JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J —The instant appeal stands directed, against, the impugned judgment, of, 8.3.2017 rendered by the learned Special Judge Chamba Division Chamba (HP) , in, Sessions Trial No. 19 of 2014, whereby, the learned trial Court convicted, the, appellant (hereinafter referred to as "accused") for his committing an offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "NDPS Act") , and, imposed consequent sentence(s) upon him. 2. Brief facts of the case are that ASI Madan Lal (PW-10) , HC Bhagwan Singh (PW-7) , HHC Prittam Chand (PW-2) and Constable Subhash Chand (PW-8) were on patrolling duty towards Bus Stand, Banikhet, at about 5.25 AM on 11.2.2014. In the meanwhile, in the rain shelter at the bus stand, accused was seen holding one carry bag in his left hand. On seeking the police party, he tried to run on Chamba road. A suspicion arose, when ASI Madan Lal had signaled the accused to stop, but he kept on running ahead. ASI Madan Lal had then with the help of the other police officials chased him at a distance of 20-30 meters. The accused had thrown the carry bag towards the drain which he was carrying in his left hand. At that time, Ram Chand (PW-1) and Jiwan Singh (PW-12) a hawker also came on the spot. They were associated by ASI Madan Lal and in their presence, the carry bag which the accused was carrying and had thrown was checked. The carry bag was checked and it was found to be containing a Dupatta red in colour Inside the Dupatta was present a polythene Packet containing black coloured substance in the shape of sticks. On the basis of experience and smell, it was found to be (Cannabis) Ex.P-3. The accused, with the carry bag, in the presence of both the witneses was then brought to the rain shelter and on inquiry he had divulged his name to be charan Singh son of Karam Singh. On being weighed, the charas was found to be 850 grams. The recovered charas was put back in the same polythene packet and then in the dupatta and carry bag and then sealed in a cloth parcel with five seal of impressions of seal R. It was signed by Ram Singh and Jiwan Singh and also by the accused. On being weighed, the charas was found to be 850 grams. The recovered charas was put back in the same polythene packet and then in the dupatta and carry bag and then sealed in a cloth parcel with five seal of impressions of seal R. It was signed by Ram Singh and Jiwan Singh and also by the accused. NCB -1 form Ex.PW-5/C was filled in triplicate. Sample seal (Ex.PW-1/B) was taken on a separate piece of cloth. Seal impression were also put on the NCB-1 forms. The charas was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/A. The seal after use was handed over to Jiwan Singh. The proceedings were also videographed and photographed. Photographs Ex.PW-7/C-1 to Ex.PW-7/C-5 and C.D Ex.PW-7/D were obtained. RukkaEx.PW-10/A was prepared and it was sent to police station, Dalhousie through HHC Prittam Singh. Copy of Rukka was sent through Constable Subhash Chand to SP Chamba. HHC Prittam Singh had handed over the Rukka to Inspector Sher Singh (PW-11) , who recorded FIR Ex.PW-11/A and had sent the case file through the same constable. Investigating was conducted by ASI Madan Lal, who prepared site plan Ex.PW-10/B and recorded the statements of the witnesses as per their versions. The accused was interrogated and he was arrested. Memo of his arrest Ex.PW-7/A was prepared. The personal search of the accused was taken and memo Ex.PW-7/B was prepared. The case property was produced before Inspector Sher Singh. He resealed the parcel with three seal impression of seal V and had filled in relevant columns of the NCB forms. Seal impression Ex.PW-4/B was taken on piece of cloth on the reverse of the seal impression ''R" Ex.PW-1/B. Inspector Sher Singh had also issued resealing certificate Ex.PW-4/C. He had handed over the case property alongwith documents to MHC Deepak Kumar (PW-5) on the same day. HC Deepak Kumar deposited all the articles in sale condition in the Malkhana and had made an entity in the Malkhana rregisterat serial No. 49, copy of which is Ex. PW-5/A. He had handed over all the articles to constable Sandeep Kumar (PW-6) on 1.12.2014 with a direction to carry these to State FL Jung, copy of which is Ex.PW-5/B. Special report Ex.PW-9/B was also prepared, and, the same was sent to SP Chamba. Result of analysis is comprised in Ex. PX. The statements of the witnesses were recorded as per their version. Result of analysis is comprised in Ex. PX. The statements of the witnesses were recorded as per their version. After completing all codal formalities and on conclusion of the investigation into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, challan was prepared and presented before the trial Court. 3. The accused stood charged by the learned trial Court for his committing an offence punishable under Section 20 of NDPS Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, wherein, he pleaded innocence, and, claimed false implication. He chose not to lead any defence evidence. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned findings of conviction against the accused, for his committing, an, offence punishable under Section 20(b) (ii) (B) of NDPS Act. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the accused, has, concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by the learned trial Court standing, not based, on a proper appreciation of evidence on record rather theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by it, of the relevant material on record. Hence he contends qua the findings of conviction warranting reversal, by this Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs standing replaced by findings of acquittal. 7. The learned Deputy Advocate General, has, with considerable force and vigor contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by the Court below rather, standing, based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record, and, theirs not necessitating interference rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel, on either side, has with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. The Investigating Officer concerned, through, recovery memo borne in Ext. PW-1/A, hence, effectuated, from, the conscious and exclusive possession of the convict, recovery, of, charas weighing 850 grams. In sequel to recovery of the aforesaid quantum of contraband", standing effectuated, from the purported conscious and exclusive possession, of, the accused, the Investigating Officer concerned, prepared NCB form in triplicate, form whereof stands comprised in Ext. PW-1/A, hence, effectuated, from, the conscious and exclusive possession of the convict, recovery, of, charas weighing 850 grams. In sequel to recovery of the aforesaid quantum of contraband", standing effectuated, from the purported conscious and exclusive possession, of, the accused, the Investigating Officer concerned, prepared NCB form in triplicate, form whereof stands comprised in Ext. PW-5/C "wherein" revelations occur, of, his "embossing upon" the bulk parcel, five seals of English Alphabet "R" (ii) also echoings occur in Ext.PW-5/C, of, thereafter the bulk parcel standing re-sealed, by the SHO concerned, at the Police Station concerned, with three seals, carrying English Alphabet "V". The aforesaid exhibit P-1 containing therein "the" charas, exhibit whereof stood seized under Ext.PW-1/A (iii) "from the" purported conscious and exclusive possession, of, the accused "stood" sent for analysis to the FSL concerned. The FSL Junga, purveyed its report thereon, report whereof is comprised in Ext.PX, wherein it recorded a firm opinion, of, the contents enclosed in the aforesaid bulk parcel "sent to it" for analysis, hence holding ingredients of "charas". Apart therefrom, the prosecution for establishing the charge, to which the accused stood subjected to, relied upon the depositions'' of, official witnesses, and, upon the depositions of the apt independent witnesses''. 10. The learned Deputy Advocate General, has contended, that, with the FSL concerned receiving "in an un-tampered condition" the bulk parcel Ex. P-1, recovery whereof stood effectuated, "through" memo, comprised in Ext.PW-1/A "from the" purported conscious and exclusive possession of the accused, (i) also with the FSL concerned in its report rendered in respect of, contents enclosed therein, report whereof is comprised in Ext. PX hence "unveiling" the trite factum of "its" containing charas, hence "ought to" constrain this Court, to affirm the findings of conviction recorded upon the accused. He contends that with the apposite NCB form (ii) holding complete connectivity "with" the road certificate besides with the seizure memo, respectively, comprised in Ex. PW-5/B, and, in Ex. PX hence "unveiling" the trite factum of "its" containing charas, hence "ought to" constrain this Court, to affirm the findings of conviction recorded upon the accused. He contends that with the apposite NCB form (ii) holding complete connectivity "with" the road certificate besides with the seizure memo, respectively, comprised in Ex. PW-5/B, and, in Ex. PW-1/A, AND, also with the report of the FSL comprised in Ex.PX (iii) importantly "in respect" of all relevant descriptions vis--vis all seal impression(s) , initially embossed thereon "at" the relevant site of occurrence, by the Investigating Officer (iv) also in respect "of" description(s) of all the reembossed/resealed "seal" impression(s) thereon, "by" the SHO concerned, (v) "ultimately", with the prosecution witnesses, to whom the case property stood shown in Court, theirs'' thereat categorically "voicing", of, the case property "holding absolute analogity" with respect, to, all the apt description(s) , in respect thereof, respectively, held in NCB form, road certificate, AND, with the apt report of FSL, (vi) thereupon the judgment of conviction returned upon the accused hence warranting affirmation. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the accused, has contended with much vigor, that the relevant intra-se connectivity(s) /congruity(s) inter-se the seizure of bulk parcel, "through", Ext. PW-1/A, "from" the purported conscious, and, exclusive possession of accused/appellant, vis--vis all the aforesaid relevant descriptions (vii) "not" standing efficaciously proven vis--vis the case property, "at the stage of its" production, in Court. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the accused, has contended with much vigor, that the relevant intra-se connectivity(s) /congruity(s) inter-se the seizure of bulk parcel, "through", Ext. PW-1/A, "from" the purported conscious, and, exclusive possession of accused/appellant, vis--vis all the aforesaid relevant descriptions (vii) "not" standing efficaciously proven vis--vis the case property, "at the stage of its" production, in Court. He espouses that the relevant inter-se lack of analogity(s) in respect of description(s) , of all seal impression(s) embossed thereon, at the stage when it stood seized, under the apt memo (viii) and also at the stage when it stood resealed, by the SHO concerned besides in respect of all the apposite seal impression(s) , displayed, in the report of the FSL AND vis--vis the ultimate stage, of its production, in Court, whereat it stood shown to the prosecution witnesses, (ix) "is aroused" by the factum of (a) the Public Prosecutor concerned "at" the stage, of, the prosecution witness(es) concerned, standing shown, "in Court", the relevant case property "his" not adducing before the trial Court, the relevant abstract, of, the Malkhana Register, with portrayal(s) therein (x) that at the time of its standing retrieved, from, the Malkhana concerned, by its Incharge, the latter in contemporanity thereof, also recording in the relevant register, apposite entries in respect thereof (xi) the Public Prosecutor concerned at the time, of production of the case property in Court, for its hence being shown to the prosecution witnesses concerned, "his not" making any communication(s) therebefore, that "it" stood delivered to him, by an authorized official. (xii) However, the aforesaid submission, does not, obtain any strength. (xiii) "Significantly" when a close discernment, of, the depositions'', of, the material prosecution witnesses'' "unveil", that the learned defence counsel "during" the course of respectively holding them to crossexamination, (xiv) his thereat "omitting to" put apposite suggestion to them, in respect of the apposite bulk parcel, seizure whereof occurred, through, memo comprised, in Ext. PW-1/A "not" standing related, to the apposite subsequently therewith prepared apt NCB Form, (xv) AND vis-vis road certificate, AND, vis--vis the report, of the FSL (xvi) "intrase un-relatability whereof", arising from their occurring apparent intra se incongruity(s) , with respect to all the apposite description(s) , of all seal impression(s) , drawn thereon vis--vis the ones embossed, on, the bulk parcel AND vis--vis all the apposite display(s) , borne, in the apt NCB form. (xvii) Even though, the learned defence counsel "at" the stage, of production of case property in Court "had" an opportunity to decipher, from, the case property, hence "occurrence(s) of" any apparent mis-descriptions AND also want of any intra se congruity(s) inter se, all the aforesaid exhibits vis--vis bulk parcel, (vii) also when, the learned defence counsel thereat, held the best opportune moment, to hence make the relevant unearthings, with respect, to, lack of all purported intra se incongruities inter-se the aforesaid exhibits vis--vis bulk parcel (xviii) "yet his" failing to thereat put apposite suggestion(s) , to, the prosecution witness "in respect of" any lack of intra se analogity(s) hence erupting inter se the relevant echoings, made in bulk parcel, seizure whereof occurred "through" memo Ext.PW-1/A, AND, respectively vis--vis NCB Form, road certificate, AND, the report of the FSL (xix) "significantly" with respect to all seal impression(s) embossed, upon, the bulk parcel, hence standing displayed or not displayed, in all the aforesaid memos. Consequently, his omitting, to, hence make any apposite unearthings, from Pws'' concerned, at the relevant stage, especially with respect to lack of any intra-se/inter-se analogity(s) , with, respect to all relevant description(s) borne thereon, (x x) conspicuously with respect to all seal impression(s) borne thereon vis--vis all seal impression(s) borne, on all memos, prepared subsequent thereto, (x xi) hence begets an inference, of, the defence acquiescing, to recovery of charas, occurring "through" Ext.PW-1/A, also its conceding, qua, recovery of the relevant contraband, hence occurring, from, the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused, also thereupon an inference is galvanized, of, bulk parcel, at, the imperative stage of its production in Court, hence standing efficaciously proven, to, stand recovered, from, the site of occurrence, from, the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused. 12. This Court has with careful circumspection dwelt, upon, the efficacy of the aforesaid submission(s) , also has traversed, through, the entire evidence apposite thereto. 12. This Court has with careful circumspection dwelt, upon, the efficacy of the aforesaid submission(s) , also has traversed, through, the entire evidence apposite thereto. Importantly, with the case property bearing the signatures of the accused; b) besides, of, the prosecution witnesses concerned ; c) importantly, with its bearing absolute concurrence(s) inter-se all the embossed seal impressions thereon, vis-vis, those borne in the relevant memos, d) thereupon, with, each of the prosecution witnesses'' aforesaid, to, whom the case property stood shown, in Court (ii) hence also in tandem therewith rendering testification(s) with absolute unanimity, of its, thereat bearing concurrence(s) , on all the aforesaid fronts, vis--vis the apposite therewith recital(s) borne in the apposite memo, whereunder its recovery(s) stood effectuated.(iii) thereupon, does reinforce the abovestated conclusion, of, upon its production in Court, its evidently holding all apt concurrence(s) with all connected therewith memos. 13. Nowat, the effect of an independent witnesses, to recovery memo Ext.PW-1/A, who, respectively testified as PW-1 (Ram Chand) , and, as PW-12 (Jiwan Singh) , hence, reneging from their previously recorded statements in writing, is, to stand construed alongwith, the, factum of theirs, in their respective cross-examinations, to which they stood subjected, to, by the learned Public Prosecutor "on" their standing declared hostile, hence admitting the factum of their signatures occurring thereon. Consequently, when they admit the occurrence of theirs signatures, on, the relevant memo(s) , thereupon the mandate of Section 91 and 92, of, the Indian Evidence Act whereupon they "on" admitting the occurrence of their signatures thereon, hence stood statutorily estopped to renege from all the recitals borne thereon, (i) thereupon the effect of theirs orally deposing in variance or in detraction of the recitals occurring therein, gets statutorily belittled (ii) rather when they naturally emphatically hence statutorily prove the recitals comprised in the apposite memo, theirs orally reneging from the recitals borne thereon, rather "holds no evidentiary clout" (iii) nor it is legally apt to outweigh the creditworthiness, of the testimony(s) , rendered by the official witnesses qua the recovery of contraband hence standing effectuated, from, the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused. Contrarily the uncontroverted factum, of, their authentic signatures hence occurring, in, the relevant exhibit, concomitantly renders the apposite recitals borne thereon, to hold the gravest probative worth. Contrarily the uncontroverted factum, of, their authentic signatures hence occurring, in, the relevant exhibit, concomitantly renders the apposite recitals borne thereon, to hold the gravest probative worth. The ensuing sequel thereof, is that with the statutory estoppel constituted in Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, hence barring independent witness(s) , from, orally resiling from the contents of recovery memo(s) , especially when he/they admit/admits, that the apposite signatures occurring thereon, to hence belong to him/them, renders unworthwhile besides insignificant, the factum qua his/theirs rather orally deposing in variance vis--vis its recorded recitals, (iv) thereupon per se an inference stands enhanced qua dehors his/theirs reneging from his previous statement(s) recorded in writing, a deduction(s) standing capitalized, qua, thereupon his/theirs proving the genesis of the prosecution case. 14. Be that as it may, the vigour of the aforesaid conclusion, would also stand benumbed, only when, evidence exists on record, with respect, to, the independent witnesses concerned, standing pressurized or coerced, by the Investigating Officer concerned "to" emboss their signatures, upon, seizure memo(s) . However, the independent witnesses concerned, though, in their testifications, make an attempt to communicate that their signatures thereon were obtained, despite, contents thereof being not readover to them, yet, the aforesaid communication "is bereft of any vigour", especially when they "do not" make any unveilings, in their testifications (i) that in the Investigating Officer concerned, purportedly omitting to read over to them, the contents of the aforesaid exhibits, "besides" hence their obviously without understanding their contents, theirs, appending theirs signatures'' thereon, rather embossing(s) thereon by them, of their signatures, "hence spurring", from, any compulsion or duress standing exerted upon them, by the Investigating Officer, "importantly", also when in respect thereof they omitted to record a complaint, with, Officer(s) superior, to, the Investigating Officer concerned. Consequently, the effect of the aforesaid communications, occurring, in the testification(s) of the independent witnesses aforesaid, does not, belittle the hereinabove drawn inference, anvilled upon attraction, "upon", the admitted factum of their authentic signatures, occurring, on the recovery memo, "the", mandate of Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, whereupon dehors, theirs'' making the aforesaid frail attempt(s) , for belying the recitals borne in Ext.PW-1/A, they rather hence statutorily prove, all the recitals, occurring therein. 15. 15. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the appellant, has, contended with vigor, that, with a recital occurring, in, the crossexamination of PW-7, of, police not carrying the personal search, of, the accused, prior, to, theirs'' checking the relevant bag, yet, the personal search of the accused, being effectuated after his arrest, (i) hence, the inference therefrom, is, of the apt recovery being effectuated, from, a personal search of the accused, and, not from the relevant bag, thereupon when hence visibly, the, mandate of section 50 of NDPS remained, un-complied with, hence, the prosecution case, is, gripped with a gross stain. The aforesaid submission, is, rejected, (a) given the occurrence, of, signatures of the accused, on, the relevant parcel, and, also the relevant parcel, carrying the signatures of the witnesses thereto, besides, given , the, occurrence of uncontested signatures of the accused, on the seizure memo, and, also of witnesses thereto, (b) whereupon hence, the apt recovery, is, to be concluded to be efficaciously, made, in consonance therewith, especially when for all the aforesaid-stated reasons, the efficacy(s) of all the relevant testifications'' remains un-shattered. 16. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner, apart therefrom, the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court, does not, suffer from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record. The impugned judgment is affirmed and maintained. 17. However, the learned counsel for the appellant/convict, makes a prayer, at this stage, for reducing the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant/convict. He submits that the aforesaid submission hence being amenable to acceptance, given the convict, being a young person, and, his hence being enabled to reform himself. The aforesaid submission is accepted. The sentence of imprisonment imposed, upon, the appellant/convict is reduced, from, four years and six months'' rigorous imprisonment, to, three years'' rigorous imprisonment. Sentence of fine, imposed upon the appellant/convict is, reduced from Rs. 25, 000/- to Rs. 10, 000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The period of detention already undergone by him, is ordered to be set off, from the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him. Excess fine, if any, paid by him be refunded to him. 18. 25, 000/- to Rs. 10, 000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The period of detention already undergone by him, is ordered to be set off, from the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him. Excess fine, if any, paid by him be refunded to him. 18. Consequently, the sentence(s) of imprisonment and of fine, imposed upon the convict, is to the extent above, hence, modified. Records be sent back forthwith.