JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The aggrieved convict/appellant herein, through, the extant appeal strives, to, cast an onslaught, vis-a-vis, the verdict of conviction, made, on 17.11.2017, by the learned Special Judge-III, Solan, District Solan, H.P., upon, Sessions Trial No. 10 ASJ-II/7 of 2016, and, wherethrough(s), the accused/appellant herein became convicted, for, a charge, drawn under Section 20, of, the Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act, and, also consequent therewith sentence of rigorous imprisonment, extending, for a period of 10 years, and, also a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- became imposed, upon him, and, in default, of, payment of fine, he stood further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for, a period of one year. 2. Through, recovery memo, of, 30.01.2016, as, borne in Ex.PW1/B, parcel Ex.P-1, newspaper wrappers, Ex.P-2 & P-3, charas, Ex.P-4, hence, weighing commercial quantity thereof, and, as, kept inside a micron bag, Ex.P-5, and, the latter kept within Pithoo bag, Ex.P-6, all became recovered, and, also therethroughs hence became seized by the Investigating Officer concerned, at the site of occurrence, as, embodied in Ex.PW13/B. The ownership, of, all the afore items, is, attributed to the accused. The signature(s) of the accused, and, of the apposite marginal witnesses, all occur, on Ex.PW1/B. At the site of occurrence, the Investigating Officer concerned, also drew NCB form, embodied in Ex.PW11/B, wherein, a communication occurs, vis-a-vis, three seal impressions, each carrying English Alphabet, of, description 'M', being embossed, upon, cloth parcel Ex. P-1. Moreover, upon, a perusal of Ex.PW11/B, it becomes apparent, vis-a-vis, the SHO concerned, upon, receving Ex.P-1, at the police station concerned, his thereat also embossing three reseal, seal impression(s), each carrying English Alphabet description,'L', hence upon, Ex.P-1. The seizure, as, made through Ex.PW1/B, of the afore case property, carries compatibility(ies) appertaining, to, descriptions qua therewith(s), as, made at the site of occurrence by the Investigating Officer concerned, and, as become carried in the NCB form, Ex.PW11/B. All the apposite description(s), occurring on the seals embossed, on, Ex. The seizure, as, made through Ex.PW1/B, of the afore case property, carries compatibility(ies) appertaining, to, descriptions qua therewith(s), as, made at the site of occurrence by the Investigating Officer concerned, and, as become carried in the NCB form, Ex.PW11/B. All the apposite description(s), occurring on the seals embossed, on, Ex. P-1, and, upon seizure memo, Ex.PW1/B, and, also upon NCB form , embodied in Ex.PW11/B, rather reveal their inter se tallying(s) and, besides underline complete tallying(s) hence with the descriptions, as, made, in the Malkhana Register, vis-a-vis, the case property, by the Incharge, of, the Malkhana, of, the Police station concerned, (a) inasmuch as, the afore tallyings are manifest, on a reading of the Ex.PW5/A, exhibit whereof, is, an abstract of the Malkhana, as, became tendered into evidence by PW-5, HHC Kanshi Ram. Ex.P-1 (Parcel), through road certificate, borne in Ex.PW 5/B, became transmitted to the FSL concerned, and, on a perusal, of, the report, made, thereon hence by the FSL, upon, its analysing the contents of Ex.P-4 (charas), sealed in cloth parcel, Ex.P-1, (b) unveil(s), vis-a-vis, all the afore initially made seal impressions, and, also the re-seal, seal impressions, hence embossed thereon(s), completely tallying with their descriptions, as occur, respectively in the seizure memo, borne in Ex.PW1/B, and, NCB form, borne in Ex.PW11/B. Ex.Px, the report of the FSL, underscores, vis-a-vis, the contents of Ex.P-4, after being analysed, being found to be, of, resin. After the Chemical Examiner at the FSL concerned, making examination, of, the contents, of, Ex.P-4 (charas), sealed in cloth parcel Ex. P-1, he has disclosed therein, vis-a-vis, his resealing Ex.P-1, with the seals, of, the FSL concerned. All the afore stated analogities, and, compatibilities hence appertaining to the number(s) of initially made seal impressions, and, re-seal, seal impressions rather, upon, Ex. P-1, and, each carrying English Alphabet(s), respectively, of, 'M', and, of, 'L', do exist, continuously from the apt seizure, of, the contraband, being made, at the site of occurrence, through Ex.PW1/B, and, upto the FSL making its opinion thereon, and, as become(s) unfolded, in its report, embodied in Ex.PX. 3. P-1, and, each carrying English Alphabet(s), respectively, of, 'M', and, of, 'L', do exist, continuously from the apt seizure, of, the contraband, being made, at the site of occurrence, through Ex.PW1/B, and, upto the FSL making its opinion thereon, and, as become(s) unfolded, in its report, embodied in Ex.PX. 3. Dehors the above, the afore congruities, and, analogities, vis-a-vis, the number(s) of initially made seal impressions, upon, Ex.P-1, and, of re-seal, seal impressions made thereon, by the SHO concerned, at, the Police Station concerned, and, thereafter re-seal, seal impressions made thereon(s), by the FSL concerned, and, preceding wherewith the latter after making analyses, of, the contents of Ex.P-1, it re-enclosed, it, in the cloth parcel, Ex.P-1, (c) hence would not constrain this court to conclude, vis-a-vis, the charge framed against the accused, becoming firmly proven. Contrarily, the, imperative link, has to exist, even upon, the production, of, the case property in Court. 4. For fathoming, the afore factum, a reading of the court observations, made by the learned trial Court, during the course of examination-in-chief of PW-1, is imperative, court observations whereof read as under:- "At this stage a parcel Ex.P-1 produced by the Ld. P.P. for the State sealed with four seals of seal impression 'M' and three seal of 'L' and four seal impression of FSL, Junga. Seals are intact. Ld. PP sought permission to open this parcel. Permission is granted. On opening the parcel, newspaper wrapper with transparent tape Ex.P-2, and, P-3, cannabis is Ext. P-4, micron bag is Ex.P-5, Pithoo bag is Ext. P-6 seen. It is the seen." A reading whereof, makes palpable disclosure, vis-a-vis, the initially made seal impressions, on Ex.P-1, appertaining, to, numbers thereof, and, also appertaining, to, English Alphabets, made thereon(s), (a) besides re-seal, seal impressions, made thereon, by the SHO concerned, both in respect of numbers thereof, and, also in respect of English Alphabet(s), as, made thereon(s), (b) and, in addition, the, re-seal, seal impressions, of the FSL concerned, as made thereon becoming found existing thereon(s), and, all seals, also being found to be untampered, and, intact. The hereinabove extracted court observations, remained uncontested, by the learned defence counsel, inasmuch, he did not object, to, the veracity of the afore made court observations. The hereinabove extracted court observations, remained uncontested, by the learned defence counsel, inasmuch, he did not object, to, the veracity of the afore made court observations. Consequently, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, cannot contend, that either all the afore apposite analogities and compatibilities, not existing in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the production, of, the case property in court, (c) and, also cannot contend, vis-a-vis, the seal impressions or re-seal, seal impressions being tampered, especially when the learned trial court has made observations, vis-a-vis, theirs being untampered, and, intact. The sequel thereof, is, vis-a-vis, the imperative link, as, commencing from the recovery of the contraband, as, made from the exclusive, and, conscious possession of the accused, at the site of occurrence, hence through seizure memo borne in Ex.PW1/B, remaining alive, and, subsisting even during the course, of, production, of, the case property in court, thereupon, the charge becoming invincibly proven against the accused. 5. Since, the recovery of the contraband, was not made, from the person of the accused, inasmuch, as, upon, its being delinked or dis-snapped, despite, its being kept inside the pockets of the attire, worn by the accused, nor when it was de-tethered despite its being tethered onto the body of the convict/accused, (i) thereupon, the mandate, of, section 50 of the Act, did not entail, its mandatory compliance, hence being made by the Investigating Officer concerned, nor any non compliance therewith, by the Investigating Officer concerned, does not, vitiate the trial against the accused nor hence the charge qua wherewith the accused become convicted, can be concluded, to be suffering, from, any stain of any illegality. 6. However, nowat, the effect, of, independent witnesses, to, the drawing, of, recovery memo Ext.PW-1/B, reneging from their respectively made previous statement(s) in writing, is, to be construed alongwith, the factum of their, in their respective cross-examination(s), whereto they stood subjected, to, by the learned Public Prosecutor, "on" theirs, standing declared hostile, hence admitting the factum of their authentic signatures, rather occurring thereon. Consequently, when they admit the occurrence, of their, authentic signatures, on the relevant memo(s), and, also upon the afore bag Ex.P-6, hence containing therewithin(s), the recovered contraband, (a) thereupon the mandate of Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, becomes attracted, (i) whereupon they "on" admitting, the, occurrence(s), of, their signatures thereon, hence become statutorily estopped to renege, from, all the recital(s) borne thereon, (ii) thereupon the effect of their orally deposing in variance or in detraction, of, the recitals which occur therein, rather gets statutorily belittled, (iii) rather when they naturally hence emphatically statutorily, prove(s) all the recitals, comprised, in, the apposite memo(s), (iv) thereupon theirs orally reneging, from, the recitals borne thereon "holds no evidentiary clout" nor it is legally apt to outweigh, the creditworthiness of the testimony(s), of, the official witnesses, qua the recovery of contraband, as, made, through, recovery memo Ext. PW1/B, and, its making bespeaking(s), qua its standing effectuated, from, the conscious and exclusive possession, of, the accused. In sequel, the uncontroverted factum, of their authentic signatures, occurring on the relevant exhibits, rather containing therewithin(s), the, recovered contraband, concomitantly renders the apposite recitals borne thereon(s) rather 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, barring, the, independent witnesses' concerned to orally resile, from, the contents of Ext.PW-1/B, (v) especially when they admit qua their authentic signatures occurring thereon, rather renders unworthwhile besides insignificant, the factum qua their orally deposing, in variance, vis--vis, its recorded recitals, (vi) thereupon per se an inference, stands enhanced, qua dehors theirs reneging from their previous statement(s) recorded in writing, a, deduction(s) standing capitalized qua thereupon their rather proving the genesis, of, the prosecution case. 7. 7. Be that as it may, the vigour of the aforesaid conclusion, would stand benumbed, only upon evidence existing 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 Ext.PW-1/B. However, the independent witnesses concerned, through their testification(s), make an attempt to communicate, that, their signatures, as, borne thereon(s), rather becoming obtained, despite, contents thereof being not read over to them, yet, the aforesaid communication, "is bereft of any vigour", especially when they "do not" make, any unveilings in their respective testification(s), (i) that, in the Investigating Officer concerned, purportedly omitting to read over to them, the contents, of, the aforesaid exhibits, "besides", hence theirs obviously without understanding their contents, theirs appending their signatures thereon, and, hence the embossing(s) thereon(s), of, their signatures, "hence spurring" from compulsion or duress, standing exerted upon them, by the Investigating Officer, (ii) whereas, "importantly" omissions thereof(s), and, also when in respect thereof, they omitted to record a complaint, with the Officer(s) superior, to, the Investigating Officer concerned, rather begets an inference, vis-a-vis, the effect of the aforesaid communications, occurring in the testification(s), of, the independent witnesses, hence, naturally not, belittling the hereinabove drawn inference, anvilled upon attraction, "upon" the admitted factum, of their authentic signatures, hence occurring, on Ext.PW-1/B, rather "the" mandate of Section 91 and 92, of, the Indian Evidence Act, (iii) thereupon dehors their making the aforesaid, frail attempt(s), rather for belying the recitals, borne in Ext.PW-1/D, theirs rather hence statutorily proving, all the recitals occurring therein. 8. 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, and, the analysis thereof, by the learned trial Court, hence does not suffer, from, a perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non-appreciation, of evidence, on record. 9. Consequently, there is no merit in the extant appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. The impugned judgment is maintained, and, affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. The records be sent down forthwith.