JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The extant appeal, becomes directed by the aggrieved convict/appellant, against, the verdict made on 29.05.2017, by the learned Special Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., vis-a-vis, a charge drawn under Section 20(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafterafter referred as ND & PS Act). The consequent therewith sentence of rigorous imprisonment, extending upto a term of 12 years, and, also a fine of Rs. 1,50,000/-, became imposed upon, the, convict, and, in default of payment of fine amount, he became sentenced, to undergo imprisonment extending upto one and a half year. 2. Reiteratedly, convict Varinder Kumar, 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. Through, recovery memo, borne in Ex.PW1/B, contraband, Ex.P-4, weighing 3kgs, and, 126 grams, became recovered from carry bag, Ex.P-2. Recovery memo, borne in Ex.PW1/B, carries thereon, the, unchallenged signatures of the convict, and, also of the marginal witnesses thereof. Subsequent to the drawing of Ex.PW1/B, the investigating officer concerned, from, the site of occurrence, sent rukka, borne in Ex.PW10/A to the Station House Officer, of, the Police Station concerned, for facilitating the latter to record an FIR. The carrier of Ex.PW10/A, upon, arriving at the police station concerned, ensured the recording of a formal FIR qua the recovery made through recovery memo, borne in Ex.PW1/B, and, FIR whereof, becomes assigned Ex.PW8/A. Since the recoveries as made through, the, recovery memo, borne in Ex. PW1/B, makes displays qua obviously it not being a sequel, of, a personal search, being carried by the Investigating Officer, upon, the accused, thereupon, there was no imperative necessity cast, upon the investigating officer concerned, either to draw any memo under Section 50 of the ND&PS Act or to therethrough elicit the consent of the accused, for his holding the accused's personal search. 4. 4. The narrations as made in Ex.PW1/B, vis-avis, the number(s) of seal impression(s), embossed upon cloth parcel, Ex.P-1, wherewithin charas, Ex.P-4, weighing 3 kgs, and, 126 grams, became enclosed, (i) unfolds, vis-a-vis, the afore descriptions rather being made in the NCB form, as became drawn at the site of occurrence, and, NCB form whereof becomes embodied in Ex.PW8/C, and, therein narrations occur qua five seals, of, English alphabet 'N' becoming embossed, upon, cloth parcel, Ex.P-1, hence enclosing therewithin charas, Ex.P-4, weighing 3 kgs, and, 126 grams, and, thereafter the SHO concerned, upon, receiving, parcel Ex.P-1, at the police station concerned, as, unfolded by re-sealing memo, borne in Ex.PW2/A, making thereon five re-seal, seal impressions of English alphabet 'K'. Subsequent thereto, the SHO of the Police concerned, deposited parcel Ex.P-1, with the Incharge of the Malkhana concerned, and, the latter, as communicated by the abstract, of, Malkhana Register, borne in Ex.PW9/A, scribed therein, all the afore details, appertaining to the numbers, of, initially made seal impression(s), upon, Ex.P-1, and, also appertaining, to, the numbers, of re-seal, seal impressions made thereon, by the SHO concerned, beside scribed therein, the embossings thereons, respectively of English Alphabets 'N', and, 'K'. Through road certificate, borne in Ex.PW9/B, parcel, Ex.P-1 became transmitted to the FSL concerned. A reading of paragraph No. 7, of, the report of the FSL, as, borne in Ex. Px, unfolds that all the afore alluded descriptions, appertaining to the number(s) of initially made seal impressions, upon, Ex.P-1, and, also qua the numbers of re-seal, seal impressions, made, upon Ex.P-1, besides the respectively made thereon(s), of, English alphabets, inasmuch as 'N', and, 'K', rather remaining intact. Furthermore, Ex.Px unfolds that after the contents carried in Ex.P-1, becoming retrieved therefrom, and, upon analysis thereof, theirs being pronounced to be charas, hence thereafter the author of Ex.Px, reenclosing charas, Ex.P-4, within Ex.P-1, and, his embossing thereons, the, seals of the FSL concerned. Though, from all the afore disclosures, occurring in the afore alluded memo(s), a conclusion becomes sparked, that the case property travelling in an unbroken, and, untampered chain, carrying thereons all the afore alluded synchronization(s), rather upto to the FSL concerned. However, therefrom no conclusion, can become drawn that therethrough the prosecution succeeding in proving the charge against the accused. 5. Though, from all the afore disclosures, occurring in the afore alluded memo(s), a conclusion becomes sparked, that the case property travelling in an unbroken, and, untampered chain, carrying thereons all the afore alluded synchronization(s), rather upto to the FSL concerned. However, therefrom no conclusion, can become drawn that therethrough the prosecution succeeding in proving the charge against the accused. 5. Be that as it may, the charge drawn against the accused, would carry tenacity, only when upon, production of the case property, before the learned trial Court, for its thereat becoming shown to the prosecution witnesses concerned, all the afore alluded descriptions, and, synchronizations, rather remaining intact. For determining the afore facet, an allusion to the court observations, as, made during the course, of, the examination-in-chief, of PW-1, warrant(s) their extractions, and, become extracted hereinafter:- "At this stage, ld. PP produced parcel and, prays to open it. It has been brought by Rajesh Kumar, Malkhana Muhhar, No.162, as per entry Sr. No. 283 dated 7.4.2016. Parcel is sealed with seals N and K at five places, and, seals of FSL, found on itintact. On opening Parcel Ex.P-1, carry bag Ex.p-2, Khakhi bag Ex.P-3 and charas Ex.p-4 are the same which were recovered from the accused" A reading whereof, makes palpable disclosure(s), vis-avis, the initially made seal(s) impressions, on the cloth parcel, appertaining, to, numbers thereof, and, also appertaining, to, English Alphabet(s), as, made thereon(s), (a) and, besides makes echoings qua the re-seal, seal impressions, as, 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, re-seal, 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, 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. 6. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing, for, the appellants/convicts, submits, that with, recovery of the contraband, becoming effectuated, at the site of occurrence, whereat residential houses, and, shops are located, and, with the prosecution witnesses, deposing qua the said road, being a busy road, and, yet no efforts being made by the Investigating Officer, to associate the independent witnesses, in the relevant proceedings, thereupon, his afore omission(s) being hence both deliberate and intentional, necessarily for smothering the truth of the prosecution case. 7. 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, and, 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. 8. 8. Furthermore, the non-association of independent witnesses(es), despite, their evident availability, in 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, and, theirs surviving 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-avis, the one, which stood recovered, under, seizure memo borne in Ex.PW1/B. However, with all the evident linkages, as, appertaining, vis-a-vis, the recovery(s), of, the case property, as, made under memo, Ex.PW1/B, 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 becoming cogently proven, to, occur in an untampered, and, unbroken chain (i) and its bearing absolute concurrence(s), with recovery(s) thereof, as, became effectuated under Ex.PW1/B, (ii) also with all apt linkages, in respect, of, all the evident concurrence(s), inter se, 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. 9. 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. 10. 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.