JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Instant appeal has been preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh against acquittal of respondent Om Parkash vide judgment, dated 14th January, 2011, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Solan, in Case No. 11 FTC/7 of 2010 arising out of case FIR No. 98/2009 registered at Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act'). 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28th November, 2009, after recording G.D. Entry No. 34 (a), Ex. PW4/A, PW12 ASI Ram Lal alongwith PW1 HC Ashok Kumar, PW7 HC Bhagirath, PW11 Constable Rajesh Kumar and Constable Gurcharjit Singh (not examined) left the Police Station at about 11.10 p.m. in official vehicle Bolero Camper being driven by Constable Desh Raj (not examined) having search light, investigation kit and weights and scale for checking of vehicles and Nakkabandi in the area of Sector 3, Parwanoo etc. At about 12.35 a.m., police party stopped a HRTC bus plying from Rohru to Delhi near Shivalic Agro Factory, Sector 3, Parwanoo and conducted routine checking of luggage of passengers. During checking, a person sitting on seat No. 14 was found with a bag in his lap and one bag between his legs below the seat. On checking these bags, a mobile charger with lead and a t-shirt were found in the bag which was in his lap and in another bag, a brown pant, a woolen shawl and a polythene packet were found. In the polythene packet, charas in round and stick shape was recovered. Person alongwith bags was brought out of the bus from the front door and driver and conductor of the bus were also called outside the bus, who disclosed their names to be Vinod Kumar and Nagender, respectively. Name of owner of bag was also asked in presence of driver and conductor of the bus, who disclosed his name and identity as respondent. 4. Thereafter, identification slip of recovered contraband Ex. PW1/A was prepared and on weighing, recovered charas was found to be 4 kg 400 grams. Name of owner of bag was also asked in presence of driver and conductor of the bus, who disclosed his name and identity as respondent. 4. Thereafter, identification slip of recovered contraband Ex. PW1/A was prepared and on weighing, recovered charas was found to be 4 kg 400 grams. Recovered charas was put in the polythene bag and was again put in bag alongwith shawl and the bag was sealed in a packet of cloth by affixing seal 'A'. Another bag was also sealed in a separate piece of cloth with the same seal 'A'. Sample of seal was taken and it was handed over to PW7 HC Bhagirath. Memo Ex. PW1/C was prepared in this regard. Parcels were taken into possession vide property search and seizure form Ex. PW1/D and Ex. PW1/E. NCB form in triplicate was filled in. During the search and seizure process, PW1 HC Ashok Kumar had also taken photographs of the proceedings with digital camera, which were downloaded by PW10 ASI Chander Shekhar on the computer for taking prints Ex. P10 to P12 of the said photographs. 5. After seizure of the contraband, rukka Ex. PW12/B was sent to Police Station at 2.10 a.m. through PW11 Constable Rajesh Kumar, who handed over the same to PW4 MHC Prem Singh, which was fed in the computer by the said MHC and FIR Ex. PW4/B was registered, which was signed by PW9 SHO Govind Ram. After registration of FIR, PW11 Constable Rajesh Kumar brought the case file to the spot. PW12 ASI Ram Lal completed the proceedings on the spot. During this process, respondent also produced bus tickets from Karsog to Shimla worth 90/Ex. P1 and from Shimla to Samlakha worth 200/Ex. P2, vide memo Ex. PW1/F. Spot map Ex PW12/C was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded and respondent was arrested at 5.30 a.m. after giving information of his arrest to him and his father. Memo Ex. PW12/D was prepared in this regard. 6. As per prosecution case, police party returned to Police Station at 7.40 a.m. and produced the case property before PW9 SHO Govind Ram, who resealed the recovered contraband with seal 'G'. Memo Ex. PW12/D was prepared in this regard. 6. As per prosecution case, police party returned to Police Station at 7.40 a.m. and produced the case property before PW9 SHO Govind Ram, who resealed the recovered contraband with seal 'G'. After taking sample of seal 'G' on the piece of cloth, filling up relevant column in NCB form and affixing facsimile of seal 'G' on the said form and recovered contraband, NCB form was handed over to PW4 MHC Prem Singh for depositing the same in malkhana. Entry in daily station diary Ex. PW9/F was made in this regard. PW4 MHC Prem Singh entered the case property in malkhana register against entries No. 430 and 431 as black bag containing clothes of respondent was deposited by PW12 ASI Ram Lal directly in the malkhana against entry No. 430 and recovered contraband, after resealing was deposited by PW9 SHO Govind Ram against entry No. 431, as depicted in Ex. PW4/C. 7. On 30th November, 2009, the recovered contraband alongwith forwarding letter Ex. PW9/G was sent for chemical analysis vide RC Ex. PW4/D by PW4 MHC Prem Singh through PW5 HHC Santosh Singh, who deposited the same in SFSL Junga on the very same day. 8. After receiving the recovered contraband alongwith report of Chemical Examiner, Ex. PW12/E, challan was prepared and presented in the Court by PW9 SHO Govind Ram. 9. On finding prima facie complicity of the respondent in commission of offence, charge under Section 20 of NDPS Act was framed against him. During trial, prosecution has examined twelve witnesses to prove its case. After recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC'), respondent has chosen not to lead any evidence in his defence. On conclusion of trial, the respondent stands acquitted. Hence, the present appeal. 10. PW1 HC Ashok Kumar, PW7 HC Bhagirath, PW11 Constable Rajesh kumar and PW12 ASI Ram Lal are spot official witnesses. PW2 Satvir Singh (passenger of the bus) and PW3 Nagender Singh (conductor of the bus) are independent witnesses examined in support of prosecution case. 11. On conclusion of trial, the respondent stands acquitted. Hence, the present appeal. 10. PW1 HC Ashok Kumar, PW7 HC Bhagirath, PW11 Constable Rajesh kumar and PW12 ASI Ram Lal are spot official witnesses. PW2 Satvir Singh (passenger of the bus) and PW3 Nagender Singh (conductor of the bus) are independent witnesses examined in support of prosecution case. 11. The spot official witnesses, by and large, have corroborated the prosecution case with respect to departure of police party from Police Station at 11.10 p.m., arrival of the police party on the spot at about 11.25 11.30 p.m., checking of certain vehicles prior to intercepting the bus in question and checking of no other vehicle thereafter. These witnesses have also stated in one voice that respondent was travelling on seat No. 14 having one bag in his lap (wherein no charas was recovered) and another bag in between his leg beneath the seat wherein 4 kg 400 grams charas was recovered by the police party. 12. Preparation of memo of identification of recovered contraband Ex. PW1/A, memo of affixing sample seal on piece of cloth Ex. PW1/B and handing over the seal to PW7 HC Bhagirath Ex. PW1/C, seizure memo Ex. PW1/D, seizure form Ex. PW1/E and signing of these memos and piece of cloth having sample seal by four persons, i.e. driver Vinod Kumar (not examined), PW3 Nagender Singh (conductor), PW1 HC Ashok Kumar and PW7 HC Bhagirath has been deposed almost in similar fashion by these official witnesses. Preparation of rukka Ex. PW12/B by Investigation Officer, PW12 ASI Ram Lal at 2.10 a.m. and handing over the same to PW11 Constable Rajesh Kumar for registration of FIR has also been corroborated by these witnesses. Receiving of rukka in Police Station, registration of FIR Ex. PW4/B by PW9 SHO Govind Ram after getting it typed in computer through PW4 MHC Prem Singh and handing over the case file to PW11 Constable Rajesh Kumar thereafter, have also been duly proved by PW4 MHC Prem Singh, PW9 SHO Govind Ram and PW11 Constable Rajesh Kumar. Snapping of photographs on the spot with the help of official digital camera, by PW1 HC Ashok Kumar, has also been proved by official witnesses. Downloading and development of these photographs has been proved by PW10 ASI Chander Shekhar, Nodal Officer, Police Station Parwanoo, who has also proved photographs Ex. P10 to P12. 13. Snapping of photographs on the spot with the help of official digital camera, by PW1 HC Ashok Kumar, has also been proved by official witnesses. Downloading and development of these photographs has been proved by PW10 ASI Chander Shekhar, Nodal Officer, Police Station Parwanoo, who has also proved photographs Ex. P10 to P12. 13. Handing over of tickets Ex. P1 to P9 by respondent to the Investigating Officer and taking possession thereof vide memo Ex. PW1/F has been proved by PW1 HC Ashok Kumar and PW7 HC Bhagirath. Issuance of these tickets has been admitted by PW3 Nagender Singh, conductor of the bus. All these facts have not been disputed during the cross-examination by the defence. Spot map Ex. PW12/C, prepared by the Investigating Officer, has also not been questioned at any point of time. 14. It is well settled that no cross-examination of witness on a point, stated in examination-in-chief, amounts to admission of version of the said witness on the said count. (See Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (Dead) through LRs versus Muddasani Sarojana, (2016) 12 SCC 288 ) 15. Independent witness PW2 Satvir Singh has supported the prosecution case whereas PW3 Nagender Singh (conductor of the bus) has desisted from lending support to the entire prosecution case, however, he has admitted certain facts during his cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor after getting him declared hostile for resiling from his earlier statement recorded by the police. 16. It is settled law that statement of a hostile witness cannot be brushed aside in toto and said to be inadmissible only for the reason that he has been declared hostile, rather, reliable portion of his statement, which finds due corroboration from the other evidence/material on record, can be considered in favour of either of the parties. (See Devraj versus State of Chhattisgarh, (2016) 13 SCC 366 ; Raja and others versus State of Karnataka, (2016) 10 SCC 506 and Vinod Kumar versus State of Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220 ) 17. PW3 Nagender Singh has admitted that he was conductor in the bus plying from Rohru to Delhi on 28th November, 2009 and Vinod Kumar was driver of the said bus, which was checked by the police party during midnight near Parwanoo. Recovery of one bag from the bus, weighing of recovered charas in his presence and issuance of tickets Ex. PW3 Nagender Singh has admitted that he was conductor in the bus plying from Rohru to Delhi on 28th November, 2009 and Vinod Kumar was driver of the said bus, which was checked by the police party during midnight near Parwanoo. Recovery of one bag from the bus, weighing of recovered charas in his presence and issuance of tickets Ex. P1 to P9 by him has also been admitted by him. He has also admitted signing the memos Ex. PW1/A, Ex. PW1/B, Ex. PW1/C, Ex. PW1/D and Ex. PW1/E after going through contents of these documents. 18. From the entire evidence on record, interception of the bus, checking of the luggage by the police party and recovery of 4 kg 400 grams charas from the bag kept beneath the three seater bench of seats No. 12 to 14 stands duly proved on record. 19. Now, the moot question to determine the guilt of respondent is as to whether the bag containing charas was recovered from the conscious possession of respondent. 20. 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. (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 ) In present case, evidence connecting the respondent with the recovered charas is not only weak but dicey. 21. In examination-in-chief, PW1 HC Ashok Kumar, PW7 HC Bhagirath, PW11 Constable Rajesh Kumar and PW12 ASI Ram Lal have deposed that the bag was kept by respondent beneath his seat between his legs whereas PW2 Satvir Singh has stated that passengers were sitting on the three seater bench having seats No. 12 to 14 and on inquiry by police about ownership of the bag found under these seats, respondent, sitting on seat No. 14, had claimed it as his bag. PW2 Satvir Singh has also stated that Om Parkash (respondent) alongwith bag and also driver and conductor were alighted from the bus. He has further stated that he, who was sitting on seat No. 16, and two other persons sitting with Om Parkash (respondent) also came out of the bus. In cross-examination this witness has stated that respondent told the police outside the bus that bag belonged to him. He has further stated that he, who was sitting on seat No. 16, and two other persons sitting with Om Parkash (respondent) also came out of the bus. In cross-examination this witness has stated that respondent told the police outside the bus that bag belonged to him. Contrary to the prosecution case that bag was found in possession of the respondent in between his legs under seat No. 14, this witness has deposed that not only two passengers of the bus seating on seats No. 12 and 13 were enquired, but he (PW2) was also asked regarding the bag by the police whereupon he had told that his bag was inside the bus. 22. Matter does not end here. PW2 Satvir Singh has further deposed that police, after taking out the jean pant from the bag, was matching the pants worn by the persons sitting on seats No. 12, 13 & 14 and it took about 1530 minutes to the respondent to confess that bag belonged to him. 23. What emerges from the evidence of PW2 Satvir Singh, who is an independent prosecution witness, is that the bag, lying below the three seater bench bearing seats No. 12, 13 and 14 was recovered but it was not sure as to whom that bag belonged and the police was trying to ascertain the actual owner/possessor of the said bag. Not only passengers sitting on seats No. 12 and 13, but PW2 Satvir Singh, who was travelling on seat No. 16, was also enquired by the police in this regard and for identifying the possessor of the bag, an exercise to match the jean pant found in the bag containing the recovered charas with the pants of persons sitting on seats No. 12, 13 and 14 was also undertaken. 24. According to PW2 Satvir Singh, four passengers sitting on seats No. 12, 13, 14 and 16 came out of the bus and all of them were questioned by the police regarding ownership of the bag in question. The said fact also finds corroboration in the statement of PW3 Nagender Singh, who has stated that four persons were interrogated on suspicion. 25. The said fact also finds corroboration in the statement of PW3 Nagender Singh, who has stated that four persons were interrogated on suspicion. 25. Though, passenger sitting on another two seater bench on seat No. 16 has been cited as a witness and examined as PW2 by the prosecution, however, the fact that he was ever associated as a witness does not find mention either in any memo prepared during investigation or in rukka sent to Police Station and special report submitted to the Superintendent of Police. 26. There is no plausible reason on record for not having any reference or detail of passengers travelling on the same bench of seat (seats No. 12, 13 and 14) on which respondent was sitting and for not citing or examining those persons/passengers as a witness who would have the best persons to tell about the events of recovery of contraband and exact location of the bag better than the person travelling on seat No. 16. 27. Rukka was prepared at 2.10 a.m. Meaning thereby, search and seizure was complete prior to that. FIR was recorded at 2.30 a.m. and case file was handed over to PW11 Constable Rajesh Kumar. As per prosecution witnesses, the distance between the spot and the police station was 1½ to 3 kilometers and the police party was having official vehicle with it. All memos except Ex. PW1/F (seizure of tickets) were prepared prior to leaving of the bus for its destination as these memos bear signatures of driver and conductor of the bus. 28. According to PW2 Satvir Singh, the bus was detained for about 1½ hour whereas according to PW1 HC Ashok Kumar, it was detained approximately for about three-four hours. PW11 Constable Rajesh Kumar stated that he did not remember exact time of detention of the bus on the spot whereas PW12 ASI Ram Lal stated that bus was detained for about 1½ hour. It is case of the prosecution that bus was intercepted at about 12.30 a.m. If the statement of Investigating Officer, i.e. PW12 ASI Ram Lal in corroboration with statement of PW2 Satvir Singh is believed then bus was detained up to 2.00 a.m. Even if the bus is considered to have been detained for three-four hours, then the bus must have left for its destination by 4.00 a.m. 29. PW1 HC Ashok Kumar and PW7 HC Bhagirath have categorically stated that police party remained on the spot for 1½ hour after leaving of the bus. In case statement of PW12 ASI Ram Lal is believed, the police party was supposed to reach Police Station at about 3.00 a.m. and in case statement of PW1 HC Ashok Kumar is believed, then police party was supposed to reach by 5.00 a.m., whereas as per record, police party had reached in the Police Station at 7.40 a.m. 30. In case of other reliable evidence on record, the discrepancy in timings may have been immaterial, but, in present case, there is material contradiction with regard to identity of possessor of the bag in which contraband was recovered by the police and, therefore, the time gap of at least more than 2½ hours remained unexplained by the prosecution as, as per prosecution case, no other vehicles were checked/intercepted after recovery of contraband in present case and after completing of proceedings on the spot, the police party returned to the Police Station. In case proceedings were completed by 5.00 a.m., what for the police party remained on the spot till 7.30 a.m. at a distance not more than three kilometers from the Police Station despite the fact that the police party was having the official vehicle with it and it might have taken hardly 510 minutes to reach the Police Station from the spot. 31. PW11 Constable Rajesh Kumar and PW12 ASI Ram Lal have categorically stated that after checking the bus, only respondent was taken out from the bus and no other passenger deboarded the bus, whereas PW2 Satvir Singh, the independent witness, has deposed contrary to that. 32. It is the case of the prosecution that the entire proceedings were completed with the help of search light and street light. PW12 ASI Ram Lal further added that besides taking help of search light and street light, help of light of the vehicle was also taken. It is also claimed that all shops/khokhas near by the spot were closed at that time. But, the photographs placed on record as Ex. P10 to P12 indicate something else. It is evident from photograph Ex. It is also claimed that all shops/khokhas near by the spot were closed at that time. But, the photographs placed on record as Ex. P10 to P12 indicate something else. It is evident from photograph Ex. P12 that police party is sitting on a bench inside some shop and behind it, door of the said shop/store is open and articles kept in shelf of the said store adjacent to the opened door are also clearly visible in this photograph. Further Ex. P10 and P11 clearly indicate that papers of the police are kept on a white table. These photographs appear to have been snapped and developed in such a manner so as to hide the complete visibility of location on the spot and only to reflect the situation suitable to the prosecution case. 33. In view of the aforesaid evidence on record, it cannot be held beyond reasonable doubt that it was only the respondent who was having the possession of the bag from which the contraband was recovered. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of contraband from the conscious possession of the respondent. So, presumption under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act is also not attracted in present case. 34. As it has been found that prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of charas from the conscious possession of the respondent, chemical examination report Ex. PW12/E is of no help to the prosecution. However, it is clarified that judgment, dated 11th December, 2009, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in a batch of Criminal Appeals No. 267 & 311 of 2007 and 45, 314, 363 & 500 of 2008, Sunil versus State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) 207, relied upon by the trial Court to discard chemical analysis report, stands overruled by Full Bench of this Court in case titled as State of H.P. versus Mehboob Khan, reported in 2013 (3) Him. L.R. (FB) 1834, holding that finding in Sunil's case; that without there being no reference of the resin contents in the reports assigned by the Chemical Examiners, the contraband recovered was not proved to be charas; was erroneous and it has further been held that charas is a resinous mass and for presence of resin in the stuff analyzed, without there being any evidence qua the nature of neutral substance, the entire mass has to be taken as charas. 35. Respondent has advantage of being acquitted by the trial Court fortifying the presumption of innocence in his favour which stands unrebutted for want of pointing out any cogent, reliable, convincing and trustworthy evidence regarding recovery of contraband from his possession. Therefore, it cannot be said that acquittal of respondent has resulted into travesty of justice or has caused miscarriage of justice. Thus, no case for interference is made out. 36. Having glance of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent and his surety are discharged. Record be sent back.