JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J —The present petition is maintained by the State under section 378 (3) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to file an appeal against the judgment, dated 09.01.2018, passed by learned Special Judge (Forests) , Shimla, H.P., in Sessions Trial RBT No. 14-S/7 of 2016/13, whereby the non-applicant/accused/respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") was acquitted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (ND&PS Act) . 2. In brief the prosecution case is that on 21.11.2012 a police team was on routine patrol duty towards a place known as Nangal Devi. Around 06:00 p.m. the police team was on Nangal Devi, Naleha link road, just 100 meters down from the national highway. The police team spotted a person, who was carrying a red bag and on seeing the police, he took a slew and tried to flee. He was overpowered by police and as it was a secluded place, no independent witnesses could be associated. Constables Varun Joshi and Manoj Kumar were associated as witnesses. The said person divulged his name as Mukesh Kumar (accused) and his bag was checked, which contained a transparent polythene packet having black substance in the shape of sticks and balls. The recovered substance, on smelling was found to be charas and on weighment it was 350 grams. The police completed all the sampling and sealing formalities. NCB form was filled in and the recovered contraband was taken into possession. Rukka was prepared and sent to Police Station, Theog, whereupon FIR was registered. Spot map was prepared and the statements of the witnesses were also recorded. ASI Sanjeev Kumar, officiating SHO resealed the parcel containing charas and also completed other formalities. On the subsequent day, Special report was sent to SDPO, Theog. The case property was sent to FSL Junga, and result of forensic analysis demonstrated that the sample was of charas. After completion of investigation challan was presented in the learned Trial Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as nine witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he pleaded not guilty. The accused did not lead any evidence in his defence. 4. After completion of investigation challan was presented in the learned Trial Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as nine witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he pleaded not guilty. The accused did not lead any evidence in his defence. 4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 09.01.2018, acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the ND&PS Act, hence the present application preferred by the State seeking leave of this Court to file and maintain an appeal against the impugned judgment. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General has argued that there is arguable case, as the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is against the facts and law. He has further argued that the learned Trial Court has based its findings on surmises and conjectures and the evidence has also been wrongly appreciated, so the application, seeking leave to appeal be allowed. 6. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned Additional Advocate General, we have gone through the record carefully. 7. In the case in hand allegedly 350 grams of charas was recovered from the exclusive and conscious possession of the accused and the recovery of contraband was witnessed by official prosecution witnesses. Admittedly, no independent witness was associated by the police. In Ajmer Singh vs. State of Haryana , (2010) 3 SCC 746 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that testimony of official witnesses, even in absence of corroboration by independent witnesses, can be made basis for convicting the accused, if the Court, on careful and cautious appreciation of evidence, is satisfied and the testimonies of official witnesses inspire confidence. Therefore, now it is to be seen that the testimonies of official prosecution witnesses inspire confidence or not. 8. Pw-1, Constable Varun Joshi, deposed that on 21.11.2012 he alongwith SI NarupSingh, HC Tek Chand, Constables Manoj Kumar, Rajeev Kumar, Puneet Guleria and Atul Katoch was on routine checking duty towards Dhalli, Kufri, Theog etc. Around 06:00 p.m., they went towards Naleha from Nangal Devi. He has further deposed that they noticed a person, who was carrying a bag in his right hand, who after seeking them tried to flee. As per the version of this witness, they caught hold of him. Around 06:00 p.m., they went towards Naleha from Nangal Devi. He has further deposed that they noticed a person, who was carrying a bag in his right hand, who after seeking them tried to flee. As per the version of this witness, they caught hold of him. The person nabbed disclosed his name as Mukesh Kumar (accused) and as it was dark, no independent person was present there. On suspicion, SI Narup Singh, in presence of police personnel, checked the bag of the accused, which contained some black substance, and on smelling it was found to be charas. SI Narup Singh weighed the same from his weighing scale and it was found to be 350 grams. He has further deposed that the recovered contraband was again put in the same bag and it was sealed with nine seals having impression ''M'' and facsimile seal was taken on a piece of cloth, which is Ex. PW-1/A. NCB forms, in triplicate, were filled in and seal after its use was handed over to him. The recovered contraband was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-1/B. He and Constable Manoj Kumar signed memos Ex. PW-1/A and Ex. PW-1/B, which were also signed by the accused. Rukka, Ex. PW-1/C, was prepared and he took the rukka, case property, sample seals and NCB forms to Police Station, Theog, were handed over the same to ASI Sanjeev Kumar. Subsequently, he returned to the spot with the case file, which was handed over by him to SI Narup Singh. He has deposed that his statement was recorded. This witness has categorically deposed that in the police Station personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo, Ex. PW-1/D, which bears his signatures. He, in his cross-examination, has deposed that perhaps the distance between Nangal Devi temple to the spot is one or two kilometers. He has further deposed that no one was sent by the I.O. to associate independent witnesses, although I.O. made efforts to search some local person with the help of search light, but no one was present there. He remained on the spot for one and half hours before leaving to police station with rukka and when he returned on the spot, then also he remained there for about half an hour. As per this witness, the I.O. prepared all the documents while sitting on kachha link road. He remained on the spot for one and half hours before leaving to police station with rukka and when he returned on the spot, then also he remained there for about half an hour. As per this witness, the I.O. prepared all the documents while sitting on kachha link road. He feigned his ignorance whether the rukka and seizure memo were prepared by the I.O. or by someone else. He also feigned his ignorance as to who has prepared memo, Ex. PW-1/D. He has further deposed that when they were present on the spot, vehicles were moving on the National Highway. 9. Pw-2, HHC Krishan Lal, deposed that on 21.11.2012, at about 3:15 p.m., Rapat No. 52(A) , was entered by him, copy whereof is Ex. PW-2/A. PW-3, HC Deepak, deposed that on 22.11.2012 SI Narup Singh gave him Special Report, Ex. PW-3/A, qua the case, which he, on the same day, submitted in the office of SDPO, Tehog. PW-4, Constable Rajesh Kumar, deposed that on 23.11.2012, MHC Yogesh Kumar, vide RC No. 196/12, handed over to him a letter and a parcel, which was sealed with nine seals, having impression ''M'' and nine seals, having impression ''Z''. He has further deposed that he deposited the same in FSL, Junga, on the same day and on return he handed over the RC to MHC. As per the version of this witness, the case property remained intact under his custody. 10. Pw-5, Constable Yogesh Kumar, deposed that on 21.11.2012, ASI Sanjeev Kumar deposited with him a parcel, which was having nine seals each of impressions ''M'' and ''Z'', NCB forms, in triplicate, and sample seals. He made relevant entries in the malkhana register, copy whereof is Ex. PW-5/A. On 23.11.2012 the above case property alongwith relevant documents was sent to FSL, Junga, vide RC No. 196/12, through Constable Rajesh. Copy of RC register is Ex. PW5/B. He has further deposed that Constable Rajesh handed over to him RC on his return. As per this witness, the case property remained intact under his custody. He filled column No. 12 of the NCB form. One of the NCB forms is Ex. PW-5/C and CIPA Certificate is Ex. Copy of RC register is Ex. PW5/B. He has further deposed that Constable Rajesh handed over to him RC on his return. As per this witness, the case property remained intact under his custody. He filled column No. 12 of the NCB form. One of the NCB forms is Ex. PW-5/C and CIPA Certificate is Ex. PW5/D. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that on 21.11.2012, at about 09:00 p.m., the case property was deposited with him and entry qua the same was also made in the malkhana register on the same day. PW-6, ASI Sanjeev Kumar, deposed that on 21.11.2012 he was officiating as SHO, Police Station Theog. As per this witness, on that day, around 08:00 p.m., Constable Varun Joshi came to the police station and gave him a rukka, a parcel, which was sealed with nine seals of seal impression ''M'', NCB forms, in triplicate, and sample seals. On the basis of rukka, Ex. PW-1/C, FIR, Ex. PW-6/A, was registered and endorsement, Ex. PW-6/B, was made on rukka. He has further deposed that the said parcel was also sealed by him by affixing nine seals of seal impression ''Z''. Columns No. 9 & 10 of the NCB forms, were filled by him and NCB form, Ex. PW-5/C, bears his signatures. Facsimile seal was taken on a separate piece of cloth, which is Ex. PW6/C and resealing certificate is Ex. PW-6/D, which was issued by him. Subsequently, the sealed parcel, NCB forms and sample seals were deposited by him with MHC Yogesh Kumar in the malkhana. 11. Pw-7, Inspector Narup Singh (Investigating Officer) , in his examination-in-chief, tried to support the prosecution case, therefore, his deposition to that extent is repetitive in nature, hence not discussed. He has deposed in his cross-examination that when the statement of Constable Rajeev Kumar was being recorded, Constable Varun Joshi was not present there, as he has left the spot with the rukka. He has further deposed that Constable Varun Joshi returned to the spot after about an hour from the time when the statement of Constable Rajeev Kumar was recorded. Statement of Constable Varun Joshi was not recorded by him and it was recorded on his dictation by HC Tek ram. Statement of Constable Varun Joshi was recorded when he returned on the spot alongwith the FIR. Statement of Constable Varun Joshi was not recorded by him and it was recorded on his dictation by HC Tek ram. Statement of Constable Varun Joshi was recorded when he returned on the spot alongwith the FIR. As per this witness, the date of FIR, as mentioned in the statement of Constable Varun Joshi, is 21.12.2011. HC Tek Ram was present on the spot when he wrote rukka, Ex. PW-1/C, and it took twenty minutes for writing it. Only seizure memo, Ex. PW-1/B, was written by him. He has categorically deposed that personal search of the accused was conducted by him on the spot and to this effect memo, Ex. PW-1/D, was prepared by him on the spot and at that time Constable Varun Joshi was not present there. 12. Pw-8, HC Constable Mandev, deposed that on 22.11.2012, Shri Sagar Chand, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Theog called him to his office and gave him Special Report, Ex. PW-3/A, qua which he made entries in the relevant register at serial No. 9. Ex.PW8/A, is the copy of receipt register. As per this witness, both the above documents were signed by Shri Sagar Chand, Deputy Superintendent of Police. PW-9, HC Yog Raj, deposed that on 22.11.2012 the case was handed over to him for investigation. On 29.11.2012 he got recorded the statements of HC Yogesh Kumar, Cosntable Rajesh Kumar and HC Mandev. He, on the same day, collected the copies of special report, receipt register from HC Mandev, malkhana register, RC, CIPA certificate and copies of rapats were also obtained by him. On 19.12.2012 he recorded the statements of Constables Rajeev Kumar and Deepak. Chemical report, Ex. PW-9/A, was received in the Police Station and he handed over the case file to SHO. Challan in this case was prepared by Inspector/SHO Baldev Thakur. 13. Admittedly, in the case in hand, no independent witness was associated by the police. However, as per the prosecution case, the spot where the accused was nabbed is near to national highway. In these circumstances, it is highly improbable to believe that independent witnesses were not associated, as the same were not available. Furthermore, the recovered contraband was sealed, but the said seal was also not presented in the Court. So, in view of the above circumstances, the case of the prosecution needs to be scrutinized. 14. In these circumstances, it is highly improbable to believe that independent witnesses were not associated, as the same were not available. Furthermore, the recovered contraband was sealed, but the said seal was also not presented in the Court. So, in view of the above circumstances, the case of the prosecution needs to be scrutinized. 14. Pw-1, Constable Varun Joshi, deposed in his crossexamination that he was present on the spot for one and half hours and then he left with rukka, sealed envelope containing contraband and documents to Police Station, Theog. The accused is stated to have been nabbed at 06:00 p.m., so in that case PW-1 must have remained on the spot till 07:30 p.m.. Thus, in these circumstances, all codal formalities must have been completed by the I.O. in presence of PW-1. PW-1 is not aware that who has prepared seizure memo, Ex.PW-1/B. He has also feigned his ignorance that his statement was written by whom. Thus, it can be safe to assume that proceedings were not conducted in his presence and he simply signed them afterwards. In contrast to what has been deposed by PW-1, PW-7, SI Narup Singh deposed differently in his examination-in-chief. He tried to portray that entire proceedings were completed by him. Surprisingly, he has further deposed that rukka, Ex. PW-1/C, was not written by him and he dictated it to HC Tek Ram. He has also deposed that except seizure memo, Ex.PW-1/B, he has prepared no other document. Other documents, including the statement of Constable Varun Joshi, were written by HC Tek Ram upon his dictation. A perusal of these documents does not show that they were written upon the dictation of SI Narup Singh. Even if for a moment it is believed that upon the dictation of SI Narup Singh HC Tek Ram scribed the documents, but the prosecution did not find it necessary to examine HC Tek Ram and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was also not recorded. SI Narup Singh in his crossexamination has admitted that the statement of Constable Rajeev Kumar has not been recorded by him and it was recorded only on 19.12.2011. 15. One of the important documents is memo, Ex. PW-1/D, whereby the personal search of the accused was conducted. SI Narup Singh in his crossexamination has admitted that the statement of Constable Rajeev Kumar has not been recorded by him and it was recorded only on 19.12.2011. 15. One of the important documents is memo, Ex. PW-1/D, whereby the personal search of the accused was conducted. As per the prosecution case, Constable Varun Joshi (PW-1) and Constable Manoj Kumar are witnesses to Ex.PW-1/D. The Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination, has deposed that he conducted the personal search of the accused on the spot and memo, Ex.PW-1/D, was prepared. He has categorically deposed that Constable Varun Joshi (PW-1) was not present there. In view of the deposition of PW-7 (Investigating Officer) PW-1, Constable Varun Joshi, was not present on the spot when personal search of the accused was conduct, then how he was shown as witness to memo, Ex. PW-1/D. Thus, it gives impetus to the presumption that memo, Ex. PW-1/D, is a manufactured document. Now, if the deposition of PW-1, Constable Varun Joshi, is seen, he has categorically deposed that he took rukka, sealed parcel, containing contraband and documents from the spot to Police Station, Theog and handed over the same to ASI Sanjeev Kumar. At about 08:30 p.m. case file was handed over to him, which he took to the spot and handed over to the I.O. He has further deposed that subsequently all of them, including the accused, came to Police Station, Theog, where personal search of the accused was conducted qua which memo, Ex. PW-1/D was prepared, which bears his signatures. Thus, as per the testimony of this witness, the accused was not arrested on the spot and he was arrested in the Police Station and then his personal search was conducted. The testimonies of PW-1 and PW-7 do not inspire confidence and in fact the depositions of these two witnesses strangulate the case of the prosecution and their contrary versions proves fatal to the prosecution case. 16. In view of the above enumerated facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is just, reasoned and after appreciating the evidence correctly and to its true perspective. We find that the prosecution has miserably failed to connect the accused with the alleged recovery of 350 grams of charas. 16. In view of the above enumerated facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is just, reasoned and after appreciating the evidence correctly and to its true perspective. We find that the prosecution has miserably failed to connect the accused with the alleged recovery of 350 grams of charas. There is no reason to reverse the findings rendered by the learned Trial Court, so the prosecution has no arguable case, as the findings rendered by the learned Trial Court are correct and after appreciating the evidence correctly. We find that there is no occasion to allow the petition seeking leave to file an appeal, as the prosecution has no arguable case. 17. In view of the above, the petition, seeking leave to appeal, sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.