JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal, stands, directed by the appellant, against the judgment of conviction pronounced, on 21.2.2018, by the learned Special Judge-II, (Additional Sessions Judge),Kullu, in Session Trial No. 34 of 2015, wherethrough findings, of conviction, were returned upon the appellant, for his committing offence(s) punishable, under Section 20, of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, and, also therethrough the accused/appellant, stood sentenced, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, and, to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the commission, of, an offence, under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, and, in default of payment of fine, he stood further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment, for one year. 2. The facts relevant to the case is, that on 13.2.2015, PW-8 HC Bhupinder Singh alongwith PW- 9 HHC Tara Chand.C.Viney Kumar and HHG Jeet Ram was on Nakabandi duty at Sheer Galu near Paltoj road towards Naggar-Jana rout at about 4 pm. As per rapat Ext. PW7/A. In the meantime accused was noticed coming from Jana side on foot and accused on seeing the police party, tried to flee away from the spot, on which suspicion arose. The accused was apprehended by the police party at about 50-60 feet and the accused disclosed his name as Diwakar and the accused was carrying a Pithu Ext. P-2 and when the accused was inquired about the said bag, he could not give satisfactory answer to HC Bhupinder Singh. In the meantime, another person namely Rahinder came from Nashala side who was stopped and the said person and HHC Tara Chand were associated as witnesses. It is alleged that in the presence of the aforesaid witnesses, it was explained to the accused that there is suspicion of having any suspicious substance in Pithu Bag carried by the accused and the said bag is required to be taken and on this compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS was made and the accused was made aware of his legal right as to before whom he wanted to give his personal search and the accused consented to be searched before police party as per memo Ext. PW8/A, which was prepared on the spot. HC Bhupinder Singh gave his personal search to the accused vide memo Ext. PW8/B in the presence of witnesses and nothing incriminating was found. PW8/A, which was prepared on the spot. HC Bhupinder Singh gave his personal search to the accused vide memo Ext. PW8/B in the presence of witnesses and nothing incriminating was found. Thereafter, bag was searched in the presence of the witnesses and when the zips of the bag were opened, one carry bag of saffron colour Ext. P-3 was recovered from the main pocket of Ext. P2, pithu and stick shape black coloured substance wrapped in the transparent polythene wrappers was recovered from the same, which was found to be charas Ext.P-4. The recovered contraband was weighed and the same was found to be 1 kg and 512 gms. Thereafter the recovered charas was put inside the carry bag Ext. P- 3 and the carry bag was put inside the black coloured pithu bag Ext. P-2 and the pithu bag was put inside the cloth parcel and the same was sealed with ten seal impressions of seal “T”. The seal after use was handed over to PW-6 Rajinder Kumar. The recovered substance was taken into possession alongwith sample seal “T”. NCB-1 forms in triplicate vide memo Ext. PW8/C were filled in the presence of the witnesses, which were signed by the witnesses and accused. Ruqua Ext. PW8/D was prepared. After completing all the codal formalities, challan was filed in the Court. 3. The accused was charged for committing an offence punishable under Section 20 of the ND & PS Act. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. On conclusion of recording of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stood recorded by the trial Court, wherein, he made disclosures qua his false implication. However, he did not lead any defence evidence. 4. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court, recorded findings of conviction against the accused/appellant herein. 5. The accused/appellant, is, aggrieved by the judgment of conviction recorded, by the learned trial Court. The learned Counsel appearing, for the accused/appellant has concertedly, and, vigorously hence contended qua the findings of conviction, recorded by the learned trial Court, standing not, based on a proper appreciation, by it, of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by it, of the material on record. The learned Counsel appearing, for the accused/appellant has concertedly, and, vigorously hence contended qua the findings of conviction, recorded by the learned trial Court, standing not, based on a proper appreciation, by it, of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by it, of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of conviction being reversed by this Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced by findings of acquittal. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General, has, with compatible force, and, vigor, also contended that the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Court below, standing based, on a mature, and, balanced appreciation, “by it”, of evidence on record, and, theirs not necessitating interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 7. 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. 8. The recovery of the relevant item, of contraband, was made, from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused, through memo, borne in Ext. PW8/C, whereon, the uncontested signatures of accused, stand borne, and, hence the estopping statutory principles, engrafted in the provisions of Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, bar the accused to contest the voicing(s), borne therein, unless the hereinafter alluded apt interconnectivities, do not emerge, at the stage of production of the case property in Court, (a) AND in contemporaneity, vis-à-vis, the afore seizure, standing effectuated, by the Investigating Officer concerned, from, the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused, rather NCB form, borne in Ext. PW2/A, stood also drawn, (b) wherein reflections are cast, vis-à-vis, 10 seal impressions each, on the bulk, and, the sample parcels, hence carrying English alphabet “T”, standing embossed thereon, and, thereon the uncontested signatures of the accused, stand borne, and, hence the estopping statutory principles, engrafted in the provisions of Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, bar the accused to contest the voicing(s), borne therein, unless the hereinafter alluded apt interconnectivities, do not emerge, at the stage of production of the case property in Court c) the Station House Officer concerned, upon receiving the seized contraband, at the police station concerned, also embossed thereon six re-sealing(s) seal impressions rather carrying English alphabet “K”. The afore seizure(s) was/were, deposited, through Ext. PW2/C, in the Mallkhana concerned. The afore seizure(s) was/were, deposited, through Ext. PW2/C, in the Mallkhana concerned. Subsequent thereto, under road certificate, borne in Ext.PW2/B, the seized contraband, stood dispatched, to the FSL concerned, for the latter hence making an opinion thereon. All the afore exhibits, carry narratives therein, vis-à-vis, the description, and, number(s), of the seal impressions, embossed, respectively upon the bulk, and, upon the sample parcels, and, all the afore visibly carry interse compatibility(ies), and, synonymity(ies). Furthermore, the FSL concerned, upon receiving, the case property, has, in its report, embodied, in Ext. PW8/M, made echoing(s) therein rather bearing compatibility, vis-à-vis, the afore facet(s), as narrated in the afore-referred exhibits, (d) and has also rendered, an opinion, qua the parcel sent to it, for analysis, carrying therein rather all the ingredients, of, Charas, (e) and thereafter, echoing(s) are also borne therein, qua the FSL concerned, after extracting, the ingredients/contents, as stood carried in the sample parcel, sent to it, for analysis, and, thereafter its making an opinion thereon, rather, it subsequent thereto, re-inserting the ingredient(s) in the cloth parcel, and, it embossing thereon, the, seal impression(s), of, the FSL. The charge would be concluded to be efficaciously proven by the prosecution, (f) upon each of the prosecution witnesses concerned, wheretowhom, the case property(ies), stood shown in Court, hence in their respective testification(s), making clear/candid echoing(s), qua the relevant congruities, and, similarities, interse, the number(s), and, description(s) of the seal impressions, as stand echoed, in the afore exhibits, also existing, upon, the case property, upon, its production in Court. However, at the time of production, of the case property in Court, and, thereat its being shown, to the prosecution witnesses concerned, though, as aforestated, the relevant connectivities, stand echoed, by the prosecution witnesses concerned, (g) and when thereat, the accused persons stood also represented, by the defence counsel,(h) hence when the learned defence counsel, rather thereat held the opportune moment, to, on sighting the case property, hence make therethrough(s) decipherment(s), and, discerning(s), vis-à-vis, the afore congruities, or compatibilities, being amiss therein (i) or not, rather, visibly even at the afore stage, the learned defence counsel, did not, either object to the production, or exhibition, of the case property in Court, (j) nor thereafter proceeded to make any strivings, to elicit, from the prosecution witnesses concerned, any echoing(s), qua the relevant connectivities, (k) not existing(s), nor the learned defence counsel endeavored, to, hence ensure qua the Court making any observation, during, the course of recording, of the testification(s), of the prosecution witnesses’, concerned, qua the aforestated relevant compatibilities, and, interconnectivities, interse the bulk, and, seal parcels, and, appertaining to the number(s), and, description(s), of, six seal impressions, carrying English alphabet, “K”, narrated in Ext.PW8/C, (l) rather not emerging, at the stage of production, of the case property in Court. In sequel to the afore, an inference is sparked, qua the learned defence counsel, rather acquiescing qua the relevant apposite congruities, and, connectivities, emerging interse, the, number(s) and description(s), of the seal impressions, carrying therein English alphabet “T”, and, as stood embossed, on the samples, and, bulk parcels, and, qua wherewith, a synonymous narrative, is, carried in Ext. PW2/A, hence at the imperative stage, of production of case property in Court. 9. In summa, the emergence of clinching and potent evidence, vis-à-vis, the afore apt connectivities, hence surfacing, thereupon the effect, if any, of any minimal discrepancies, improvements or embellishments, vis-à-vis their previous statements recorded in writing or any minimal interse or any intrase contradiction, if any, occurring in the deposition(s), of the prosecution witnesses concerned, naturally, and, logically all get subsumed, and, subsided. 10. 10. Nowat, the effect of an independent witness, to recovery memo Ext.PW-8/C, rather reneging from his previously recorded statement in writing, is, to stand construed alongwith the factum, of his, in his cross-examinations, to which he stood subjected, to, by the learned Public Prosecutor “upon” his standing declared hostile, hence admitting the factum, of, his authentic signatures occurring thereon. Conspicously, when upon his admitting the occurrence, of, his signatures, on the relevant memo(s), (a) thereupon the mandate of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, whereupon, he “on” admitting, the occurrence of his authentic signatures thereon, hence stood statutorily estopped, to hence, renege from the recitals, borne thereon,(b) stands rather attracted (c) whereupon the effect of his orally deposing, in variance or in detraction vis-à-vis, the recitals hence occurring therein, gets statutorily belittled (d) rather when he naturally and emphatically hence statutorily, proves the recitals, comprised in the apposite memo(s), thereupon his orally reneging from the recitals borne thereon “holds no evidentiary clout” (e) nor it holds any legal weight, to hence countervail the creditworthiness, of the testimony(ies) of the official witnesses, qua the recovery of contraband, made under recovery memo Ext.PW-8/C, hence standing effectuated therethrough, from the conscious, and, exclusive possession, of, the accused. Contrarily the uncontroverted factum, of, his authentic signatures, occurring in the relevant exhibits, concomitantly renders the apposite recitals, borne therein, rather, to hold a grave probative worth. The ensuing sequel thereof, is that with the principle, of, statutory estoppel, hence constituted in Sections 91 and 92, of the Indian Evidence Act, rather barring an independent witness, to orally resile, from the contents of Ext.PW 8/C, (f) especially when he admits qua his apposite signatures occurring thereon, (g) thereupon renders unworthwhile besides insignificant, the factum, qua his orally deposing in variance vis-à-vis, its recorded recitals, (h) per se whereupon an inference stands enhanced qua dehors, his reneging from his previous statement(s) recorded in writing, a deduction(s) standing capitalized, qua thereupon, his proving the genesis, of the prosecution case, and, also countervails, the reason assigned, by the learned Special Judge, for its thereupon, falsifying the recitals occurring in Ext.PW-8/C. 11. Be that as it may, the vigour of the aforesaid conclusion, would stand benumbed, only upon hence evidence existing on record, with respect to the independent witnesses concerned, standing pressurized or coerced by the Investigating Officer concerned “to” emboss his/their authentic signatures, upon, seizure memo, borne in Ext.PW-8/C. However, the independent witness concerned, though, in his testification, makes an attempt, to communicate qua his signatures thereon being obtained, despite, contents thereof being not readover, to him (a) yet the aforesaid communication “is bereft of any vigor” especially when he, “does not”, make any unveilings in his testification, that, in the Investigating Officer concerned, purportedly omitting to read over to him, the contents of the aforesaid exhibits, “besides” hence, his obviously without purportedly understanding, their contents rather his appending his signatures thereon, (b) rather their embossing(s) thereon, by him, of his signatures, “hence spurring”, from compulsion(s) or duress(es), standing exerted, upon him, by the Investigating Officer (c) construing, the afore omission(s), on entwinement, with his further omission, to record a complaint with the Officer(s) superior, to the Investigating Officer concerned, rather (d) begets, an, inference, qua the effect, if, any, of the aforesaid communications, occurring in the testification(s) of the independent witness, dehors, the afore bespeakings standing borne therein, rather not belittling, the, hereinabove drawn inference, anvilled upon, attraction “upon” the admitted factum, of, his authentic signatures, occurring on Ext.PW-8/C, hence “the” mandate of Section 91 and 92, of, the Indian Evidence Act, (c) thereupon dehors his making the aforesaid, frail attempt(s), for, belying the recitals borne, in Ext.PW- 8/C, his rather hence statutorily proving all the recitals occurring therein. 12. Even though, the learned counsel appearing, for the appellant, has contended with much vigor, before this Court, that the mandatory provisions, borne, in Section 50 of the ND & PS Act, wheretowhich hence the strict compliance, was enjoined to be meted, rather with hence strictest compliance therewith, standing not meted, (a) in as much as, the consent memo, borne in Ext. PW8/A, though, carrying therein hence clear echoing(s), vis-àvis, the Investigating Officer concerned, though therethrough rather seeking the consent of the accused, vis-à-vis, his bag, borne in Ext. PW8/A, though, carrying therein hence clear echoing(s), vis-àvis, the Investigating Officer concerned, though therethrough rather seeking the consent of the accused, vis-à-vis, his bag, borne in Ext. P-2, being searched, by the Magistrate or a Gazetted officer, or by the Investigating Officer concerned, (ii) yet it not carrying clear and categorical echoing(s), therein, vis-à-vis, the accused also holding a statutory right, for search of his bag, being made by the Magistrate or the Gazetted officer. However, even if, the afore phraseology, does not render, it to fall within the ambit of the verdicts, rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein rather it stands expounded, qua it, being imperative for the Investigating Officer concerned, to, in the relevant consent memo, scribe clear bespeaking(s), vis-à-vis, the accused holding rather an imperative statutory right, vis-à-vis, his personal search, being carried, before the Magistrate or before the Gazetted Officer. However, even if the afore imperative phraseology, is, wanting, in Ext. PW8/E, yet the afore wants therein, would not constrain this Court, to, yet interfere with the impugned verdict, (c) as the mandatory provisions borne, in Section 50 of the NDPS Act, is/are applicable, (d) only upon the relevant item of contraband being tethered, to the body of the accused, or it being kept within his pockets, or it being carried in a manner, which renders it being inextricably entwined, to his person, (e) however, with bag Ext. P-2, hence wherethrough the recovery of contraband, stood effectuated, standing unraveled, in Ext. PW8/C, to stand slung on his shoulder, and, when hence the afore manner, of, slinging of the bag, by the accused, upon his shoulder(s), would not beget any conclusion, qua it being tethered to his body, or it being inextricably entwined to his body, (f) rather when it is propounded, in a plethora of judgments, rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, qua the afore manner, of, carrying of the bag by the accused, whereinside hence charas is kept, and, therethrough its recovery standing effectuated, rather not rendering imperative, hence for the Investigating Officer, to beget the strictest compliance, vis-à-vis, the provisions of Section 50 of the ND & PS Act, thereupon the afore argument is rejected. 13. 13. 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. Consequently, the impugned verdict is affirmed and maintained. Records be sent back forthwith.