/ B), handed over a sealed parcel, stated to have contained 2 kilograms and 900 grams of charas pertaining to FIR No. 35/15, sealed with seal impression 'M' and 'X', for being taken to SFSL Junga. The said deposition is not indicative of fact that this witness himself had noticed the seal ‘M’ in internal parcel. Hence this plea of appellant on this issue is rejected. 16. As per rukka (Ex. PW10/ A), it was prepared at 4.45 a.m. and sent to the Police Station through PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar, who, in his deposition, has corroborated the said timing, but, PW6 HC Suresh Kumar, in his cross-examination, has stated that PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar left the spot with rukka at 5.45 a.m. In our opinion, it is not a major discrepancy going to the roots of the case in normal circumstances, as the preparation of rukka at 4.45 a.m. and sending the same through PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar to the Police Station stands further corroborated by the registration of FIR (Ex. PW10/ B) at 5.15 a.m. by PW10 Inspector Gopal Verma. 17. PW10/ B) at 5.15 a.m. by PW10 Inspector Gopal Verma. 17. It is contended that there is contradiction with regard to timing of reaching of the police party on the spot and coming back in the Police Station as PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar has stated that they left the Police Station at about 2.30 p.m. whereas PW6 HC Suresh Kumar has stated that they reached at the spot at about 3.30 a.m., remained there till 7.15 a.m. and reached back in Police Station along with accused (appellant) at 7.40 a.m. In our opinion, there is no contradiction in the prosecution evidence on this count. According to GD Entry No. 4 (A) (Ex. PW4/ A), time of departure of police party is 2.30 a.m. and PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar and PW8 HC Harish Kumar have stated that they left the Police station at 2.30 and went to Kasumpti, Panthaghati, Vikasnagar, Chotta Shimla and Navbahar. PW6 HC Suresh Kumar, like PW8 HC Harish Kumar, has also stated that they remained on the spot till 7.15 a.m. Therefore, their arrival at Police Station at 7.40 a.m. is not contradictory in nature. So far as time of leaving the Police Station is concerned, in this regard PW6 HC Suresh Kamar is silent in examination in chief and no question in this regard has been put to him in cross-examination. He has deposed only about arrival on spot at 3.30 a.m. Thus, we find no contradiction in deposition of prosecution witnesses with regard to timing of reaching on the spot and coming back in the Police Station. 18. Plea of appellant that mention of wrong date and time of the incident as 18.11.2014 at 5.30 p.m., in the order passed at the time of imposing sentence by the trial Court, is reflection of non-application of mind by the said Court is not having much force as in the entire judgment, the date and time of the incident has been mentioned as claimed by the prosecution, i.e. 17.05.2015 at 3.30 a.m. Therefore, typographical mistake at one place in the entire judgment cannot be made basis for holding that there is non-application of mind by the trial Court. 19. Association of independent witnesses in search and seizure process is a rule and non-joining of independent witnesses is an exception permissible in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 19. Association of independent witnesses in search and seizure process is a rule and non-joining of independent witnesses is an exception permissible in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. However, prosecution case cannot be rejected only on the ground that no independent witness was associated, particularly, when the testimony of official witnesses is reliable, trustworthy and convincing and has withstood with more careful and cautious judicial scrutiny. 20. In present case, the timing of apprehension of appellant and recovery of contraband from him is between 3.30 a.m. to 4.45 a.m. as after completion of search and seizure, rukka was prepared and sent to Police Station at 4.45 a.m. Therefore, if the prosecution case is to be believed, during such odd hours the condition of associating independent witnesses cannot be trusted upon the prosecution. Though, in the site plan (Ex. PW11/ A), the Investigating Officer himself has mentioned the existence of tents of labour near the alleged place of apprehension of appellant, however, the prosecution evidence is completely silent with regard to the fact as to whether any labour was residing at that time in those tents or not and whether any effort was made by the Investigating Officer to associate any of them, if available at that time. But in case the timing and place of apprehension of appellant, as claimed by the prosecution, is to be believed, then failure in joining of independent witnesses, itself, may not be fatal to the prosecution. 21. However, even if we ignore the fact that there were labour tents near the spot of alleged apprehension of appellant and believe the prosecution case that on account of the location and timing of apprehension of appellant, there was no possibility of associating independent witnesses in search and seizure process as before waking up and coming out of the people for morning walk, the search and seizure process was over, then also, for the irreconcilable discrepancies and material contradictions, discussed hereinafter, the prosecution story becomes doubtful. 22. PW6 HC Suresh Kumar, PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar and PW8 HC Harish Kumar have corroborated the prosecution story presented in the challan that at the time of noticing the appellant, face of the vehicle was towards Ramchandra Chowk and they were coming from Navbahar Chowk side, i.e. as per site plan (Ex. 22. PW6 HC Suresh Kumar, PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar and PW8 HC Harish Kumar have corroborated the prosecution story presented in the challan that at the time of noticing the appellant, face of the vehicle was towards Ramchandra Chowk and they were coming from Navbahar Chowk side, i.e. as per site plan (Ex. PW11/ A), the vehicle was moving from point 'B' towards point 'D' and the appellant was noticed in front of the vehicle and had turned back and run towards the same side in which side the vehicle was moving. It has also come in the evidence of these witnesses that the appellant was chased near Satsang Bhavan at a distance of 15 to 50 meters. Meaning thereby, Satsang Bhavan was also towards the Ramchandra Chowk, in which side the vehicle was moving. It also indicates that from place of noticing the appellant, Satsang Bhavan and Ramchandra Chowk were towards one side and Ramchandra Chowk was beyond Satsang Bhavan and appellant was noticed at a spot before Satsang Bhavan. Thus, the place of apprehension was in the middle of Khachi Chowk (point 'B' in the site plan) and Satsang Bhavan. Satsang Bhavan has not been shown in the site plan. To the contrary, PW11 ASI Het Ram has stated that their vehicle was moving from Ramchandra Chowk towards Satsang Bhavan and point 'E', where the appellant was apprehended, was in the middle of Ramchandra Chowk and Satsang Bhavan. As per his version, when they reached near Ramchandra Chowk, they saw a person coming from the side of Radhaswami Satsang Bhavan. His deposition runs totally converse not only to the statements of PW6 HC Suresh Kumar, PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar and PW8 HC Harish Kumar, but, also to prosecution story stated in rukka, FIR, challan and site plan. If the statement of PW11 ASI Het Ram is to be believed, the face of vehicle should have been towards Khachi Chowk (point 'B') as in the site plan (Ex. PW11/ A) prepared himself by PW11 ASI Het Ram, Ramchandra Chowk is opposite to Khachi Chowk and as apparent from the statements of all the prosecution witnesses, Satsang Bhavan was after Khachi Chowk, but, before Ramchandra Chowk. In case vehicle is coming from Ramchandra Chowm towards Satsang Bhavan, then, its face must have been towards Khachi Chowk. PW11/ A) prepared himself by PW11 ASI Het Ram, Ramchandra Chowk is opposite to Khachi Chowk and as apparent from the statements of all the prosecution witnesses, Satsang Bhavan was after Khachi Chowk, but, before Ramchandra Chowk. In case vehicle is coming from Ramchandra Chowm towards Satsang Bhavan, then, its face must have been towards Khachi Chowk. Further, PW11 ASI Het Ram, though, stated that the appellant was apprehended at point 'E' between Ramchandra Chowk and Satsang Bhavan, but, in the site plan, he has not indicated the points of location of Ramchandra Chowk and Satsang Bhavan. Even if it is considered that Ramchandra Chowk was beyond point 'E', then also Satsang Bhavan must have been shown between point 'B' (Khachi Chowk) and point 'E' (place of apprehension) of the site plan. Again, as stated by PW11 ASI Het Ram, vehicle was moving from Ramchandra Chowk towards Satsang Bhavan, which discredits the prosecution story and the statements of PW6 HC Suresh Kumar, PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar and PW8 HC Harish Kumar and also the fact mentioned in the site plan (Ex. PW11/ A) that vehicle was moving from point 'B' towards point 'D'. Thus, the statements of the prosecution witnesses on this issue are irreconcilable, which render the veracity of these witnesses untrustworthy. 23. Further, according to the prosecution case, the appellant, after noticing the police, ran towards opposite side from which the vehicle was coming, but, they stopped the vehicle, got down and then ran behind him instead of chasing him in the vehicle and stopping the vehicle on or after chasing him, which is again unnatural story put forth by the prosecution. 24. PW5 HC Subhash, in his examination-in-chief, has deposed that the case property, after resealing, was deposited with him by PW10 Inspector Gopal Verma on 07.05.2015, however, as is apparent from other material available on record, the date of recovery of contraband from the appellant, as per prosecution case, is 17th May, 2015. In case, the date has been recorded by mistake, no effort has been made by the prosecution, by making a request for reexamination/ recalling of the said witness for further clarification. In case, the date has been recorded by mistake, no effort has been made by the prosecution, by making a request for reexamination/ recalling of the said witness for further clarification. Moreover, had it been only the single mistake in mentioning the date, it may not have been fatal for prosecution case, but, not only this, in NCB Form, there is overwriting and time of deposit of case property with MHC has been converted from 7.05 a.m. to 8.05 a.m. and no time and place of arrest of the appellant has been mentioned in the arrest memo Ex. PW11/ B, and also in the statements of PW6 HC Suresh Kumar, PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar and PW8 HC Harish Kumar recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., purported to have been recorded on spot on 17.05.2015, the date, at the top, has been mentioned as 19.03.2015' instead of 17.05.2015'. 25. Further, as per version of PW5 HC Subhash and PW9 Constable Kushal, the case property was brought from SFSL Junga on 10th June, 2015 and similarly, PW1 Constable Kanwar Singh had taken the contraband to SFSL Junga on 18th May, 2015. PW9 Constable Kushal, in his cross-examination, has further stated that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on the same day, but, the fact, as evident from statement of Constable Kushal recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex. PW12/ A), is that his statement was recorded after one month thereafter on 10th July, 2015. Perusal of document Ex. PW12/ A, i.e. statements of Constable Kushal and Constable Kanwar Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., indicates that these statements were recorded on 10th July, 2015. PW1 Constable Kanwar Singh had taken parcel to SFSL Junga on 18th May, 2015, but, his statement was recorded on 10th July, 2015, that too, after recording the statement of PW9 Constable Kushal, who had brought the case property back on 10th June, 2015. 26. The Investigating Officer PW11 ASI Het Ram has admitted that at the top of the statements of PW6 HC Suresh Kumar, PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar and PW8 HC Harish Kumar, recorded by him under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he has mentioned the date of recording the same as 19.03.15', which is wrong. As per prosecution the appellant was apprehended on 17.05.2015. The Investigating Officer PW11 ASI Het Ram has admitted that at the top of the statements of PW6 HC Suresh Kumar, PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar and PW8 HC Harish Kumar, recorded by him under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he has mentioned the date of recording the same as 19.03.15', which is wrong. As per prosecution the appellant was apprehended on 17.05.2015. In all the other relevant documents prepared before and after recording the statements of these witnesses on the spot, the date of incident has been mentioned as 17.05.15'. In three documents prepared on the same day and at the same time on the spot, there was no reason for PW11 ASI Het Ram suddenly to mention the date as 19.03.15', particularly, when the said statements had been purported to have been recorded on the spot. 27. PW6 HC Suresh Kumar, PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar and PW8 HC Harish Kumar, in their deposition, have categorically stated that their statements were recorded on the spot, i.e. on 17th May, 2015. It is not a case that their statements were recorded after two days of the incident probabilizing the mistake in writing the date as 19.03.15' instead of 19.05.15'. Here is a case where not only month, but, the date is also different than the date on which statements are claimed to have been recorded. As observed supra, the documents prepared before and after the alleged recording of the statements of these witnesses also bear the date as 17.05.15'. Any single mistake or discrepancy or omission to fillin the date and time may not have been fatal to the prosecution case in normal circumstances, but, the cumulative effect of all these mistakes creates suspicion about the trustworthiness of the prosecution story. It reflects that all these documents have not been prepared as are being claimed to have been prepared by the prosecution rendering the prosecution version under cloud. 28. PW11 ASI Het Ram (Investigating Officer) has stated that he recorded the statements of witnesses on spot and thereafter, accused was interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex. PW11/ B and intimation of his arrest was given to his brother Sandeep Thakur and at 7.40 a.m., case property was handed over to PW10 SHO Inspector Gopal Verma for resealing, which indicates that appellant was arrested on the spot before leaving for the Police Station. PW11/ B and intimation of his arrest was given to his brother Sandeep Thakur and at 7.40 a.m., case property was handed over to PW10 SHO Inspector Gopal Verma for resealing, which indicates that appellant was arrested on the spot before leaving for the Police Station. There is no memo of personal search placed on record, but, only memo of arrest (Ex. PW11/ B) has been placed on record. As admitted by the Investigating Officer (PW11), column of place and time of the arrest is blank in the said memo. It is noticeable that there were three places on this memo where time of arrest was to be mentioned, but, all the three places are blank. Not only this, there are two columns for signature of Investigating officer also and, though, date of arrest has been filledin in both the places, but, the Investigating Officer has signed only at one place. 29. According to PW6 HC Suresh Kumar, personal search of the appellant was conducted in the lock up whereas as per statements of PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar and PW8 HC Harish Kumar, accused was searched by PW11 ASI Het Ram after asking him on the spot that what was he doing there. On the contrary, PW11 ASI Het Ram (the Investigating Officer) has specifically denied the said fact in his cross-examination by stating that the personal search of appellant was not conducted by him. However, he further explained that jama talashi of the appellant was taken at the time of his arrest. There is no time of arrest mentioned in the arrest memo, however, as per deposition of PW11 ASI Het Ram in his examination-in-chief, the appellant was arrested after recording of statements of witnesses on spot, but, before reaching the Police Station. In case jama talashi of the appellant was taken at the time of arrest, then, there as no occasion to conduct his personal search in the lock up. Further, no memo of jama talashi has been placed on record. The stand of prosecution witnesses on this issue is contradictory and irreconcilable again creating doubt about their veracity. 30. According to PW6 HC Suresh Kumar, appellant was apprehended by PW11 ASI Het Ram whereas according to PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar and PW11 ASI Het Ram, appellant was apprehended by all the members of the police party collectively. The stand of prosecution witnesses on this issue is contradictory and irreconcilable again creating doubt about their veracity. 30. According to PW6 HC Suresh Kumar, appellant was apprehended by PW11 ASI Het Ram whereas according to PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar and PW11 ASI Het Ram, appellant was apprehended by all the members of the police party collectively. According to PW6, it was not inquired from the appellant that wherefrom he was coming, but, he was asked by PW11 ASI Het Ram that as to what was he doing there at that time, whereas, according to PW8 HC Harish Kumar, the Investigating Officer (PW11) had inquired from the appellant as to from where he was coming. Contrary to PW6 HC Suresh Kumar and PW8 HC Harish Kumar, PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar has deposed that appellant was not asked by any police official as to what was he doing there at that time. PW11 ASI Het Ram (Investigating Officer), in contradiction to PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar and PW8 HC Harish Kumar, has stated that appellant was asked as to what was he doing there and no one had asked him as to from where he was coming. 31. It is apparent from the extract of malkhana register (Ex. PW5/ A) that initially, there was entry of one cloth parcel along with sample of seals having seal impressions 'M' and 'X' and NCB Form in triplicate, however, there is tampering in this entry by making alteration with regard to entry of sample seals of 'M' and 'X' by cutting the said entry, giving impression that the said entry was deleted from the malkhana register. However, despite deletion in entry in Malkhana Register, there is mention in RC (Ex. PW5/ B) with regard to sending sample seals 'X' and 'M' to SFSL Junga and these sample seals are also included in the details given by SFSL Junga in its report (Ex. PW9/ A) against column No. 6 with regard to parcels/articles received there in SFSL. There is no explanation on the part of the prosecution with regard to the fact that in case samples of seals 'X' and 'M' were not deposited in the malkhana, then wherefrom these samples of seals were handed over to PW1 C. Kanwar Singh for sending to SFSL. 32. As per prosecution case, seizure memo (Ex. There is no explanation on the part of the prosecution with regard to the fact that in case samples of seals 'X' and 'M' were not deposited in the malkhana, then wherefrom these samples of seals were handed over to PW1 C. Kanwar Singh for sending to SFSL. 32. As per prosecution case, seizure memo (Ex. PW6/ B) was witnessed by PW6 HC Suresh Kumar and PW8 HC Harish Kumar. PW6 HC Suresh Kumar, in his deposition in Court has corroborated the said fact, but, on the contrary, PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar, in his examination-in-chief, has categorically stated that it was he (PW7) and PW8 HC Harish Kumar who had witnessed seizure memo Ex. PW6/ B and he is completely silent about signing of the said memo by PW6 HC Suresh Kumar. This fact has also been deposed by PW8 HC Harish Kumar in the same fashion. Similarly there is also contradiction with respect to searching of carry bag. According to PW6 HC Suresh Kumar, the carry bag was searched in his presence along with PW8 HC Harish Kumr whereas as per deposition of PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar and PW8 HC Harish Kumar, carry bag was searched in presence of PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar and PW8 HC Harish Kumar. These witnesses are ruling out presence of PW6 HC Suresh Kumar as a witness to the search of carry bag and preparation of seizure memo Ex. PW6/ B whereas the said seizure memo contains signature of PW6 HC Suresh Kumar as spot witness, but, does not contain signature of PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar. These contradictions are major contradictions creating doubt not only about the place and timing of the creation of seizure memo, but, also about contents contained therein, as PW6 HC Suresh Kumar, PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar and PW8 HC Harish Kumar are none else, but, the official police witnesses. 33. Noncompliance or irregularity in submission of special report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act is not fatal to the prosecution case unless prejudice, caused to the accused on account of such irregularity, is established. However, the said irregularity may form a part of chain with other material contradictions or discrepancies in prosecution evidence to disbelieve the prosecution case. 34. According to PW2 Constable Naresh Kumar, he had handed over the special report (Ex. However, the said irregularity may form a part of chain with other material contradictions or discrepancies in prosecution evidence to disbelieve the prosecution case. 34. According to PW2 Constable Naresh Kumar, he had handed over the special report (Ex. PW3/ B) to Deputy Superintendent of Police (City) Shri Balbir Singh personally, who had given the same to the Reader for keeping the same in record, who made entry regarding receipt of the special report in his record and handed over the copy of the special report to him (PW2). To the contrary, Reader of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, i.e. PW3 HC Anand Negi has stated that special report (Ex. PW3/ B) was received by him and after entering the same in diary register, he produced it before the Deputy Superintendent of Police (City), who made endorsement on the special report and also put his signatures thereon. This contradiction in itself may not be fatal, but, keeping in view the other major contradictions and discrepancies, it again precipitates the suspicion qua the fairness of the investigation. 35. Single omission on the part of PW11 ASI Het Ram (Investigating Office) to state the name of HHG Sanjog, who was driver of the official jeep, as one of the persons/officials constituting police party, may not be fatal or major contradiction, but, it definitely adds one more link in the chain of suspicion with respect to fairness of investigation. 36. As already discussed, each discrepancy, contradiction in the prosecution evidence and omission on the part of the Investigating Officer, if considered singly, may not be fatal to the prosecution case, but, cumulative effect of all these discrepancies, contradictions and omission definitely indicates that the prosecution case is not based on true facts and there is something which has been hidden from the Court and as such, it cannot be stated that the prosecution has been able to prove the recovery of contraband beyond reasonable doubt from the conscious possession of the appellant at a location and time as claimed, which renders the alleged recovery of contraband from the appellant under cloud. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that where there is slightest doubt shaking the prosecution story, benefit of doubt is to be extended to accused. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove its case by leading cogent, reliable, trustworthy and convincing evidence. 37. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that where there is slightest doubt shaking the prosecution story, benefit of doubt is to be extended to accused. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove its case by leading cogent, reliable, trustworthy and convincing evidence. 37. Learned Sessions Judge in his discussion, at one hand, has recorded that on careful scrutiny of testimonies of PW6 HC Suresh Kumar, PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar PW8 HC Harish Kumar and PW11 ASI Het Ram it cannot be said that their testimonies are free from blemish and not bearing treacherous remarks and on the other hand he has concluded that it has satisfactorily been proved that testimonies of PW6 HC Suresh Kumar, PW7 Constable Rajesh Kumar, PW8 HC Harish Kumar and PW11 ASI Het Ram are quite natural, consistent, cogent and convincing as none of these witnesses have any element of enmity or hostility towards the appellant-accused so as to depose falsely against him and thereafter he has concluded that he has found a ring of truth attached to testimonies of these witnesses. He has relied upon testimony of PW6 HC Suresh Kumar as a witness to seizure memo Ext.PW6/ B whereas, as discussed supra, PW7 and PW8 have not endorsed him as a witness in the said memo. He has recorded that PW6 HC Suresh Kumar and PW8 HC Harish Kumar have corroborated prosecution story whereas PW7 and PW8 have claimed them as the witnesses to the said seizure memo but not PW6 which is in contradiction to prosecution story. Finding of learned Sessions Judge that both of them have substantiated the version of prosecution and testified the recovery of contraband as claimed by prosecution is contrary to record. Finding that prosecution witnesses have corroborated the manner in which appellant was apprehended is also not sustainable for discussion of statements of prosecution witnesses in this regard hereinabove. Conclusion of learned Sessions Judge that prosecution case is also strengthened from the fact that appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has not denied the question related to fact of movement of police party but has feigned ignorance and also for admitting the fact of his arrest vide arrest memo (Ext.PW11/B), is also not sustainable as how could appellant admit or deny the fact beyond his knowledge and also that admission of arrest does not mean admission of arrest as claimed by prosecution. As discussed supra, there is no time of arrest on memo Ext.PW11/ A. It is a fact that appellant was arrested by Police but where, when and in what manner, it has not been proved on record beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, response of appellant to question in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not of any help to the prosecution. 38. No doubt, Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act provide presumption with respect to existence of culpable state of mind and commission of offence for possession of contraband on failure to account the same satisfactorily, but, the said presumption shall come in operation only after discharge of initial onus by prosecution for proving recovery of contraband from conscious possession of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In present case, prosecution has miserably failed to discharge its primary onus. 39. It is law of the land that stringent the punishment, stricter the degree of proof required, since higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused in such cases. (See Ritesh Chakarvarti versus State of M.P., (2006) 12 SCC 321 ; and Paramjeet Singh alias Pamma versus State of Uttarakhand, (2010) 10 SCC 439 ) As discussed hereinabove, in present case, prosecution has failed to prove its case by leading trustworthy, credible, reliable and convincing evidence. 40. Having glance of the above discussion, it can be safely said that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in right perspective and appears to have scrutinize the evidence in cursory manner after being swayed by the quantity of contraband alleged to have been recovered from the appellant. Therefore, the judgment passed by the trial Court is set aside and the appellant is acquitted for the commission of offence with which he was charged. Appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Registry to prepare the release warrant immediately. 41. Case property be dealt with in accordance with law. 42. Record be sent back.