JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. 1. The present criminal appeal has been maintained by the appellant-accused-convict (hereinafter to be called as "the accused") against the judgment dated 10.04.2017, passed by learned Special Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 50 of 2014, whereby the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and a fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 20 (ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter to be called as "NDPS Act"). 2. Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, are that on 20.07.2014, ASI Jagdish Chand alongwith HC Sanjay Kumar, SPO Sanjeev Kumar, SPO Jan Mohammad and SPO Darshan Singh, was on patrolling duty at Darkunda. At about 2.30 P.M. the accused came from the side of Tilmali carrying a sky blue colour bag in his left hand and on seeing the police party, he tried to run away. A suspicion arose when the accused was apprehended. On inquiry, he disclosed his name as Vinod Kumar. Since the place was secluded and no independent was available there, ASI Jagdish Chand joined HC Sanjay Kumar and SPO Sanjeev Kumar as witnesses. In their presence, ASI Jagdish Chand conducted the search of the carry bag of accused and inside the bag, found another white colour bag, which was tied with a knot. On opening the knot of that bag, black coloured substance in the shape of sticks was found, which was identified to be charas. The charas (cannabis) was weighed and found to be 550 grams. The contraband alongwith carry bag was put in a cloth parcel and sealed with five seals having impression 'T' and sample of seal 'T' was also taken on separate piece of cloth. NCB form in triplicate was filled in and seal impression was taken on it. The seal after its use was handed over to HC Sanjay Kumar. Investigating Officer scribed rukka and sent the same to Police Station, Tissa, through SPO Jan Mohammad, on the basis of which, FIR was registered. During investigation, Investigating Officer prepared site plan, recorded statements of the witnesses and arrested the accused. The seal after its use was handed over to HC Sanjay Kumar. Investigating Officer scribed rukka and sent the same to Police Station, Tissa, through SPO Jan Mohammad, on the basis of which, FIR was registered. During investigation, Investigating Officer prepared site plan, recorded statements of the witnesses and arrested the accused. The case property consisting of parcel, NCB-I form in triplicate and sample of seal 'T' were handed over to Inspector Sharif Mohammad for resealing. After examining the parcel, he resealed the same with five seals having impression 'R' and filled in relevant columns of NCB form and took sample seal on separate piece of cloth. Thereafter, he deposited the entire case property alongwith the sample seal and NCB form with malkhana Incharge, MHC Ashwani Kumar, who made an entry at S. No. 258 in malkhana register and deposited it in the malkhana. On 21.07.2014, malkhana Incharge handed over the case property alongwith relevant documents to HHC, Subhash Singh, to deposit it in SFSL, Junga, vide RC, who deposited the same in SFSL, Junga and on return, handed over the receipt to MHC. The special report was prepared and it was sent through HHG Harinder to Superintendent of Police, Chamba. Copy of Rukka was handed over by SPO Darshan Singh in the office of Superintendent of Police, Chamba. After completion of investigation, challan was presented before the learned trial Court. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as eleven witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. wherein he denied the case of the prosecution in its entirety. However, the accused did not lead any evidence in his defence. 4. The learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 10.04.2017, convicted the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 20(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Mr. 15,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Hence, the present appeal. 5. Mr. N.K. Thakur, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the place from where the alleged recovery is stated to have been affected, nearby that place, there are many houses, a bank and other Government institutions and as it was day time as per the prosecution case, even then, no independent witnesses were associated by the police. He has further argued that it was a highway, where many vehicles were passing through, so, non association of the independent witnesses is fatal to the prosecution story. He has argued that there are contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses with regard to time and recovery, as PW-1 has stated that it was 2:30 P.M. whereas PW-2 has stated that recovery memo was prepared at 1:30 P.M. which shows that the alleged contraband was recovered before 2:30. He has argued that there are contradictions even with regard to the recovered substance, because as per the statement of PW-3 the recovered substance was 550 gms, but as per the statement of PW-1 it was 520 gms. so, in these circumstances, the time and recovery of narcotics, as alleged to be recovered and taking into consideration the contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, the story putforth by the prosecution creates serious doubt. 6. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Bhatti, learned Additional Advocate General, has argued that since no independent witness was available on the spot, as such, no independent witness could be associated. He has further argued that the statements of official witnesses are confidence inspiring and minor contradictions with respect to the time and quantity of recovered contraband are not of much relevance. He has argued that the contraband recovered was of huge quantity, so, the well reasoned judgment of conviction, passed by learned trial Court, needs no interference, as the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused conclusively and beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. 7. He has argued that the contraband recovered was of huge quantity, so, the well reasoned judgment of conviction, passed by learned trial Court, needs no interference, as the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused conclusively and beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. 7. In rebuttal, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that when the independent witnesses were available on the spot, their non-joining is fatal to the prosecution story and taking into consideration the contradictions in the statements of spot witnesses, it seems that both the person were not available on the spot at the time of incident, in these circumstances, the judgment passed by learned trial Court be set aside and after re-appreciating the facts, which have come on record, the appellant be acquitted from the offence, he was charged with. 8. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, this Court has gone through the record carefully and in detail. 9. As far as the facts of the present case are concerned, PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10 are the material witnesses. SPO, Sanjeev Kumar, while appearing in the witness box as PW-1, has deposed that on 20.07.2014, he alongwith ASI Jadgish Chand, HC Sanjay Kumar, SPO Darshan, SPO Jan Mohammad was on patrolling duty at Darkunda. Around 2:30 P.M. one person carrying a bag in his left hand, came from Tilmili side and on seeing the police party, he tried to run away. On suspicion, he was nabbed by them and on inquiry, he disclosed his name as Vinod Kumar, resident of Uttar Pradesh, running a tea shop in Pathankot. The Investigating Officer sent HC Sanjay Kumar to bring local witnesses, but since no local witness was present, he alongwith HC Sanjay Kumar, were associated as witnesses and bag of the accused was checked. When the knot of the bag was opened, it was containing black coloured substance in the shape of sticks, which was found to be charas. On weighing the contraband, it was found to be 520 gms, which was repacked in same manner and sealed in parcel with five seals of seal impression 'T'. NCB form in triplicate was filled in by the Investigating Officer. The seal 'T' was put on NCB form at three places and also drawn on separate piece of cloth. On weighing the contraband, it was found to be 520 gms, which was repacked in same manner and sealed in parcel with five seals of seal impression 'T'. NCB form in triplicate was filled in by the Investigating Officer. The seal 'T' was put on NCB form at three places and also drawn on separate piece of cloth. The investigating Officer took into possession the recovered parcel, NCB form and sample seal vide memo, Ext. PW-1/B, which was signed by him, as also by HC Sanjay Kumar. This witness, in cross-examination, has deposed that prior to checking of the accused, 5-7 vehicles were checked by the Investigating Officer. As per this witness, neither any vehicle was challened nor any other person was checked on that day. He deposed that the Investigating Officer had not given any written order to HC Sanjay Kumar to bring independent witnesses. He admitted that at a distance of one kilometer, there is Nakrod Bazar, where are 50-60 shops. He further admitted that from the spot, road leads to Nakrod and all vehicles passes through the spot. He admitted that there are banks, post office and school at Nakrod. He deposed that Investigating Officer had not given the personal search of police officials and witnesses to the accused prior to taking search of his bag. As per this witness, seizure memo, Ext. PW-1/B was prepared at 3:00 P.M. He denied as to when NCB form was filled in. He deposed that it took 2 1/2 hours to complete the investigation at the spot. 10. PW-2, SPO Jan Mohammad, has deposed that on 20.07.2014, he alongwith ASI Jagdish Chand, HC Sanjay Kumar, SPO Darshan and Sanjeev Kumar went for patrolling duty towards Darkunda. Around 2:30 P.M. one person carrying a bag in his left hand, came from Tilmili side. On seeing the police party, he tried to run away and on suspicion, he was nabbed by them. On inquiry, he disclosed his name as Vinod Kumar, resident of Uttar Pradesh, running a tea shop in Pathankot. The Investigating Officer sent HC Sanjay Kumar to bring local witnesses, but since no local witness was present, HC Sanjay Kumar and SPO Sanjeev Kumar were associated as witnesses and bag of the accused was checked, which was containing another bag. On inquiry, he disclosed his name as Vinod Kumar, resident of Uttar Pradesh, running a tea shop in Pathankot. The Investigating Officer sent HC Sanjay Kumar to bring local witnesses, but since no local witness was present, HC Sanjay Kumar and SPO Sanjeev Kumar were associated as witnesses and bag of the accused was checked, which was containing another bag. When the knot of that bag was opened, black substance in the shape of sticks was found, on the basis of experience, the Investigating Officer found it charas. On weighing the contraband, it was found to be 520 gms. which was repacked in same manner and sealed in parcel with five seals of seal impression 'T'. NCB form in triplicate was filled in by the Investigating Officer. The seal 'T' was put on NCB form at three places and also drawn on separate piece of cloth. The investigating Officer took into possession the recovered parcel, NCB form and sample seal vide memo, Ext. PW-1/B. The Investigating Officer prepared the rukka and handed over to him for being taken to police station for registration of FIR and thereafter he handed over the case file to the Investigating Officer in the police station. This witness, in cross-examination, has deposed that prior to checking of the accused, 5-7 vehicles were checked by the Investigating Officer. As per this witness, neither any vehicle was challened nor any other person was checked on that day. He admitted that at a distance of one kilometer, there is Nakrod Bazar, where are 50-60 shops. He further admitted that from the spot, road leads to Nakrod and all vehicles passes through the spot. He deposed that first of all recovery memo was prepared by the Investigating Officer at about 1:30 P.M. He further deposed that Investigating Officer had not given the personal search of police officials and witnesses to the accused prior to taking search of his bag. 11. PW-3, SPO Darshan Singh, has deposed that on 20.07.2014, he was also accompanying the Investigating Officer, ASI Jagdish Chand and 550 gms. charas was recovered from the accused. 11. PW-3, SPO Darshan Singh, has deposed that on 20.07.2014, he was also accompanying the Investigating Officer, ASI Jagdish Chand and 550 gms. charas was recovered from the accused. As per this witness, after completion of formalities, Investigating Officer handed over the copy of rukka to him, which he handed over to Superintendent of Police in his office at about 6:30 P.M. In cross-examination, he deposed that the rukka was handed over to him by the Investigating Officer at about 4:30 P.M. 12. PW-7, PSI Sanjay Kumar, has deposed that on 20.07.2014, when he was at Police Station, Tissa, rukka was brought by SPO Jan Mohammad, upon which, he recorded the FIR, Ext. PW-7/A, made endorsement, Ext. PW-7/B and handed over the file to Jan Mohammad for being delivered to the Investigating Officer. In cross-examination, he deposed that rukka was received in the police station at 5:00 P.M. Jan Mohammad took the file at 4:45 P.M. to hand over the same to Investigating Officer at the spot. 13. PW-9, HC Sanjay Kumar, has deposed that on 20.07.2014, he was also on patrolling duty at Darkunda. Around 2:30 P.M. one person carrying a bag in his left hand, came from Tilmili side. On seeing the police party, he tried to run away and on suspicion, he was nabbed by them. On inquiry, he disclosed his name as Vinod Kumar, resident of Uttar Pradesh, running a tea shop in Pathankot. The bag of the accused was checked, from which one another bag was recovered. When the knot of said bag was opened, it was containing black coloured substance in the shape of sticks, which was found to be charas. On weighing the contraband, it was found to be 550 gms, which was repacked in same manner and sealed in a parcel with five seals of seal 'T'. NCB form in triplicate was filled in by the Investigating Officer. Sample seal was drawn on separate piece of cloth. The seal after its use was handed over to him. The recovered charas was sealed in a parcel and was taken into possession, vide memo, Ext. PW-1/B, which was signed by him, as also by SPO Sanjeev Kumar. This witness, in cross-examination, has deposed that only one vehicle was challaned by him on that day and 5-6 vehicles were checked. No other passer except the accused was checked. The recovered charas was sealed in a parcel and was taken into possession, vide memo, Ext. PW-1/B, which was signed by him, as also by SPO Sanjeev Kumar. This witness, in cross-examination, has deposed that only one vehicle was challaned by him on that day and 5-6 vehicles were checked. No other passer except the accused was checked. The investigating Officer had no previous information regarding charas. He admitted that near the spot, there is Government Senior Secondary Schook at Nakrod, as well as hospital. He also admitted that police party did not give their search to the accused. As per the this witness, it took three and half hours to complete the proceedings. 14. PW-10, ASI Jagdish Chand, Investigating Officer of the case, has deposed that on 20.07.2014, he alongwith HC Sanjay Kumar, SPO Sanjeev Kumar, SPO Jan Mohammad and Darshan Singh was on patrolling duty at Darkunda and they were checking the vehicles at the spot. Around 2:30 P.M. one person, carrying a bag of sky blue colour in his left hand, came from Tilmili side and on seeing the police party, he tried to run away. On suspicion, he was nabbed by the police party. On inquiry, he disclosed him name as Vinod Kumar resident of Uttar Pradesh, running a tea shop in Pathankot. Since no independent witness was available, as the spot was secluded place, he associated SPO Sanjeev Kumar and HC Sanjay Kumar as witnesses and checked the bag of the accused. During checking, one white colour bag was recovered, which was tied with knot. On opening the knot, black coloured substance in the shape of sticks was recovered, which was found to be charas. On weighing the contraband, it was found to be 550 gms. The recovered contraband was repacked in same manner and sealed in a parcel with five seals of seal 'T'. NCB form in triplicate was filled in by him. Sample seal was drawn on separate piece of cloth. The seal after its use was handed over to HC Sanjay Kumar. He took photographs of the spot. The recovered charas was sealed in a parcel and was taken into possession, vide memo, Ext. PW-1/B, on which, signatures of attesting witnesses were obtained. He prepared rukka and handed over the same to SPO Jan Mohammad to the spot. Copy of Rukka was sent to SP, Chamba through SPO Darshan Singh. He took photographs of the spot. The recovered charas was sealed in a parcel and was taken into possession, vide memo, Ext. PW-1/B, on which, signatures of attesting witnesses were obtained. He prepared rukka and handed over the same to SPO Jan Mohammad to the spot. Copy of Rukka was sent to SP, Chamba through SPO Darshan Singh. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and arrested the accused vide memo, Ext. PW-10/F. Information regarding arrest of the accused was given to his friend Tony. In cross-examination, he feigned ignorance as to which vehicle was challaned by HC Sanjay, since he did not take copy of that challan. He deposed that no passer was checked by them, except the accused. He further deposed that they had no previous information about the accused. The accused was nabbed by them, when he tried to run away. He admitted that vehicles crosses from the spot towards Nakrod. He also admitted that there is Government school and hospital at Nakrod. He deposed that he prepared seizure memo first of all at 3:10 P.M. He filled column No. 1 to 8 of NCB form. He further deposed that he mentioned the shape on contraband as sticks of black colour in NCB form. Again stated that he did not mention the shape and colour of contraband in NCB form. He deposed that he handed over rukka and copy of rukka to SPOs at 3:30 P.M. and he remained on the spot upto 4:35 P.M. He denied that accused had come in search of labour work and he was roped in a false case. 15. Besides aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution has also examined PW-4, HH Ashwani, PW-5, HHC Subhash Chand, PW-6, Constable Anil Kumar, PW-8 Constable Naresh Kumar and PW-11, Sharif Mohammad, who are formal witnesses. 16. From the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that independent witnesses were available on spot in abundance, however, the prosecution has not associated any independent witness, which creates serious doubt with respect to the recovery. Further, the recovered substance is stated to be 550 gms by one witness and 520 gms by other witness, who both are official witnesses. 16. From the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that independent witnesses were available on spot in abundance, however, the prosecution has not associated any independent witness, which creates serious doubt with respect to the recovery. Further, the recovered substance is stated to be 550 gms by one witness and 520 gms by other witness, who both are official witnesses. As per the statement of PW-7, he received rukka at 5:00 P.M. and returned the same for handing over to the Investigating Officer at the spot, whereas the statement of PW-2 is totally different and as per the statement of PW-2, after registration of FIR, he handed over the same to the Investigating Officer in the Police station. Even there are contradictions with respect to the challaning of the vehicles, as PW-2 has stated that 5-7 vehicles were checked on that day, but no vehicle was challaned, whereas, PW-9 has stated that one vehicle was challaned by him for violation of Motor Vehicles Act. These are not minor contradictions and shows that the witnesses were not present on the spot. 17. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, when the independent witnesses were available, but not associated and the statements of police witnesses are having material contradictions, it is difficult to hold that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and it cannot be ruled out that it is a concocted story. 18. Hon'ble Apex Court in Kalpnath Rai vs. State (through CBI), (1997) 8 SCC 732 , has held as under: "87. As a legal proposition it was argued that it would be unsafe to base a conclusion on the evidence of police officer alone without being supported by at least one independent person from the locality. To reinforce the said contention Shri V.S. Kotwal, Senior Advocate cited the decision of this Court in Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar vs. State of Maharashtra, wherein want of independent witnesses of the locality rendered suspicious a raid conducted by the police. 88. There can be no legal proposition that evidence of police officers, unless supported by independent witnesses, is unworthy of acceptance. Non-examination of independent witness or even presence of such witness during police raid would cast an added duty on the court to adopt greater care while scrutinizing the evidence of the police officers. 88. There can be no legal proposition that evidence of police officers, unless supported by independent witnesses, is unworthy of acceptance. Non-examination of independent witness or even presence of such witness during police raid would cast an added duty on the court to adopt greater care while scrutinizing the evidence of the police officers. If the evidence of the police officer is found acceptable it would be an erroneous proposition that court must reject the prosecution version solely on the ground that no independent witness was examined. In Pradeep Narain Madgaonkar (supra) to which one of us (Mukherjee, J.) was a party, the aforesaid position has been stated in unambiguous terms, the relevant portion of which is extracted below: "Indeed, the evidence of the official (police) witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to the police force and are, either interested in the investigation or the prosecuting agency but prudence dictates that their evidence needs to be subjected to strict scrutiny and as far as possible corroboration of their evidence in material particulars should be sought. Their desire to see the success of the case based on their investigation, requires greater care to appreciate their testimony." 19. Applying the law, as settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court (supra) and taking the contradictions of the material facts into consideration, which have come on record, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Otherwise also, when the investigating agency has not associated any independent witnesses, when they were available, the appellant cannot be convicted on the sole testimonies of police witnesses, especially, when their statements are not confidence inspiring. 20. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant-convict is allowed and he is acquitted of the commission of offence punishable under Section 20(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act. Resultantly, appellant-convict, who is presently serving out the sentence, be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 21. The appeal, so also pending applications, if any, stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.