JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The extant appeal becomes directed by the aggrieved convict/appellant, against, the verdict made on 28.06.2016, by the learned Special Judge-II, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., vis-a-vis, a charge drawn under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafterafter referred as ND & PS Act). In consequence therewith sentence of imprisonment, extending upto a term of 10 years, and, also a fine of Rs. One lakh, became imposed upon, the, convict, and, in default of payment of fine amount, he became sentenced to undergo imprisonment extending upto one year. 2. Obviously, convict Sharif Mohammad, becomes aggrieved, from the afore made verdict, of,conviction, upon, him, vis-a-vis, the afore charges, and, also obviously becomes aggrieved, from the afore order, imposing, upon, him, the afore alluded sentences, of, imprisonment, and, of fine, and, hence becomes constrained to, thereagainst, constitute the extant appeal, before this Court. 3. At the site of occurrence, embodied, in, site plan, borne in Ex.PW11/C, seizure memo, borne in Ex.PW9/A, became prepared by the Investigating Officer concerned. A perusal whereof, unravels qua 8 kilograms of charas, becoming recovered from, inside a bag, slung on the shoulder of the accused. The afore memo(s) carries thereons, the, signatures of the accused. Prior to the drawing(s) of the afore memo(s), the Investigating Officer concerned, elicited through a memo, encapsulated in Ex.PW10/A, the consent of accused, for his personal search, being made, by the Investigating Officer concerned or by the statutory authorities, enumerated in Section 50, of, the ND& PS Act, and, the accused, through his making singnatures thereon, hence conveyed his willingness, for, his personal search, being made by the Investigating Officer concerned, hence, at the site of occurrence, as, becomes encapsulated in site plan, borne in Ex.PW11/C. A Rukka, borne in Ex.PW11/B, became transmitted through C. Naresh Kumar, PW-8, to the SHO concerned of the police station concerned, and, after FIR, embodied in Ex.PW6/B, becoming registered thereat, the afore PW-8, returned, to, the site of occurrence. 4. A perusal of the seizure memo, drawn at the site of occurrence, and, borne in Ex.PW9/A, unravels qua, 10 seals, each carrying thereons, seal impressions of English Alphabet 'M', becoming embossed, upon, a cloth parcel, (i) and, also displays qua therewithin, the recovered therethrough(s) cannabis weighing 8 kg, becoming enclosed. 4. A perusal of the seizure memo, drawn at the site of occurrence, and, borne in Ex.PW9/A, unravels qua, 10 seals, each carrying thereons, seal impressions of English Alphabet 'M', becoming embossed, upon, a cloth parcel, (i) and, also displays qua therewithin, the recovered therethrough(s) cannabis weighing 8 kg, becoming enclosed. Moreover, at the site of occurrence, the Investigating Officer concerned, drew on a piece of cloth, samples of seal impression, and, thereon(s) also the signatures of the accused exist. Moreover, upon, the afore seized contraband, becoming transmitted, to the police station concerned, thereat the SHO, of, the police station concerned, as, unfolded by a signatured re-sealing memo, borne in Ex.PW2/A, the SHO concerned, embossed thereon three re-seal, seal impressions, each carrying thereon, English Alphabet 'O'. NCB form, embodied in Ex.PW11/A, carries apt therewith compatibilities, inasmuch, as, both with seizure memo, borne in Ex.PW9/A, and, with re-sealing memo, borne in Ex.PW2/A, hence both with respect to numbers, and, description, of seal impressions, initially embossed, upon, the sealed cloth parcel, at the site, of, occurrence by the Investigating Officer concerned, and, also, vis-a-vis, numbers, and, description(s), of re-seal, seal impressions, made thereons, by the SHO concerned, at the police station concerned, (a) besides apt inter se compatibility(ies) graphically emerge(s), inter se recitals contained, in, Ex.PW2/A, and, in, Ex.PW11/A, and, also in Ex.PW9/B, vis-a-vis, the embossing thereons, of, the numbers, of, initial seal, and, re-seal, seal impressions, and, besides qua the scribed thereons, of, respective English Alphabets, 'M' , and, 'O'. Moreover, a perusal of NCB form, borne in Ex.PW11/A, discloses, vis-a-vis, under the apposite columns, the Investigating officer concerned, and, also the SHO concerned, appending their respective signatures hence thereon, whereupon, validity becomes fastened qua the drawings, of, the afore memos. 5. Ex. PW5/A, exhibit whereof, is, an abstract of daily station diary, unfolds qua the police officials, departing from the police station concerned, in a vehicle bearing No. HP-73-0919, towards Valu, Sarol, Parel, and, Pukhari etc. In addition, a perusal of Ex.PW7/A, exhibit whereof, is, an abstract of Malkhana Register, underscores qua ASI Pravesh Kumar, depositing, the case property, with the Incharge, of, Malkhana, of, the Police station concerned, namely MHC Kuldeep Chand. In addition, a perusal of Ex.PW7/A, exhibit whereof, is, an abstract of Malkhana Register, underscores qua ASI Pravesh Kumar, depositing, the case property, with the Incharge, of, Malkhana, of, the Police station concerned, namely MHC Kuldeep Chand. A reading of the abstract of Malkhana register, borne in Ex.PW7/A, does also, vividly personify, vis-a-vis, the afore alluded synchronizations appertaining to the afore trite factum probandum, becoming entered therein, and, appertaining to all descriptions, of, the case property, as, borne in seizure memo, embodied, in, Ex.PW9/A. 6. The case property through road certificate, borne in Ex.PW7/B, became transmitted to the FSL concerned, and, upon it becoming deposited thereat, for, it examination being made by the Chemical Examiner working thereat, a reading of paragraph No.7 thereof, unfolds qua even thereat, the afore alluded apposite synchronizations, becoming borne, on the dispatched thereto, case property. A perusal of the report of the FSL, borne in Ex.PA also makes vivid displays qua the chemical examiner, working thereat, after his retrieving the case property, from the sealed parcel, and, his making analysis thereof, his pronouncing, vis-a-vis, contents thereof being "Charas". Though, the afore alluded synchronizations, appertaining to the numbers of initially made seal impressions, on, the sealed case property, and, also, vis-a-vis, the numbers of re-seal, seal impressions, made thereon(s), by the SHO concerned, besides also all the apposite synchronizations also hence appertaining to the English alphabets, respectively made, upon, the initially embossed seal impressions, at the site of occurrence, and, upon the re-seal, seal impressions, as, made thereons, by the SHO concerned, at the police station concerned, do also carry evident, compatibilities, hence, with all the afore description(s), as occur(s), in recovery memo borne in Ex.PW9/A, NCB form, borne in Ex.PW11/A, and, also with those occurring in abstract of malkhana register, as, comprised in Ex.PW7/A, (i) besides though analogus therewith descriptions, are, borne in road certificate, embodied in Ex.PW7/B, and, also with theirs rather existing in the report of the FSL, comprised in Ex.PA. However, the afore connectivities, do not per se, bolster any firm inference, from this Court, that thereupon this Court becoming completely persuaded, to, record a finding of conviction against the accused, unless, the afore connectivities remained un-broken or continued also upto the case property, hence, becoming produced in Court. 7. However, the afore connectivities, do not per se, bolster any firm inference, from this Court, that thereupon this Court becoming completely persuaded, to, record a finding of conviction against the accused, unless, the afore connectivities remained un-broken or continued also upto the case property, hence, becoming produced in Court. 7. For determining the afore facet, it becomes imperative, to allude to the court observations, hence, made, during the course of examination-in-chief, of PW-9, court observations whereof, become extracted hereinafter:- "At this stage, a sealed parcel containing 10 seals of M, three seals of O, and, 9 seals of FSL produced. Permission sought to open. Some of the seals have mutilated. Permission granted. Opening parcel, a carry bag, light brown colour with black strips containing words "Alfah" came out and inside said bag, there is multi coloured bag, one of the string whereof is broken which contains black coloured hard substance." A perusal of the hereinabove extracted court observations, marshal an inference, inasmuch, as, the learned defence counsel, despite, the learned trial Court, making the afore court observations, hence, completely, and, graphically, unfolding, vis-a-vis, thereats hence occurring apposite connectivities, (i) and, also despite the hereinabove extracted court observations, being graphically suggestive, vis-a-vis, all seals hence carried on Ex.P-1, wherewithin a bag, Ex.P-2 became enclosed, and, wherewithins, charas Ex.P-4, became enclosed, remaining intact, even, upon, production in Court, of Ex.P-1, wherewithin a bag Ex.P-2, was kept, hence, enclosing therewithin charas Ex.P-4. (ii) Even though, the learned defence counsel thereat, held, the, utmost profitable occasion, to decipher the non existence(s) thereon, of the afore alluded synchronization inter se all the afore alluded exhibits, and, also when he could after his making the afore gaugings, make protests, before the learned trial Court that for want of existence(s), of, the afore apposite congruities, and/or, upon, the seals made, upon, Ex.P-1, wherewithin, a bag Ex.P-2 was kept, (iii) and, therewithin charas Ex.-4 became enclosed, hence remaining intact, (iv) rather constituting an incorrect court observation, and, whereupons, he could cast a valid onslaught, upon, the charge drawn against the accused. However, and, nonetheless, all the afore apposite profitable moments, remain un-capitalized, by the learned defence counsel, and, the sequel of his afore omission, coaxes this Court, to conclude, that even on production in Court, of cloth parcel, Ex. However, and, nonetheless, all the afore apposite profitable moments, remain un-capitalized, by the learned defence counsel, and, the sequel of his afore omission, coaxes this Court, to conclude, that even on production in Court, of cloth parcel, Ex. P-1, wherewithin, bag Ex.P-2 was enclosed, and, therewithin, charas, Ex.P-4, was enclosed, rather all seal impressions concerned, carried thereons, rather being intact, and, with also all the afore apposite alluded synchronizations, also rather remaining unprotested, (iv) thereupon, a further inference become sparked qua the case property traveling in a unbroken, and, untampered chain, upto the learned trial Court, even from the Malkhana, of, the Police Station concerned, whereat it became deposited, after, it being transmitted thereto by the FSL, hence, sequitur thereof, is, that this Court becomes constrained to make an invincible conclusion, that, the charge against the accused becoming formidably proven. 8. However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has, made a vigorous contention, before this Court, that with the independent witnesses, associated in the proceedings, inasmuch, as, upon, one Gurbachan Singh, stepping into the witness box, as PW-9, hence his resiling from his previous statement recorded in writing, (i) thereupon, the statements of the officials witnesses becoming rendered incredible, and, also the afore drawn conclusions becoming emaciated. However, the effect, of, independent witnesses, to, the drawing, of, recovery memo Ext.PW-9/A, reneging from their respectively made previous statement(s) in writing, is, to be construed alongwith, the factum of theirs, in their respective cross-examination(s), whereto they became 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 cloth parcels, 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 therein(s), (ii) thereupon the effect of theirs 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, hence, made, through, recovery memo Ext. PW9/A, 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), an allusion, to, 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-9/A, (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, rather a, deduction(s) standing capitalized qua thereupon their rather proving the genesis, of, the prosecution case. 9. 9. Be that as it may, the vigour of the aforesaid conclusion, would stand benumbed, only upon evidence existing on record, hence, suggestive, vis-a-vis, the independent witness concerned, standing pressurized or coerced, by the Investigating Officer concerned, "to" emboss his signatures, upon, seizure memo Ext.PW-9/A. However, the independent witness concerned, through his testification(s), make an attempt to communicate, that, his signatures, as, borne thereon(s), rather becoming obtained, despite, contents thereof, being not read over to him, yet, the aforesaid communication, "is bereft of any vigour", especially when he "do not" make, any unveilings in his respective testification(s), (i) that, in the Investigating Officer concerned, purportedly omitting to read over to him, the contents, of, the aforesaid exhibits, "besides", hence his obviously without understanding their contents, his appending, his signatures thereon, and, hence the embossing(s) thereon(s), of, his signatures, "hence spurring", from compulsion or duress, standing exerted upon him, by the Investigating Officer, (ii) whereas, "importantly" omissions thereof(s), and, also when in respect thereof, he 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 witness, hence, naturally not, belittling the hereinabove drawn inference, anvilled upon attraction, "upon" the admitted factum, of his authentic signatures, hence occurring, on Ext.PW-9/A, rather "the" mandate of Section 91 and 92, of, the Indian Evidence Act, (iii) thereupon dehors his making the aforesaid, frail attempt(s), rather for belying the recitals, borne in Ext.PW-9/A, his rather hence statutorily proving, all the recitals occurring therein. 10. Even though, all the afore imperative links become unflinchingly established, by the prosecution, and, as commencing from the recovery, as made at the site of occurrence, and, upto the production of the case property in Court. Nonetheless, the learned counsel appearing for the accused, makes a vehement submission before this Court, qua with Sanjeev Kumar making a deposition, in his cross-examination, and, his underscoring therein, vis-a-vis, despite the availability of independent witnesses, other than Gurbachan Singh, in proximity, to the relevant site of occurrence, yet, none of them becoming joined, in the relevant proceedings, (a) hence per se, thereupon, the relevant investigations, being construed, to be made with an oblique motive, and, also being construable to be unworthy, of any credibility, being imputed thereto. However, the afore submission is, rejected, as, unless the afore similarities, and, congruities, and, appertaining to the afore factum probandum, being de-established, thereupon, they all alone prove the guilt of the accused, dehors non association, of, independent witnesses, despite their easy availability. However, since, all the afore imperative links in the prosecution case, became cogently established, and, emphatically, when all the afore links, remain intact, commencing from the seizure being made, of, the case property, at the site of occurrence, and, upto their/its production in court, thereupon, non association of the independent witnesses, is/was not imperative, nor in their non association in the investigations, hence, the Investigating Officer, can be held to be holding any slanted investigations, into, the afore charged offence(s). Even otherwise, the vigour, of the, afore submission becomes unhinged, from, one Gurbachan Singh, as, associated, in the, relevant proceedings, not being proven to be inimical to the accused, and, also upon, the Investigating Officer, in his omitting, to join other than afore, hence, independent witnesses, in the relevant proceedings, not being proven to be holding inimicality towards, the, accused. Significantly, also when though non association of independent witnesses, does not, stall the prosecution case, yet if they become associated, rather than numerical strengths thereofs, the potency of their/his evidence, becomes, the relevant factum, for, assigning validity, to the proceedings, as, become drawn hence at the site of occurrence. 11. Moreover, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn, the, attention of this Court, to the mandate, borne in Section 42 of the ND & PS Act, provisions whereof, stand extracted hereinafter:- " [42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation. 11. Moreover, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has drawn, the, attention of this Court, to the mandate, borne in Section 42 of the ND & PS Act, provisions whereof, stand extracted hereinafter:- " [42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation. (1) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government including para-military forces or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from persons knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and sunset, (a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place; (b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry; (c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act; and (d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this Act: Provided that in respect of holder of a licence for manufacture of manufactured drugs or psychotropic substances or controlled substances granted under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder, such power shall be exercised by an officer not below the rank of sub-inspector; Provided that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief. (2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.]" and he assures, his submission, upon, the statutory phrase "if he has reason to believe from persons knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing" borne therein, and, proceeds to contend, with utmost vigour before this Court, that despite evidence, existing on record, rather personificatory, vis-a-vis, the recovery, as, made through Ex.PW9/A, not being a chance recovery, rather it being a sequel, of prior information, held by the Investigating officer, (I) and, thereupon, a peremptory statutory duty, became cast, upon, the investigating officer concerned, to record the afore prior information, and, to transmit it to his superior(s), for, thereupon, the seizure, as, made, upon, the purported prior information being construed, to be assuming validity, (ii) whereas, upon, breach of the afore mandate rather emerging, thereupon, the charge drawn against the accused, being ridden with a gross legal fallacy, and, also the entering into the trial of the accused, by the learned trial court, being vitiated, besides, the verdict of conviction, and, consequent therewith sentences, imposed, upon the convict, being amenable to be quashed, and, set aside. 12. Even though, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended, that the afore statutory, necessity as purportedly became encumbered, upon, the Investigating Officer, and, as emerging, from, the hereinabove alluded, underlined statutory phrase borne, in Section 42 of the ND&PS Act, has been purportedly evidently breached. However, he has not been above to disclose before this Court, from any tangible material,, vis-a-vis, his afore submission, rather therethrough(s) becoming evidently tenacious. However, he has not been above to disclose before this Court, from any tangible material,, vis-a-vis, his afore submission, rather therethrough(s) becoming evidently tenacious. Even though, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has rested the afore submission, upon, a typed proforma, borne in Ex.PW10/A, (i) wherethrough, the investigating officer concerned, elicited the consent, of, the accused, for his personal search, being made by him, and, has emphasised, upon, the factum that since Ex.PW10/A, became prepared at the site of occurrence, hence, occurrence of scribings therein,as, appertaining to the number of the FIR, (ii) especially when scribing(s) thereof, became rather made at the police station concerned, (iii) thereupon, the afore made scribing, at the site of occurrence, by the Investigating Officer, and, as, exist(s) on Ex.PW10/A, per se, pronouncing, upon, the factum of the investigating officer concerned, holding the requisite prior information, and, when he omitted, to make compliance, with the afore peremptory statutory obligation, as, cast upon him, (iv) thereupon, the entire investigations become slanted, and, thereupon, the accused becoming entitled for an acquittal. However, the afore submission, purveys no legal capitalization to the learned counsel, for the appellant, as, Ex.PW10/A is a typed proforma, and, when rather no evidence, suggestive, vis-a-vis, its evidently becoming transmitted, through PW-8, hence, wherewithwhom, rukka, borne in Ex.PW11/B, became transmitted by the investigating officer, from, the site of occurrence, to the police station concerned, for a formal FIR, becoming recorded thereat, (v) thereupon, Ex.PW10/A, remained obviously with the Investigating Officer, at the site of occurrence. Moreover, unless evidence, amply pronouncing, upon, the factum that after PW-8, carrying rukka, Ex. PW11/B, to the police station concerned, his never returning, to the site of occurrence, thereupon, the scribings, of, the FIR number, in Ex.PW10/A, would become suspect, and, would also facilitate, the erection an inference, vis-a-vis, the investigating officer concerned, without any FIR number becoming assigned, to the seizure made through memo Ex.PW9/A, his at the site of occurrence, scribing the FIR number, to the afore made seizure, at the relevant site of occurrence, (v) and, also an inference would become erectable that he was holding, prior information, and, that yet he omitted to proceed to mete the statutorily ordained peremptory compliance, vis-a-vis, the provisions of Section 42, of, the ND&PS Act. However, when rather evidence exists on record, that PW-8, after travelling to the police station concerned, with the rukka, borne in Ex.PW11/B, his thereafter, returning to the site of occurrence, and, thereupon, the scribing, of, the FIR number, on the typed proforma, borne in Ex.PW10/A, is, concludable, to, occur, upon, PW-8, after tendering rukka, Ex.PW11/B, before the police station, and, also his ensuring, vis-a-vis, the case number being assigned to the seizure, as, made, at the site of occurrence, his hence returning to the site of occurrence, and, thereupon, the scribings, of, the FIR number, in, typed proforma, borne in Ex.PW10/A, become inferable to be validly made hence by the Investigating officer concerned. 13. Moreover, assumingly, even if, PW-8, did not return to the site of occurrence, for causing enablements, of scribings of FIR number, in Ex.PW10/A, by the Investigating Officer, yet, the afore intimation, could well have been conveyed telephonically, by the official concerned, working at the police station concerned, (i) unless, evidence exists on record, that, the investigating officer concerned, was not contactable either upon his mobile, given his not carrying it along with him, to the site of occurrence, (ii) or evidence emerging that the police officials accompanying him were also not contactable on their respective cell phones. However, the afore evidence is grossly amiss hereat, thereupon, even if, assumingly, PW-8 did not return to the site, of, occurrence, after his delivering rukka, borne in Ex.PW11/B, at the police station concerned, the scribings of case number in Ex.PW10/A, can be concluded to arise from apposite information(s), being conveyed, on, respective cell phone(s), to the investigating officer concerned, from the Police Station. 14. 14. If, Ex.PW10/A was not a typed proforma, rather if it became scribed, in, the hands, of, the Investigating officer, and, in case there was disconcurrence(s) in the ink, and, the hands, with which, the afore scribings of the case number, occurred in the exhibit concerned, (i) thereupon, may be, upon, cogent proof emanating, that the afore scribings, in hands, and, inks, both different, from, the one initially used by the investigating officer concerned, in the latter, making holographic scribing(s) upon, the apposite scribed memos, would hence become rendered suspect, and, whereupons, the Investigating officer concerned, may become concluded, to hold the apposite prior information, and, would become amenable, to ensure, the completest compliance being meted, vis-a-vis, the mandate, borne in Section 42 of the ND&PS Act. However, obviously, the, afore scenario, is, not available hereat. 15. Be that as it may, the vigour of the afore submission, becomes obliterated from the reflections borne in Ex.PW5/A, hence, carrying vivid descriptions qua the police officials concerned, proceeding to the site of occurrence, for, traffic checking duty. The afore descriptions occurring in Ex.PW5/A, obviously forestalls, any submission being made, before this Court, that the police officials, did not make a surprise visit, to the site of occurrence or they were not available at the site of occurrence, in sequel to theirs proceeding thereupto, for performing the routine traffic checking, (i) and, nor obviously therefrom any deduction, would become garnered, qua the police officials hence holding a prior information, nor hence they became enjoined, to mete compliance, vis-a-vis the mandate, borne, in Section 42 of the ND& PS Act. Reiteratedly, the impact, of, the unerodingly proven Ex.PW5/A, does negate, the makings, of, the afore submissions. 16. Reiteratedly, the impact, of, the unerodingly proven Ex.PW5/A, does negate, the makings, of, the afore submissions. 16. Lastly, the learned counsel appearing, for the appellant, has, raised the plea of alibi, and, for promoting the afore plea, he has depended, upon, depositions of DW-1 and, of, DW-2, who in their respective examination-in-chief, echoed, vis-a-vis, the accused becoming arrested, from, the hospital concerned, and, hence, he attempted to build, an exculpatory edifice, inasmuch, therethrough he strives to falsify the drawings, of, seizure memo, embodied, in Ex.PW11/B. However, the afore propagated plea of alibi, as, rased through the afore made echoings by DW-1, and, by DW-2, in their respective, examinations-in-chief, becomes completely effaced, from the official of the hospital concerned, failing to mete corroboration, through, his adducing records, appertaining to the entry, in, the hospital concerned, of, the police officials concerned, for theirs thereat hence nabbing the convict. 17. 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. 18. 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.