JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant appeal having been filed by the appellant-accused (herein after referred to as “the accused”), is directed against the judgment dated 24.1.2017, passed by the learned Special Judge-II, Chamba, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 533/2014, titled State of H.P. Versus Munish Kumar, whereby court below while holding the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act’), convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. In nutshell, story of the prosecution, as emerges from the record, is that on 2.10.2014, Inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW-11), HC Bhagwan Chand, Constable Dharmender (PW-3), Constable Anil Kumar (PW-2) and HC Bhajan Singh (PW-1) along with Government vehicle driven by HHG Vijay Kumar, IO kit and search light were present at Goli Zero Point in connection with Nakkabandi. On the intervening night of 02.10.2014 and 3.10.2014, at around 4.45 AM, one person came from the side of Chohda Dam, who on seeing the police party, stopped for a while and thereafter turned back and tried to flee from the spot and on this, Inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW-11) raised the suspicion and asked him to stop but he did not stop. Inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW-11) alongwith other police officials nabbed the accused at a distance of about 20 meters. Thereafter, Inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW-11) asked about his credentials, on which he disclosed his name to be Munish Kumar, resident of Mai Ka Bag, Tehsil and District Chamba, HP. That person was carrying a blue coloured carry bag on his right hand. On the basis of suspicion and his conduct the carry bag was searched. On opening the carry bag, one red coloured polythene bag came out. On checking the red coloured polythene bag, a black coloured hard substance in the shape of rounds sticks came out. Thereafter, Inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW-11) made a telephonic call to MHC P.S. Dalhousie to send some person with drug detection kit, digital camera and videography camera, thereafter, the police party waited for some time for the arrival of drug detection kit, digital camera and videogrphy camera. Thereafter, Inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW-11) made a telephonic call to MHC P.S. Dalhousie to send some person with drug detection kit, digital camera and videography camera, thereafter, the police party waited for some time for the arrival of drug detection kit, digital camera and videogrphy camera. Around 5.45 AM, Constable Pawan (PW-10) reached at the spot along with the above said articles on the motor cycle. Thereafter, the black coloured hard substance carried by that person in his carry bag was checked with the help of drug detection kit. On checking, it was found to be charas/cannabis. Thereafter, Inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW-11) raised a suspicion that person/accused might be carrying some suspicious article or contraband in his person, as such, he told the accused that he wanted to take his personal search. That person was apprised about his legal right to be searched in the presence of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. He gave his consent that he wanted to give his search before the police party present at the spot. To that effect consent memo Ex.PW- 1/A was prepared. On consent memo. Ex. PW-1/A, accused gave his written consent to be searched before the police party present at the spot. Before taking the search of the accused, he was apprised that he can also take the search of the police officials. To that effect search memo Ex.PW-1/B was prepared. The accused took the search of the police party present at the spot, except Pawan Kumar (PW-10) and HHG Vijay Kumar. As per story of the prosecution, personal search of the accused was conducted, but nothing incriminating was found on his personal search. Thereafter, Inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW-11) took the blue coloured scale from his I.0. kit and weighed the contraband and the same was found to be 410 grams charas, whereafter, the recovered contraband was put in the red coloured polythene bag and carry bag in the same manner and carry bag was sealed in the white piece of cloth with seven seal impressions of seal N. Sample seal Ex.PW-1/C was drawn on a separate piece of cloth. Inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW-11) filled the relevant columns of NCB forms in triplicate and embossed seal on NCB forms. Seal after use was handed over to HC Bhajan Singh (PW-1). To that effect memo Ex.PW-1/D was prepared. Inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW-11) filled the relevant columns of NCB forms in triplicate and embossed seal on NCB forms. Seal after use was handed over to HC Bhajan Singh (PW-1). To that effect memo Ex.PW-1/D was prepared. Inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW-11) prepared the recovery and seizure memo Ex.PW-1/E and gave a copy of the same to the accused free of costs. Thereafter, Inspector Bhupinder Singh. (PW- 11) prepared the 'rukka’ Ex.PW-11/B and sent the same to Police Station, Dalhousie through Constable Anil Kumar (PW-2) for the registration of the FIR Ex.PW-9/A. Inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW-11) also sent the copy of the rukka Ex. PW-6/A to S. P. Chamba for his information through C. Dharmender Kumar (PW-3). The photography and videography of the spot were conducted by Constable Anil Kumar(PW-2) and Constable Dharmender (PW-3). Inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW-11) prepared the spot map Ex.PW-11/C as per the factual position. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses. The accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW-1VF. The information of his arrest was given to his brother. Thereafter, the jamatalashi of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex. PW-1/G. After completion of the proceedings at the spot Inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW-11) alongwith the police party came to Police Station, Dalhousie. At Banikhet Chowk Constable Anil Kumar (PW-2) met the police party alongwith case file. Constable Anil Kumar (PW-2) handed over the case file to Inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW-11), who filled the FIR number on the documents, prepared on the spot and he also recorded the statement of Constable Anil Kumar (PW-2) at Banikhet Chowk. HC Bhajan Singh (PW-1) and Constable Anil Kumar (PW-2) were dropped at P.P.Behloon Cantt. Inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW-11) alongwith the remaining police party reached at P. S. Dalhousie around 10.30 AM. On reaching there Inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW-11) handed over the case property to MHC/HC Deepak Kumar (PW-9), P.S. Dalhousie with the direction to sent the same for chemical analysis to FSL, Junga. He (PW-11) also filled columns No.10 and 11 of the NCB forms. On 4-10-2014, IO Bhupinder Singh (PW-11) sent the special report Ex.PW-6/B to S. P. Chamba through HHC Bichittar Singh (PW-4). On 3-10-2014 MHC Deepak Kumar (PW-9) entered aforesaid case property and articles of jamatalashi in the Malkhana register Ex.PW-9/C at the Sr. No. 114. He (PW-11) also filled columns No.10 and 11 of the NCB forms. On 4-10-2014, IO Bhupinder Singh (PW-11) sent the special report Ex.PW-6/B to S. P. Chamba through HHC Bichittar Singh (PW-4). On 3-10-2014 MHC Deepak Kumar (PW-9) entered aforesaid case property and articles of jamatalashi in the Malkhana register Ex.PW-9/C at the Sr. No. 114. On 5-10-2014 MHC Deepak Kumar (PW-9) sent the above said case property alongwith the documents except Jamatalashi articles to FSL Junga through HHC Amrik Singh (PW-5) vide RC No.8214 Ex-PW-9D. He also made an entry to that effect against the same in Malkhana register. On 25.10.2014 HHC. Rajesh Kumar (PW-6) handed over report of chemical analyst alongwith the case property to HHC Deepak Kumar (PW-9) who entered the case property and result of the chemical analyst against the same Sr. No. in the Malkhana register. Thereafter, MHC PW-9 handed over the result of the chemical analyst to the I.O. of the case. On16.12.2014 vide RC No. 118/2014 MHC Deepak Kumar (PW-9) sent the case property through HHC Mahinder Singh to District Malkhana at Chamba. MHC Deepak Kumar (PW-9) made an entry qua sending of the case property to District Malkhana, Chamba against the same Sr. No.114. He also issued the CIPA certificate Ex.PW-9/E. On 2.10.2014 LHHC Suraksha Devi (PW-B) entered rapat No.34(A) Ex.PW-8/A regarding departure of the police party around 11.05 PM. On 3.10.2014, around 10.30 AM, she (PW-8) made an entry of the rapat No.15 (A) Ex.PW-8/B regarding the arrival of the police party. The Chemical Examiner on analysis of the charas/cannabis opined as per report Ex.PX that the substance examined was extract of cannabis and sample of Charas and quantity of resin found therein was 23.81% w/w. After receiving the result of the chemical Analyst Ex.PX and on the completion of the investigation, Inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW-11) prepared challan and presented the same in the Court. 3. Court below, on being satisfied that prima facie case exists against the accused charged him for the commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Subsequently, vide judgment dated 24.01.2017, learned trial Court, on the basis of totality of evidence collected on record by prosecution, convicted and sentenced the accused, as per the description given here-in-above. Subsequently, vide judgment dated 24.01.2017, learned trial Court, on the basis of totality of evidence collected on record by prosecution, convicted and sentenced the accused, as per the description given here-in-above. In the aforesaid background, the appellant-accused has approached this court by way of instant appeal, seeking his acquittal after setting aside the judgment of conviction recorded by the Court below. 4. Shri Peeyush Verma, learned counsel representing appellant-accused while making this Court to peruse the impugned judgment of conviction recorded by the court below, strenuously argued that the same is not sustainable in the eye of law because the same is not based upon proper appreciation of evidence as well as law. Shri Verma, contended that court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective, as a consequence of which erroneous findings have come to the fore to the determinant of accused, who has been falsely implicated in the case. He argued that careful perusal of material available on record, clearly reveals that there is no proper compliance of provision of Section 50 of the Act, which is mandatory. He further contended that no independent witness ever came to be associated by the police, notwithstanding the fact that the same could be easily available. While referring to the statements of prosecution witnesses PW-1 and PW-2, Mr. Verma forcefully, contended that they are verbatim same and reading of the same clearly suggest that the court below has not bothered at all to separate the chaff from the grain, rather, in most casual manner, accepted the version put forth by the prosecution as was presented to it. He while making this court to read the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 juxtaposing each other, contended that this is only cut, copy and paste and as such, no much reliance could be placed upon the same, by the Court below while ascertaining the guilt, if any, of the accused. 5. Lastly, Mr. Verma contended that there are major discrepancies in the statements of witnesses relied upon by the court below, while recording the judgment of conviction. 5. Lastly, Mr. Verma contended that there are major discrepancies in the statements of witnesses relied upon by the court below, while recording the judgment of conviction. He further contended that in the case at hand, complainant i.e. Inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW-11) is himself is the Investigating Officer and the informant and as such, investigation, if any, carried out by him on the basis of FIR, lodged at his behest bound to fail in terms of judgment dated 16.8.2018, rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1880 of 2011 (Mohan Lal v. the State of Punjab). 6. Shri Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General while refuting the aforesaid submissions having been made by Shri Peeyush Verma, supported the impugned judgment of conviction, recorded by court below and contended that there is no illegality and infirmity in the same, rather, same is based on proper appreciation of evidence and facts. Mr. Thakur while making this Court to peruse the statements of prosecution witnesses adduced on record contended that all the witnesses have categorically stated before the court below that on the date of alleged incident, accused was apprehended/nabbed carrying 410 gram of charas/cannabis and as such, court below rightly held the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 20 of the Act. While making this court peruse consent memo. Ex. PW-1/A, Mr. Thakur, contended that there is proper compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act because before conducting search on the person of accused, he was apprised of his right to be searched before Gazetted Officer. Accused vide consent memo agreed to be searched by police party and as such, there is sufficient compliance of Section 50 of the Act. While inviting attention of this court to search Memo Ex. PW-1/B, Mr. Thakur contended that in the case at hand, police officials before conducting the search upon the person of accused gave their own search. Mr. Thakur further contended that since contraband came to be recovered in wee hours, no independent witnessed could be associated and as such, there is no reason to disbelieve the version put-forth by police officials, which is otherwise fully corroborated by the version of each other. While refuting the contentions/submissions made by Shri Peeyush Verma that statement of police witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2 is cut, copy and paste, Mr. While refuting the contentions/submissions made by Shri Peeyush Verma that statement of police witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2 is cut, copy and paste, Mr. Thakur contended that it is sheer coincidence because both the witnesses gave narration of facts almost in similar fashion/manner and as such, it cannot be said that it is a cut, copy and paste and otherwise also, if facts narrated by these witnesses are corroborated by each other, similarity, if any, in their statements, cannot be said to be prejudicial to the case of prosecution. He also contended that statements of prosecution witnesses, if read, in its entirety, nowhere suggests that there are any discrepancies, rather, they clearly suggest that all the witnesses unequivocally stated that on the date of incident, appellant-accused was apprehended with charas weighing 410 grams at Zero Point, Goli at 4.45 AM. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. 8. With a view to ascertain the correctness and genuineness of arguments/submissions having been made by Shri Peeyush Verma, learned counsel presenting accused, this Court carefully examined the evidence, be it ocular or documentary adduced on record by the prosecution vis-à-vis impugned judgment passed by court below, perusal whereof certainly not compels this Court to agree with the contention of Mr. Verma, that there is no compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, rather, material available on record suggest that there is sufficient compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. It clearly emerges from the record that accused was nabbed on 3.10.2014, at around 4.45 AM, at a distance of about 20 meters from Zero Point, Goli by the police party. Investigating Officer Bhupinder Singh (PW-11) raised a suspicion that person/accused might be carrying some suspicious article or contraband on his person and expressed his intention to carry out his personal search. Investigating Officer in his statement deposed that he apprised the appellant-accused about his right to be searched in the presence of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. PW-11 in his statement, clearly stated, which fact has been further corroborated by other prosecution witnesses that he apprised the appellant-accused of his right to be searched before the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate but appellant-accused consented to give search before the police official present on the spot. Which fact further stands established by consent memo Ex. PW-11 in his statement, clearly stated, which fact has been further corroborated by other prosecution witnesses that he apprised the appellant-accused of his right to be searched before the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate but appellant-accused consented to give search before the police official present on the spot. Which fact further stands established by consent memo Ex. PW-1/A. However, there appears to be some force in the arguments of Shri Peeyush Verma that before conducting personal search of accused, all the members of police party ought to have given their personal search to the accused. Though, statements having been made by aforesaid prosecution witnesses, especially, Inspector Bhupinder Singh(PW-11) reveals that accused was made aware that he can take search of members of police party and allegedly accused had taken search of all the members of policy party as stands recorded in personal search memo of police official Ex. PW-1/B, but two members of policy party, namely, HHG Vijay Kumar, who was present with the police party and Constable Pawan Kumar (PW-10) who subsequently reached on spot with drug detection kit, digital camera and videography camera, never gave their search and there is no explanation that why they were not searched before effecting recovery, if any, from the person of accused. Though having carefully perused material placed on record by prosecution, which has been further corroborated to certain extent by prosecution witnesses, it clearly emerges that police party headed by PW-11 immediately after nabbing accused at 4.45 AM searched him and had recovered 410 gram of charas/cannabis without waiting for drug detection kit, which admittedly was brought later on at 5.45 AM by Constable Pawan Kumar (PW-10), but this Court is convinced and satisfied that there is sufficient compliance of Section 50 of the Act. 9. As per prosecution story, appellant-accused was allegedly nabbed on 3rd October, 2014 at about 4.45 AM, at Zero Point Goli by police party, whereafter Investigating Officer (PW-11) telephonically called for drug detection kit, digital camera and videography camera from Police Station, which was brought by Constable Pawan Kumar (PW-10) on motor cycle, at 5.45 AM. Interestingly, during this period, no efforts ever came to be made by raiding party headed by Inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW-11) to associate any independent witness, especially, when such interception was made on the Highway. Interestingly, during this period, no efforts ever came to be made by raiding party headed by Inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW-11) to associate any independent witness, especially, when such interception was made on the Highway. Inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW-11) in his cross examination admitted that at a distance of 300-400 meters from the spot, there are Dhabas and at a distance of about 1.00 KM, there was a village and at a distance of 10 minutes, at a place Bathari, there is a Hospital, School and residence of Doctors. Constable Anil Kumar (PW-2) in his cross examination also admitted that at a distance of 10-15 meters from the spot, there are Dhabas and at a distance of 10 minutes, at a place called Bathari, there are Hospital, School as also residences of Doctors. Constable Pawan Kumar (PW-10), in his cross- examination admitted that, at Bathri, there are 7-8 dhabas and hardware shop. Though, record reveals that accused came to be apprehended/nabbed at 4.45 AM but admittedly Constable Pawan Kumar (PW-10) reached at spot with the drug detection kit, digital camera and videography camera from Police Station at 5.45 AM and as such, there appears to be considerable force in the argument of Mr. Peeyush Verma, representing appellant-accused that by that time dhabas, which are situate on highway are usually open. All the prosecution witnesses, referred to above, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-10 have admitted in their cross-examination that apart from dhabas, there were hospital, school and residence of doctors, meaning thereby, Investigating Officer(PW-11) easily could associate independent witnesses to lent support to the story of prosecution, but in the case at hand, there appears to be no attempt, if any, on the part of Investigating Officer to associate any independent witness. It has also come in the statements of prosecution witnesses referred above that at the nakka, at Zero Point, Goli, many vehicles passed when such incident had occurred, but it is not understood that why police party failed to associate any independent witness. This being so, non-association of independent witnesses by police, certainly raises serious doubt with regard to the alleged factum of recovery of charas from the possession of the appellant-accused on the alleged date of incident. 10. This being so, non-association of independent witnesses by police, certainly raises serious doubt with regard to the alleged factum of recovery of charas from the possession of the appellant-accused on the alleged date of incident. 10. No doubt, there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition of law that version put-forth by official witnesses cannot be disbelieved or brushed aside, merely on account of non-association of independent witnesses but same time, it is to be kept in mind that version put-forth by official witness, if not corroborated by independent witness, is required to be taken into consideration with utmost care and caution while ascertaining the guilt of the accused. In the case at hand, as clearly emerges from the record, though, police party headed by Inspector Bhupender Singh (PW-11) had ample opportunity to associate independent witnesses to prove the case against appellant-accused but there is no explanation that why efforts, if any, were not made by the Investigating Officer to associate independent witness. Arguments/submissions made by learned Additional Advocate General that since interception was made in wee hours, no independent witness could be associated, is not acceptable because admittedly codal formality, if any, pursuant to interception made at 4.45 AM, actually started on the spot at 5.45 AM that too on the highway and as such, this court has reason to believe/presume that had the Investigating Officer (PW-11), made efforts, independent witnesses could be easily associated, especially when they were available in abundance, which fact is categorically admitted by Constable Pawan Kumar (PW-10) and Constable Anil Kumar (PW-2). 11. Reliance is placed upon Latest HLJ (2016) HP 1471, Latest HLJ (2015) HP (Supp) 213, Latest HLJ (2015) HP (Supp) 488, Latest HLJ (2015) HP 789, Latest HLJ (2016) HP 222, Latest HLJ (2016) HP 28 and Latest HLJ (2017) HP 1283. 12. Perusal of the statement of HC Bhajan Dass (PW-1) and Constable Anil Kumar (PW-2) would reveal that same are cut, copy and paste, verbatim stereotype with common typographical mistakes and the same appears to be typed/recorded without putting question by the Public Prosecutor. Having carefully gone through the statements of aforesaid witnesses juxtaposing each other, this court has no hesitation to conclude that the court below appears to have adopted very casual approach while analyzing the evidence that too in such a sensitive matter, where if accused is convicted he would be sentenced for rigorous imprisonment. Having carefully gone through the statements of aforesaid witnesses juxtaposing each other, this court has no hesitation to conclude that the court below appears to have adopted very casual approach while analyzing the evidence that too in such a sensitive matter, where if accused is convicted he would be sentenced for rigorous imprisonment. Adopting such a procedure is denial of fair trial and justice to the accused, which is definitely in contravention of provision contained under Article 21 of Constitution of India. Otherwise also, if entire judgment, passed by court below, is read in its entirety, great reliance has been placed upon the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, who are the police witnesses and there is no independent witness to corroborate the version putforth by these witnesses. In the case at hand, what to talk about careful examination/analysis of statements made by these two official witnesses (PW1 and PW2), which are otherwise stereotyped or verbatim same, by the court below while ascertaining the guilt of accused, rather court below in most cursory and causal manner without their being any corroboration, accepted the version put-forth by PW-1 and PW-2 causing great prejudice to the accused. 13. Since this court had an occasion to read/peruse statements made by the prosecution witnesses during proceedings of the case, this court is persuaded to agree with Shri Peeyush Verma, learned counsel representing accused that there are material discrepancies and inconsistencies in the statements of all the prosecution witnesses and as such, the same could not be made basis to hold accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 20 of NDPS Act. HC Bhajan Singh (PW-1) has stated that Constable Anil Kumar and Constable Dharminder Kumar left the spot with rukkas at 7.35 AM. Both of them gone on foot to the main road and thereafter took lift. To the contrary, Constable Anil Kumar(PW-2) deposed that he left the spot at 7.45 AM in a bus and PW-3 stated that he left the place at 8.45 AM in a bus. Both of them gone on foot to the main road and thereafter took lift. To the contrary, Constable Anil Kumar(PW-2) deposed that he left the spot at 7.45 AM in a bus and PW-3 stated that he left the place at 8.45 AM in a bus. As per prosecution story, Investigating Officer (PW-11) telephonically called for digital camera and videography camera from police Station, which was received at the spot through Constable Pawan Kumar (PW-10), who reached on the spot by motor cycle at 5.45 AM, however, there is no daily dairy report placed on record, recording the factum of Constable Pawan Kumar(PW- 10) leaving the police station for the spot after having received telephonic request of Investigating Officer, on official motor cycle alongwith drug detection kit, digital camera and videography camera from Police Station, hence, very presence of Constable Pawan Kumar(PW-10) on the spot is itself doubtful. Constable Pawan Kumar (PW-10) speaks about the contraband being taken out from black coloured bag, whereas the same was taken out from blue coloured bag as per the statements of other witnesses before Constable Pawan Kumar (PW-10), when he reached on the spot. Constable Pawan Kumar(PW-10) deposed that after weighing the contraband, the Investigating Officer (PW-11) put the contraband in the blue coloured bag, which statement of him, is also contrary to the statement of other witnesses, who have stated that on opening the carry bag, one red colour polythene bag came out, wherein charas was put and after weighting the same, it was put in a polythene bag. Strangely enough, though story of prosecution suggest that digital camera and videography camera from police Station was available with the Investigating Officer which, in fact, was brought on the spot by Constable Pawan Kumar (PW-10) but there is no videography of the incident. Likewise, though digital camera is stated to have been used but the photographs placed on record as Ex. PW-2/A to A-8 do not bear any date and time. 14. Likewise, though digital camera is stated to have been used but the photographs placed on record as Ex. PW-2/A to A-8 do not bear any date and time. 14. Leaving everything aside, as per initial story of prosecution, accused was nabbed on 3rd October, 2014 at about 4.45 AM at 20 meters from Zero Point at Goli by the police party and Investigating Officer(PW-11) raised suspicion that accused might be carrying contraband on his person and expressed his intention to carry out his personal search, whereas as per own statement of Investigating Officer, PW-11 he apprised the appellant-accused about his legal right to be searched before the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, on which appellant-accused consented the police on the spot to be searched by the police. His statement suggest that accused was searched and 410 grams of charas was recovered before arrival of Constable Pawan Kumar (PW-10) on the spot, who categorically stated in his statement that he having received call from Investigating Officer (PW-11) reached on the spot at 5.45 AM on motor cycle carrying drug detection kit, digital camera and videography camera. If the statement of PW-10 is further read juxtaposing the statement of PW-11, Investigating Officer, it falsify entire case of prosecution because as per PW-10 entire exercise with regard to personal search and recovery of 410 grams of charas from person of the accused was conducted in his presence, which statement of him is totally contrary to the statement of other prosecution witnesses and, as such, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that there are material inconsistencies and discrepancies in the statements of all the prosecution witnesses and court below could not have held accused guilty of having committed offence under Section 20 of the Act on the basis of statements having been made by the prosecution witnesses. 15. The Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that since the fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the well established principle that “no man is guilty until proved so”, utmost caution is required to be exercised in dealing with the situation where there are multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying before the Court. Most importantly, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that there must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistency in evidence amongst all the witnesses. Most importantly, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that there must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistency in evidence amongst all the witnesses. In nutshell, it can be said that evidence in criminal cases needs to be evaluated on touchstone of consistency. Reliance is placed on Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in C. Magesh and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2010) 5 SCC 645 , wherein it has been held as under:- “45. It may be mentioned herein that in criminal jurisprudence, evidence has to be evaluated on the touchstone of consistency. Needless to emphasise, consistency is the keyword for upholding the conviction of an accused. In this regard it is to be noted that this Court in the case titled Suraj Singh v. State of U.P., 2008 (11) SCR 286 has held:- (SCC p. 704, para 14) "14. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witness is held to be creditworthy. The probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation." 46. In a criminal trial, evidence of the eye witness requires a careful assessment and must be evaluated for its creditability. Since the fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the stated principle that "no man is guilty until proven so", hence utmost caution is required to be exercised in dealing with situations where there are multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying before the court. There must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistency in evidence amongst all the witnesses.” 16. Lastly, Shri Verma, learned counsel representing the appellant-accused, invited attention of this Court to the latest judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1880 of 2011 titled as Mohan Lal Versus The State of Punjab… to state that since Investigating Officer (PW-11) himself was the complainant/informant, he could not have investigated the case and, as such, investigation conducted by him and consequent proceedings thereto are vitiated and conviction based on the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. At this stage, it would be profitable to take note of following para of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohan Lal’s case supra:- 14. In a criminal prosecution there is an obligation cast on the investigator not only to be fair, judicious and just during investigation but also that the investigation on the very face of it must appear to be so, eschewing any conduct or impression which may give rise to a real and genuine apprehension in the mind of an accused and not mere fanciful, that the investigation was not fair. In the circumstances, if an informant police official in a criminal prosecution, especially when carrying a reverse burden of proof makes the allegations, is himself asked to investigate, serious doubts will naturally arise with regard to his fairness and impartiality. It is not necessary that bias must actually be proved. It would be illogical to presume and contrary to normal human conduct, that he would himself at the end of the investigation submit a closure report to conclude false implication with all its attendant consequences for the complainant himself. The result of the Investigation would therefore be a forgone conclusion. 15. The discussion in the present case may not be understood as confined to the requirements of a fair investigation under the NDPS Act only carrying a reverse burden of proof. Baldev Singh (supra) related to a prosecution under Section 165A of the IPC. Nonetheless, it observed that if the informant were to be made the investigation officer, it was bound to reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case. Megha Singh (supra) concerned a prosecution under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985. It was held that the Head Constable being the complainant himself could not have proceeded with the investigation and it was a practice, to say the least, which should not be resorted to so that there may not be any occasion to suspect fair and impartial investigation. Rajangam (supra) was a prosecution under the NDPS Act, an objection was taken that PW-6 who apprehended the accused could not have investigated the case. Upholding the objection, relying on Megha Singh (supra) the accused was acquitted. The view taken by the Madras High Court in Balasundaran vs. State, 1999 (112) ELT 785(Mad.), was also noticed as follows:- “16. Rajangam (supra) was a prosecution under the NDPS Act, an objection was taken that PW-6 who apprehended the accused could not have investigated the case. Upholding the objection, relying on Megha Singh (supra) the accused was acquitted. The view taken by the Madras High Court in Balasundaran vs. State, 1999 (112) ELT 785(Mad.), was also noticed as follows:- “16. Learned Counsel for the appellants also stated that P.W 5 being the Inspector of Police who was present at the time of search and he was the investigating officer and as such it is fatal to the case of the prosecution, P.W. 5, according to the prosecution, was present with PWs 3 and 4 at the time of search. In fact, P.W. 5 alone took up investigation in the case and he had examined the witnesses, No doubt the successor to P.W. 5 alone had filed the charge sheet. But there is no material to show that he had examined any other witnesses. It therefore follows that P.W. 5 was the person who really investigated the case. P.W. 5 was the person who had searched the appellants in question and he being the investigation officer, certainly it is not proper and correct. The investigation ought to have been done by any other investigating agency. On this score also the, investigation is bound to suffer and as such the entire proceedings will be vitiated.” 24. The view taken by the Kerala High Court in Kader (supra) does to meet our approval. It tantamounts to holding that the F.I.R. was a gospel truth, making investigation an empty formality if not a farce. The right of the accused to a fair investigation and fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution will stand negated in that event, with arbitrary and uncanalised powers vested? With the police in matters relating to the NDPS Act and similar laws carrying a reverse burden of proof. An investigation is a systemic collection of facts for the purpose of describing what occurred and explaining why it occurred. The word systemic suggests that it is more than a whimsical process. An investigator will collect the facts relating to the incident under investigation. The fact is a mere information and is not synonymous with the truth. Kader(supra) is, therefore, overruled. We approve the view taken in Naushad(supra). 25. The word systemic suggests that it is more than a whimsical process. An investigator will collect the facts relating to the incident under investigation. The fact is a mere information and is not synonymous with the truth. Kader(supra) is, therefore, overruled. We approve the view taken in Naushad(supra). 25. In view of the conflicting opinions expressed by different two Judge Benches of this Court, the importance of a fair investigation from the point of view of an accused as a guaranteed constitutional right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is considered necessary that the law in this regard be laid down with certainty. To leave the matter for being determined on the individual facts of a case, may not only lead to a possible abuse of powers, but more importantly will leave the police, the accused, the lawyer and the courts in a state of uncertainty and confusion which has to be avoided. It is therefore held that a fair investigation, which is but the very foundation of fair trial, necessarily postulates that the informant and the investigator must not be the same person. Justice must not only be done, but must appear to be done also. Any possibility of bias or a predetermined conclusion has to be excluded. This requirement is all the more imperative in laws carrying a reverse burden of proof.” 17. Careful reading of aforesaid exposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohan Lal’s case (supra), clearly suggests that informant and the investigator cannot be the same person so that possibility of bias or a predetermined conclusion is excluded. In the case at hand learned Additional Advocate General was unable to dispute that investigating officer (PW11) is not the complainant/ informant and at his behest FIR, which ultimately culminated into trial, came to be lodged against the accused in the present case and, as such, impugned judgment passed by the court below deserves to be quashed and set aside on this sole ground only. 18. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law relied upon, findings returned by the trial Court, convicting the accused, cannot be said to be based on correct and complete appreciation of testimonies of prosecution witnesses. 18. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid discussion as well as law relied upon, findings returned by the trial Court, convicting the accused, cannot be said to be based on correct and complete appreciation of testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Such findings cannot be said to be on the basis of any clear, cogent, convincing, legal and material piece of evidence, leading to an irresistible conclusion of guilt of the accused. Incorrect and incomplete appreciation thereof, has resulted into grave miscarriage of justice, inasmuch as accused stands wrongly convicted for the charged offence. 19. Hence, for all the aforesaid reasons, appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the court below is quashed and set aside and accused (Munish Kumar) is acquitted of the charged offences. Accused, who is in jail and has already suffered almost two years imprisonment, is ordered to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Fine amount, if deposited by the accused, be refunded to him. Release warrants be prepared forthwith and sent through fax/email. Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.