JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present appeal is maintained by the appellant/State, laying challenge to judgment dated 28.10.2014, passed by learned Special Judge-II, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 2014, whereby the accused/respondents (hereinafter referred to as “the accused persons”) were acquitted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “ND&PS Act”). 2. The background facts, as projected by the prosecution, can succinctly be summarized as under: On 21.12.2013, around 03:30 p.m. at Check Post Bajaura, police party was checking the vehicles. At about 07:00 p.m. a Volvo bus, having registration No. PB01-A-2205 of Indo Canadian, being driven by Gurmukh Singh came from Kullu side. The bus was intercepted by the police team and parked for checking. Head Constable Chaman Lal and ASI Mahant Ram alongwith the driver of the bus checked the same and during checking, when the police officials reached at seats No. 46 and 47, they found the accused persons sitting on the said seats by covering themselves with blanket. On being inquired about their names, they got perplexed. A red coloured bag was found, which was kept in between two seats, and the accused persons claimed the same. The bag was checked and it was found containing three packets. Both the accused persons were taken alongwith their bag to nearby Forest Check Post. Firstly, Head Constable Chaman Lal, in presence of witnesses, gave his personal search to the accused persons and nothing incriminating was found. Subsequently, the bag was opened in presence of the accused persons as well as the witnesses and three packets, which were wrapped with brown tape, were found and on opening the said packets stick and pane cake shaped charas was found. On weighment with electronic weighing scale, charas was found 2 kg and 50 grams. The recovered contraband was taken into possession and put inside a cloth parcel and the same was sealed with eight seals of seal having impression ‘H’ and the sample seal was handed over to ASI Mahant Ram. The case property was seized through a seizure memo after filling NCB-1 form. Rukka was prepared and sent through ASI Mahant Ram to police station for registration of FIR and consequent thereto FIR was registered. The spot map was prepared and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. The case property was seized through a seizure memo after filling NCB-1 form. Rukka was prepared and sent through ASI Mahant Ram to police station for registration of FIR and consequent thereto FIR was registered. The spot map was prepared and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused persons were arrested and the case property alongwith relevant documents and sample of seal was handed over to SI/SHO Lal Chand for resealing. Accordingly the case property was resealed with three seals having impression ‘T’. The facsimile of seal impression ‘T’ was taken separately on a piece of cloth and after filling the relevant columns of NCB-1 form, the case property alongwith the samples etc. was handed over to MHC Gian Chand for being deposited in malkhana. The case property alongwith the samples etc. was deposited in the malkhana and the relevant entry to this effect was made in the malkhana register. The case property was sent to FSL, Junga, vide RC No. 212/2013, for chemical analysis and the receipt thereof was handed over to Head Constable Gian Chand. Special report was prepared and the same was endorsed by the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shri Sanjay Sharma. The report of forensic analysis revealed that the sample contained extract of cannabis. The accused persons were found in exclusive and conscious possession of 2 kg 50 grams charas. After conclusion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as nine witnesses. Statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they pleaded not guilty. The accused persons did not lead any evidence in their defence. 4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 28.10.2014, acquitted the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the ND&PS Act, hence the present appeal. 5. At the very outset, it is pointed out that during the pendency of the present appeal, accused No. 2, Rajesh Kumar, has expired and vide order dated 13.04.2017 the appeal against him stands abated. Therefore, the present appeal only survives against accused No. 1, Rakesh. 6. The learned Assistant Advocate General has argued the impugned judgment is based on hypothetical reasoning, surmises and conjectures and the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence, which has come on record to its right perspective. Therefore, the present appeal only survives against accused No. 1, Rakesh. 6. The learned Assistant Advocate General has argued the impugned judgment is based on hypothetical reasoning, surmises and conjectures and the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence, which has come on record to its right perspective. He has argued that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and the provisions of the ND&PS Act were duly complied with. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has argued that the judgment of acquittal has been passed by the learned Trial Court after appreciating the evidence, which has come on record, to its true perspective, as the prosecution has neither complied with the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act before taking personal search of the accused persons nor there is any other evidence on record to connect the accused with the commission of the offence, so the judgment of acquittal needs no interference. 7. In rebuttal, the learned Assistant Advocate General has argued that the accused be convicted after re-appreciating the evidence as the learned Trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate the evidence correctly. 8. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties we have gone through the record carefully. 9. PW-1, LC Geeta Devi, on 21.12.2013 reported the matter vide Rapat No. 16. Copy of rapat is Ex. PW-1/A. PW-2, H.C. Nirat Singh, deposed that on 02.01.2014 he was associated in the investigation. On 23.12.2013, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shri Sanjay Sharma, handed over to him Special Report, Ex. PW-2/A, and he made entry qua the same in the relevant register, abstract of which is Ex. PW-2/B. Endorsement on the special report is Ex. PW-2/C, which bears his signatures. 10. PW-3, HC Chaman Lal, is important prosecution witness. He has deposed that on 21.12.2013 he alongwith HC Mahant Ram, Constable Kuldeep Kumar, Constable Megh Singh, HC Rakesh was on detection duty near Bajaura Forest Check Post. As per this witness, around 07:00 p.m., a Volvo bus, having registration No. PB-01A0-2205 Indo-Canadian came from Kullu Side and the same was signaled to stop. He, alongwith other police officials, went inside the bus. There were 35-37 passengers inside the bus. The driver, Shri Gurmukh Singh and conductor, Shri Sukhbir Singh alongwith ASI Mahant Ram were associated as witnesses. As per this witness, around 07:00 p.m., a Volvo bus, having registration No. PB-01A0-2205 Indo-Canadian came from Kullu Side and the same was signaled to stop. He, alongwith other police officials, went inside the bus. There were 35-37 passengers inside the bus. The driver, Shri Gurmukh Singh and conductor, Shri Sukhbir Singh alongwith ASI Mahant Ram were associated as witnesses. Two passengers were sitting on seats No. 46 and 47 and they have covered themselves with blanket. On being asked about their names, both of them got baffled and disclosed their names as Rakesh and Rajesh. A red coloured bag was found in between seats No. 46 and 47 and the accused persons claimed the same. The accused persons were asked to alight from the bus and taken to nearby Forest Check Post. He has further deposed that firstly he gave his personal search to the accused persons and to this effect memo, Ex. PW-3/A, was prepared and nothing incriminating was found in his possession. Thereafter, the said bag was opened in presence of the accused persons and the independent witnesses. The said bag contained three packets, which were having brown tape. The said packets contained stick and pane cake shaped charas, which was weighed on electronic weighing scale and the same was found to be 2 kg 50 grams. The recovered contraband was packet in a cloth parcel, which was sealed with eight seals, having seal impression ‘H’ and the facsimile seal was taken on a separate piece of cloth, Ex. PW-3/B. Relevant columns of NCB form were filled on the spot and the sample seal was taken thereon and the seal after use was handed over to ASI Mahant Ram. Sample of seal impression was taken on five pieces of cloth and one of which is Ex. PW-3/B. The charas was taken into possession vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-3/D, which bears his signatures and the signatures of the witnesses as well as the accused persons. He prepared rukka, Ex. PW-3/E, and the same was sent to Police Station Bhunter, through ASI Mahant Ram, whereupon FIR, Ex. PW-3/F, was registered. He prepared site plan, Ex. PW-3/G, and recorded the statements of Driver and Conductor, which are Ex. PW-3/H and Ex. PW-3/J, respectively. The accused persons were arrested vide arrest memos, Ex. PW-3/L and Ex. PW-3/M. Sitting chart, Ex. PW-3/N and copy of RC, Ex. PW-3/F, was registered. He prepared site plan, Ex. PW-3/G, and recorded the statements of Driver and Conductor, which are Ex. PW-3/H and Ex. PW-3/J, respectively. The accused persons were arrested vide arrest memos, Ex. PW-3/L and Ex. PW-3/M. Sitting chart, Ex. PW-3/N and copy of RC, Ex. PW-3/O, were seized vide memo, Ex. PW-3/D. He also recorded the statement of ASI Mahant Ram, who handed over the case file to him. Subsequently, he alongwith the accused persons and case property came to police station and case property was handed over to ASI Lal Chand alongwith the relevant documents for resealing. 11. As per PW-3, on 23.12.2013, at 10:30 a.m., he handed over Special Report, Ex. PW-2/A, to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shri Sanjay Sharma. He also conducted the personal search of the accused persons vide search memos Ex. PW-3/P and Ex. PW-3/Q. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that in sitting chart, Ex. PW-3/N, the names of the passengers have been given and columns No. 46 and 47 are unfilled, without the names of any persons. As per this witness, sitting chart, Ex. PW-3/N, was given to him by the conductor of the bus. No identity card of any of the accused was found. He conducted the personal search of the accused persons immediately after giving his search, however, he did not prepare any memo. 12. PW-4 ASI Mahant Ram Sharma, is also important prosecution witness. This witness supported the version of PW-3, HC Chaman Lal, qua the manner of recovery of charas from the accused persons. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that the seat, where the accused persons were sitting was two seater and accused Rakesh was sitting towards the window side. He has further deposed that the personal search of the accused persons was also conducted in the bus by HC Chaman Lal (PW-3). PW-5, Shri Sukhbir Singh, Conductor of the bus deposed that on 21.12.2013 the bus was en route from Manali to Delhi and Gurmukh was driving the same. At about 07:00 p.m. the bus was intercepted by the police personnel at Bajaura and the accused persons were sitting on seats No. 46 and 47. Police asked them to alight from the bus alongwith a bag and they were taken to Forest Check Post Bajaura. At about 07:00 p.m. the bus was intercepted by the police personnel at Bajaura and the accused persons were sitting on seats No. 46 and 47. Police asked them to alight from the bus alongwith a bag and they were taken to Forest Check Post Bajaura. As per this witness, in their and in presence of police the bag was opened and three packets, which were wrapped with tape, were found. The said packets were opened, stick shaped black-brown colour substance was found, which on checking was found to be charas. On weighment with electronic scale it was found to be about 2 kg. The recovered charas was again put inside the bag and the bag was put inside a cloth parcel and the same was sealed with a seal. Their signatures were obtained on the said sealed parcel. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that about 20-30 passengers were inside the bus and seats No. 46 and 47 were last seats and part of five seater seat. He has further deposed that when the bus was checked, they were outside the bus. 13. PW-6, Constable Urmila Thakur, is a formal witness. She has brought the copy of rapat No. 37, dated 21.12.2013, Ex. PW-6/A. PW-7, HC Gian Chand, deposed that on 21.12.2013 SI/SHO Lal Chand deposited with him a sealed parcel, which was sealed with eight seals having impression ‘H’ and three seals having impression ‘T’, alongwith sample seals and other relevant documents. As per this witness, the parcel was stated to have contained 2 kg 50 grams charas. He made entry in the relevant register, abstract of which is Ex. PW-7/A. He also filled relevant column of NCB-1 form, Ex. PW-3/C, and deposited the same in the malkhana. He has further deposed that on 23.12.2013 he handed over the cloth parcel alongwith sample seals and other relevant documents to Constable Sumer Bahadur for being deposited at SFSL, Junga, vide RC No. 212/2013, Ex. PW-7/B. Receipt was handed over to him after deposit of the case property in SFSL, Junga. As per this witness, the case property remained intact under his custody. PW-8, Sub Inspector Lal Chand, deposed that on 21.12.2013, he received rukka, Ex. PW-3/E, through ASI Mahant Ram, whereupon FIR, Ex. PW-3/F, was registered. He, after preparation of the case file, handed over the same to ASI Mahant Ram. As per this witness, the case property remained intact under his custody. PW-8, Sub Inspector Lal Chand, deposed that on 21.12.2013, he received rukka, Ex. PW-3/E, through ASI Mahant Ram, whereupon FIR, Ex. PW-3/F, was registered. He, after preparation of the case file, handed over the same to ASI Mahant Ram. As per this witness, on the same day, HC Chaman Lal produced the case property alongwith sample seal, NCB-1 form etc. before him. He resealed the case property by affixing three seal impressions of seal having impression ‘T’ and one of the sample seal is Ex. PW-8/A. He also filled relevant column in NCB-1 form and thereafter handed over the case property to MHC, Police Station, Bhunter, for being deposited in the malkhana. On receipt of chemical report, Ex. PW-3/R, he prepared the challan and presented the same in the Court. 14. PW-9, Constable Sumer Bahadur, is a formal witness. He has deposed that on 23.12.2013 MHC Gian Chand handed over to him a parcel alongwith NCB-1 form, sample of seals ‘T’ and ‘H’, copy of FIR, recovery memo, vide RC No. 212/2013, for being taken to SFSL, Junga, for chemical analysis. He delivered the aforesaid parcel alongwith aforesaid documents and docket at SFSL, Junga, and deposited the receipt with MHC. As per this witness, the case property remained intact under his custody. 15. After exhaustively discussing the evidence of the prosecution, now the same is to be tested on the anvil of its wholesomeness and veracity. Amongst all the prosecution witnesses, statements of PW-3, HC Chaman Lal, and PW-4 ASI Mahant Ram Sharma are important. As per the statement of PW-3, HC Chaman Lal, vide memo, Ex. PW-3/Q, personal search of accused Rakesh was conducted on 21.12.2013, i.e., on the day when the alleged recovery of contraband was effected. PW-5, Shri Sukhbir Singh, categorically deposed that the accused persons were sitting on seats No. 46 and 47, i.e., last seats of the bus and the seat was a five seater seat, whereas as per the statement of PW-4, ASI Mahant Ram Sharma, the seat on which the accused persons were sitting was a two seater seat. However, the sitting chart of the bus, Ex. PW-3/N, shows that no person was sitting on seats No. 46 and 47, as the columns of chart, qua seats No. 46 and 47, were not filled in. However, the sitting chart of the bus, Ex. PW-3/N, shows that no person was sitting on seats No. 46 and 47, as the columns of chart, qua seats No. 46 and 47, were not filled in. PW-3, HC Chaman Lal, in his examination in chief has categorically deposed that personal search of both the accused persons was conducted and he prepared memo, Ex. PW-3/P and Ex. PW-3/Q, qua the same. However, this witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that he did not prepare any memos after conducting the personal search of the accused persons. On the other hand, memos, Ex. PW-3/P and Ex. PW-3/Q, demonstrate that the same were prepared by HC Chaman Lal (PW-3) when the personal search of the accused persons was conducted. There are glaring discrepancies in the statements of key prosecution witnesses. Some of the prosecution witnesses are deposing that the accused persons were covering themselves with a blanket, whereas other witnesses say that they were wearing patkas, so this also creates a doubt whether the accused persons are the same persons who were traveling in the bus. This contradiction is minor one and can be ignored, but in this case, above mentioned, contradictions cannot be ignored, as the same are major in nature and go to the root of the prosecution case, especially as in the case the accused is to be convicted with harsh punishment, so the prosecution is required to prove its case with the evidence which leaves no doubt in the mind of this Court that accused was the real culprit. 16. The prosecution evidence clearly demonstrates that personal search of both the accused persons was conducted by PW-3, HC Chaman Lal, after the search of the bag wherefrom allegedly contraband was recovered. It has also come in the prosecution evidence that nothing was recovered from the personal search of the accused persons. Now, we have to delve on the point that in the above enumerated circumstances, which have come on record through the evidence of the prosecution, whether personal search of the accused persons was required to be carried out, after following the procedure laid down under Section 50 of the ND&PS Act. Section 50 of the ND&PS Act is extracted hereunder for ready reference: “50. Section 50 of the ND&PS Act is extracted hereunder for ready reference: “50. Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted.- — (1) When any officer duly authorised under section 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of section 41, section 42 or section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate. (2) If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made. (4) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female. (5) When an officer duly authorised under section 42 has reason to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be searched to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate without the possibility of the person to be searched parting with possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance or article or document, he may, instead of taking such person to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, proceed to search the person as provided under section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (6) After a search is conducted under sub-section (5), the officer shall record the reasons for such belief which necessitated such search and within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.]” 17. In the present case the personal search of the accused persons was carried out after alleged recovery of contraband from a bag, alleged to be of the accused persons. If the personal search is to be carried out without there being any suspicion of narcotics, perhaps Section 50 of the ND&PS Act will not apply, but in the present case nothing has come on record that when the personal search of the accused persons was carried out, the Investigating Officer was not having any suspicion that something will be recovered after conducting the personal search of the accused persons. In fact, it has come in the statements of prosecution witnesses that prior to the search of the bag of the accused persons personal search of the accused persons was also conducted by the Investigating Officer and this fact is further fortified by PW-4, ASI Mahant Ram Sharma, who has specifically deposed that personal search of the accused persons was conducted in the bus by Head Constable Chaman Lal, so under these circumstances the law, which is extracted hereunder, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by this Court and has been relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, is applicable: 1. State of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand & another, (2014) 5 SCC 345 ; & 2. State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Desh Raj & another, 2016 (Suppl.) Himachal Law Reporter (DB) 3088. 18. In State of Rajasthan vs. Parmanand & another, (2014) 5 SCC 345 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide para 15 of the judgment, has held as under: “15. Thus, if merely a bag carried by a person is searched without there being any search of his person, Section 50 of the NDPS Act will have no application. But if the bag carried by him is searched and his person is also searched, Section 50 of the NDPS Act will have application. In this Case, Respondent 1 Parmanand’s age was searched. From the bag, opium was recovered. His personal search was also carried out. Personal search of Respondent no. 2 Surajmal was also conducted. Therefore, in the light of the judgments of this Court mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, Section 50 of the NDPS Act will have application.” Now, in view of the above, this Court has to examine whether the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act are applicable to the present case and if applicable, then whether those have been breached or not? Admittedly, as per the version of PW-3, HC Chaman Lal, he has conducted the personal search of both the accused persons and also prepared search memos, Ex. PW-3/P and Ex. PW-3/Q. If only the bag of the accused persons would have been searched, then Section 50 of the NDPS Act has no application, but as the personal search of the accused persons was also conducted, certainly Section 50 of the NDPS Act is applicable. PW-3/P and Ex. PW-3/Q. If only the bag of the accused persons would have been searched, then Section 50 of the NDPS Act has no application, but as the personal search of the accused persons was also conducted, certainly Section 50 of the NDPS Act is applicable. In fact, Section 50 of the NDPS Act has a purpose and communication of the said right, which is ingrained in Section 50, to the person who is about to be searched is not an empty formality. Offences under the NDPS Act carry severe punishment, so the mandatory procedure, as laid down under the Act, has to be followed meticulously. Section 50 of the Act is just a safeguard available to an accused against the possibility of false involvement. Thus, communication of this right to the accused has to be clear, unambiguous and to the individual concerned. The purpose of this Section is to make aware the accused of his right and the whole purpose behind creating this right is effaced if the accused is not able to exercise the same for want of knowledge about its existence. This right cannot be ignored, as the same is of utmost importance to the accused. In the present case, certainly the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, therefore, the judgment (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. 19. In State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Desh Raj & another, 2016 (Suppl.) Himachal Law Reporter (DB) 3088, this Court has relied upon the law laid down in Parmanand’s case (supra). Relevant paras of the judgment of this Court is extracted hereunder: “18. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand reported in (2014) 5 SCC 345 , have held that there is a need for individual communication to each accused and individual consent by each accused under Section 50 of the Act. Their lordships have also held that Section 50 does not provide for third option. Their lordships have also held that if a bag carried by the accused is searched and his personal search is also started, Section 50 would be applicable. Their lordships have also held that Section 50 does not provide for third option. Their lordships have also held that if a bag carried by the accused is searched and his personal search is also started, Section 50 would be applicable. ……” Again, in the present set of facts and circumstances, the judgment (supra) is fully applicable to the present case, as the right provided under Section 50 of the NDPS Act in no way can be diluted and its compliance is mandatory in nature. 20. Though the conviction can be based on the statements of the official witnesses, if their statements are confidence inspiring, but in the present case, the statements of the official witnesses do not inspire confidence, as there are discrepancies in the statements of the official prosecution witnesses. On the other hand, we have no hesitation to conclude that the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with, thus the accused cannot be convicted. The respondents have been rightly acquitted and it is not possible to hold that the learned Trial Court’s view is perverse. Hence, there is no occasion to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned Trial Court. 21. It has been held in K. Prakashan vs. P.K. Surenderan (2008) 1 SCC 258 , that when two views are possible, appellate Court should not reverse the judgment of acquittal merely because the other view was possible. When judgment of trial Court was neither perverse, nor suffered from any legal infirmity or non consideration/mis-appreciation of evidence on record, reversal thereof by High Court was not justified. 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. Subramanian vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401 , has held that where two views are reasonably possible from the very same evidence, prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 23. In Chandrappa vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has culled out the following principles qua powers of the appellate Courts while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal: “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: 1. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: 1. An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. 2. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. 3. Various expressions, such as, ‘substantial and compelling reasons’, ‘good and sufficient grounds’, ‘very strong circumstances’, ‘distorted conclusions’, ‘glaring mistakes’, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of ‘flourishes of language’ to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. 4. An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. 5. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.” 24. In view of the settled legal position, as aforesaid, and on the basis of material, which has come on record, it is more than safe to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused and the findings of acquittal, as recorded by the learned Trial Court, needs no interference, as the same are the result of appreciating the facts and law correctly and to their true perspective. Accordingly, the appeal, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is dismissed. 25. In view of the above, the appeal, so also pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. Bail bonds are cancelled.