JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Through a charge drawn on 23.01.2016,by the learned Special Judge concerned, co-accused Sunil Verma became charged for his committing, an offence punishable , under Section 20, of, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, given his holding exclusive, and, conscious possession, of, 1.105 Kgs. Of charas. Moreover through a charge drawn subsequent thereto, inasmuch, as, on 18.04.2016, co-accused Mohan Lal, became charged for an offence punishable under Section 20, of, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and, read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, given his along with the afore co-accused Sunil Verma, holding exclusive, and, conscious possession, of, the afore recovered charas. 2. The learned trial Court, through, an verdict made on 8.12.2016, upon, S. Trial RBT No. 1-S/7 of 2016, recorded findings of conviction against the afore charged offenders. In consequence therewith, he imposed, upon, each of the afore charged offenders, sentence(s) of imprisonment extending upto a period of 10 years each, and, also imposed, upon, each of the co-accused, sentence of fine, borne in a sum of Rs.one lakh each, and, in case, of, non payment of, the, afore imposed sentence, of, fine, he imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment, upon, each of them, hence extending upto a period of two years each. Both the afore co-accused through casting separate criminal appeals, respectively bearing Cr. Appeal No. 96 of 2017, and, Cr. Appeal No. 2 of 2017, cast a challenge to the afore common verdict made, upon, them, and, obviously, when hence both the afore criminal appeals, arise from, a common verdict, hence both are amenable for theirs being adjudicated, upon, through a common verdict. 3. Through, recovery memo, borne in Ex.PW1/A, charas weighing 1.105 kgs., became recovered at the site of occurrence, from the exclusive, and, conscious possession, of, co-accused Sunil Verma. The afore drawn recovery memo, became prepared, at the site of occurrence, embodied in Ex.PW15/B. A reading of Ex. PW1/A, unfolds, vis-avis, upon, cloth parcel, containing 1.105 kgs of charas, 10 seal impressions, of English Alphabet "D" becoming embossed thereon, and, thereafter, upon, the afore sealed cloth parcel, becoming transmitted to the police station concerned, thereat, as, disclosed by Ex.PW6/D, exhibit whereof, is, NCB form, the SHO concerned, embossing thereon five re-seal, seal impressions, each carrying thereon English alphabet "T". Rukka, borne in Ex.PW15/A, became transmitted through, PW-3 C. Nalin Kumar, No. 465, to the police station concerned, and, thereat a formal FIR qua the seizure as made, through, Ex.PW1/A became registered, FIR whereof carries exhibit mark, Ex.PW6/A. 4. Significantly, there occurs compatibilities inter se the echoings made, in, seizure memo, borne in Ex.PW1/A, and, NCB form, borne in Ex.PW6/D, and, appertaining to the numbers of initially made seal impressions, on the cloth parcel, Ex.P-1, and, also, to, the English Alphabet embossed thereon, at the site of occurrence, by the investigating officer concerned, (i) and, also vis-a-vis, the numbers of re-seal, seal impressions, made thereon, at the police station concerned, by the SHO concerned, (ii) besides, vis-avis, the English Alphabet(s), as, made, upon, re-seal seal impressions, (iii) and, also when compatible therewith reflections become cast in the abstract of Malkhana register, borne in Ex.PW4/A, (iv) and, when thereafter, upon, the case property being transmitted through road certificate, borne in Ex.PW8/A to the FSL concerned, its travelling thereupto, as, unfolded, by paragraph No.7 of the report, of, the FSL concerned, borne in Ex.PW6/F, with all the afore compatibilities, and, synchronizations, appertaining to the afore trite factum probandum, and, whereons, an, affirmative report, is, made, vis-a-vis, the contents enclosed, in the sealed cloth parcel, Ex.P-1, containing charas, Ex.P-5, though, constrain a conclusion, vis-a-vis, therethrough, the charge becoming proven. However, for the afore conclusion becoming completely fortified, it also became incumbent, upon, the prosecution, to establish the afore connectivities, continuing in a unbroken, and, untampered fashion, even upto, the case property becoming produced in court, for, thereafter its becoming shown, to, the prosecution witnesses concerned. 5. For determining the afore facet, an allusion to the court observations, as, made during the course of examination-in-chief, of PW-1, warrant their extractions, and, become extracted hereinafter:- "At this stage Ld. P.P. produced one white coloured cloth parcel brought by HHG Puran Chand, No. 2/6-54 vide rapat No.7, dated 14.03.2016 to this court sealed with seal impression of FSL at 4 places, seals of seal impression 'D' at ten places, and seals of seal impression 'T' at five places, all these seals are found intact and prayed to open the same. Prayer considered and allowed. On opening the parcel Ex.P1, one lack colour carry bag Ext.P-2, on opening the carry bag Ext. P-2 one pink colour carry bag P-3 and one transparent plastic bag Ext. Prayer considered and allowed. On opening the parcel Ex.P1, one lack colour carry bag Ext.P-2, on opening the carry bag Ext. P-2 one pink colour carry bag P-3 and one transparent plastic bag Ext. P-4 and charas Ext.P5 were found and are same which were recovered on that day." A reading whereof, makes palpable disclosure, vis-avis, the initially made seal(s) impressions, on the cloth parcel, appertaining, to, numbers thereof, and, also appertaining, to, English Alphabet(s), made thereon(s), (a) and, besides makes echoings qua the re-seal, seal impressions, made thereon(s), 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, makes reflections, qua the, reseal, seal impressions, of the FSL concerned, as made thereon, rather all becoming found existing thereon(s), and, all the seals, also being found, to, be untampered, and, intact. The afore made 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, (d) 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/A, 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. 6. Consequently, therethrough, the charge against co-accused Sunil Verma, becomes cogently proven, conspicuously with his uncontested signatures becoming borne, in, all apposite exhibits. However, per se, thereupon, the charge drawn against coaccused Mohal Lal, would not become cogently established, as, evidently he is not a signatory, to the seizure memo, borne in Ex.PW1/A, rather the charge, as, drawn against him, is qua his holding inculpable vicarious liability, inasmuch, as, with co-accused Sinil Verma. However, per se, thereupon, the charge drawn against coaccused Mohal Lal, would not become cogently established, as, evidently he is not a signatory, to the seizure memo, borne in Ex.PW1/A, rather the charge, as, drawn against him, is qua his holding inculpable vicarious liability, inasmuch, as, with co-accused Sinil Verma. The learned counsel appearing for the afore co-accused Mohan Lal, makes a strong submission, before this Court, that the charge drawn against him, for his holding, an inculpable vicarious liability, along with co-accused Sunil Verma, warranting its apt faltering(s), (i) as, there exists evidence on record, as, carried in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses concerned, that, at the site of seizure, as, made, from, co-accused Sunil Verma, (ii) there being fencing work, with barbed wire, in progress, hence, his being defacilitated to flee, from the site of occurrence, (iii) and, thereupon, the propagation of the prosecution that he along with co-accused Sunil Verma, was, at the relevant site, hence, holding conscious and, exclusive holding possession, of, Ex. P-2, wherefrom charas, Ex.P-5 became recovered, becoming completely staggered. However, the afore made submission before this Court, becomes subsumed, from the factum of PW-1, upon, his re-entering into the witness box, for, facilitating his cross-examination, being made by the counsel, for co-accused Mohan Lal, his unerodingly, deposing, that at the relevant site of occurrence, whereat, seizure memo Ex.PW1/A, was prepared, the fencing work, not being complete, rather it being in progress, (iv) and, obviously thereupon their occurring some snags, and, spaces thereins, for facilitating the departure(s) or fleeings from the site of occurrence, of, co-accused Mohan Lal. If the afore conclusion, becomes drawable from the afore evidence, thereupon, the afore fleeings or departure(s) from the site of occurrence, of co-accused Mohan Lal, arouse suspicion or it personifies, his conduct being inconsistent with his innocence, (v) obviously thereupon(s) this court is facilitated to draw, an, apt deduction qua his along with co-accused Sunil Verma, holding penally inculpable vicarious liability, of, his alongwith him rather holding, conscious, and, exclusive possession of bag Ex.P-2, wherefrom charas Ex.P-5 became recovered, through, memo borne in Ex.PW1/A. 7. Be that as it may, rukka borne in Ex.PW15/A, carries graphic elucidations therein, of, a disclosure being made by co-accused Sunil Verma, qua fleeings or departures, from, the site of seizure, of, co-accused Mohan Lal. Be that as it may, rukka borne in Ex.PW15/A, carries graphic elucidations therein, of, a disclosure being made by co-accused Sunil Verma, qua fleeings or departures, from, the site of seizure, of, co-accused Mohan Lal. However, during the course of crossexamination, of, the Investigating Officer concerned, no elicitations, became unearthed from him, rather suggestive, vis-a-vis, the afore elicitations, as, existing in Rukka, Ex.PW15/A, being surmisal, or imaginary, or suggestive, vis-a-vis, the afore disclosure being an ingenuously strived stratagem, of, co-accused Sunil Verma, to falsely implicate co-accused Mohan Lal. The effect, of wants of the afore suggestions, being meted to the Investigating Officer concerned, during, the latter's cross-examination, by the learned defence counsel, nor also when affirmative answers became meted thereto, by the Investigating Officer concerned, thereupon, implicit reliance becomes amenable, to be placed, to, the afore reflections hence existing in Rukka, borne in Ex.PW15/A, (i) conspicuously also when the fullest descriptions of the name of coaccused Mohan Lal along with the fullest particulars of his parents, occur therein and, also the particulars of his residence exist therein, and, nor when he propagates or establishes the exculpatory plea. of alibi, (ii) thereupon, this Court, is, coaxed to record, a conclusion that the charge drawn against co-accused Mohan Lal, for his holding an inculpable vicarious liability. of his holding exclusive, and, conscious possession, of bag Ex.P-2, alongwith co-accused Sunil Verma, rather wherefrom, charas, borne in Ex.P-5, became recovered, becoming cogently established, by the prosecution witnesses concerned. 8. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing, for, the appellants/convicts, submits, that with, recovery of the contraband, becoming effectuated near the national highway, and, with the prosecution witnesses, deposing qua the said highway, being a busy highway, and, yet no efforts being made by the Investigating Officer, to associate the independent witnesses, in the relevant proceedings, thereupon, his omission(s) being hence both deliberate and intentional, for only smothering the truth of the prosecution case. 9. The force of the aforesaid submission, is, blunted, by evidently no apposite suggestion(s), being put to the relevant prosecution witnesses, by the learned defence counsel, while holding them to crossexamination qua hence the Investigating officer concerned, rearing any animosity or inimicality, vis-avis, the accused, thereupon, his omitting to join independent witnesses, in the relevant proceedings. 9. The force of the aforesaid submission, is, blunted, by evidently no apposite suggestion(s), being put to the relevant prosecution witnesses, by the learned defence counsel, while holding them to crossexamination qua hence the Investigating officer concerned, rearing any animosity or inimicality, vis-avis, the accused, thereupon, his omitting to join independent witnesses, in the relevant proceedings. Absence of purveying of the afore said suggestions, vis-a-vis, the police witnesses, by the learned defence counsel, while subjecting them to cross-examination, contrarily begets an inference, vis-a-vis, the mere nonassociation, in the relevant proceedings, by the Investigating Officer, of independent witnesses, though, evidently available in proximity, to, the site of occurrence, rather not emanating, from the Investigating Officer concerned, hence, concerting to smother the truth of the prosecution case, nor his omissions are construable to be either deliberate or intentional. 10. The non-association of independent witnesses(es), despite, their evident availability, in the proximity to the site of occurrence, would assume significance, upon, the defence efficaciously establishing existence, of, deep pervasive snags, in all the link evidence(s), embodied in the NCB form, prepared at the site of occurrence, upto the FSL, concerned, purveying an affirmative opinion, upon, the apposite seizure, qua contents thereof being Charas, besides the defence bringing forth cogent evidence, of theirs being apparent lack of connectivity, inter se the case property, at the stage of its production in court, vis-a-vis, the one, which stood recovered, under, seizure memo borne in Ex.PW1/A. However, with all the evident linkages, as, appertaining, vis-a-vis, the recovery(s), of, the case property, made under memo, Ex.PW1/A, from, the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused, upto, an affirmative opinion being recorded thereon, by the FSL, besides thereafter, upon, its production, in Court, rather hence being cogently proven, to, occur in an untampered unbroken chain (i) and its bearing absolute concurrence(s), with recovery(s) thereof, effectuated under Ex.PW1/A, (ii) also with all apt linkages, in respect, of, all the evident concurrence(s), vis-a-vis, all the seal impression(s) borne, on, the relevant forms prepared at the site of occurrence, vis-a-vis, the ones borne, on the case property, upon, its production in Court, remaining thereats rather intact, (iii) thereupon, given evident omission(s) of the aforesaid snags, in the prosecution case, hence, do not, at all render the prosecution case, to falter, merely for the Investigating Officer concerned, failing to associate independent witnesses, in the relevant proceedings. 11. 11. 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 misappreciation and non-appreciation, of evidence, on record. 12. Consequently, there is no merit in the extant appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. The judgment impugned before this Court is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. The records be sent down forthwith.