JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The learned Special Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, upon Sessions Trial No. 58/2014, made a verdict, of, conviction upon accused Gagan Kumar, and, thereafter, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a term of 10 years, and, therealongwith imposed upon him a sentence fine, of, Rs. 1,00,000/-, and, in default thereto, sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of two years, for commission, of, offence, punishable under Section 20 of the ND & PS Act. Furthermore, the learned trial Court, also convicted, the accused Gagan Kumar, under, Section 41 and 42, of, the Indian Forest Act, read with Rule 11 and 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978, and, made consequent therewith sentence(s) of simple imprisonment, till rising of the Court, alongwith a fine of Rs. 7500/-, upon him, and, in default whereof, sentenced him to undergo, simple imprisonment, for a period of one month. In addition, the learned trial Court, convicted accused Gagan Kumar, for commission, of, an offence, punishable under Section 379, read with Section 34 IPC, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for a period of, one month, and, there- alongwith, imposed upon him sentence of fine, of, Rs. 2000/-, and, in default, of, payment of fine, he became sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of one month. Co-accused, Bhagat Ram, Alam Ram and Harish Kumar, who became convicted for offences, punishable under Sections 11 and 20, of, the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978, became sentenced to undergo imprisonment, till rising of Court, and, there-alongwith become sentenced to , a, fine of Rs. 7500/- each and, in default, of, payment of fine, each of the afore, became sentenced, to undergo further simple imprisonment, for a period of one month. Against the afore imposition, of, the afore sentence(s), upon convicts Bhagat Ram, Alam Ram and Harish Kumar, the State of Himachal Pradesh, has not preferred any appeal, seeking therethrough enhancement, of the afore imposed sentences, upon each of them, by the learned trial Court, in its verdict made, on 7.3.2018, upon Sessions Trial No. 58 of 2014. 2. Against the afore imposition, of, the afore sentence(s), upon convicts Bhagat Ram, Alam Ram and Harish Kumar, the State of Himachal Pradesh, has not preferred any appeal, seeking therethrough enhancement, of the afore imposed sentences, upon each of them, by the learned trial Court, in its verdict made, on 7.3.2018, upon Sessions Trial No. 58 of 2014. 2. Moreover, the State of H.P., has also, not preferred any appeal, seeking therethrough enhancement of imposition, of, sentence, of, simple imprisonment, upon convict Gagan Kumar, hence extending only till, the, rising of the Court, and, when the afore sentence, has also been submitted to be undergone by convict Gagan Kumar, besides when the apposite therewith, fine amount, has also been submitted to be deposited, (a) thereupon the convict Gagan Kumar, though, becomes estopped to cast a challenge thereon, especially vis-à-vis, charges, framed against him, under Sections 41 and 42, of the Indian Forest Act, read with Rule 11 and 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978, (b) nonetheless, for ensuring his acquittal, the learned counsel appearing, for the appellant, before this Court, has strived to negate the findings of conviction, recorded against co-accused Gagan Kumar, vis-à-vis, the afore made charges against him. 3. Accused Gagan Kumar, has also challenged, the findings of conviction, and, consequent therewith imposition(s) upon him, of, the afore alluded sentences of imprisonment, and, of, fine, hence by the learned trial Court, for, a charge drawn against him, under Section 20 of the ND & PS Act, through his preferring the instant Criminal Appeal, before this Court. 4. Through seizure memo, whereto which, PW13/A becomes designated, both “Dandassa” and “Charas”, became recovered, at the instance, of, co-accused/appellant herein, one Gagan Kumar, from the premises, purportedly owned and possessed by him. The police had entered the premises concerned, in pursuance to a statement, drawn under Section 27, of, the Indian Evidence Act, statement whereof, becomes signatured by co-accused Gagan Kumar, and, whereto which Ext. PW18/B stands hence designated. 5. A formal FIR, vis-à-vis the afore made recoveries, as made, from the premises allegedly owned and possessed, by co-accused Gagan Kumar, is, embodied in Ext. PW18/B stands hence designated. 5. A formal FIR, vis-à-vis the afore made recoveries, as made, from the premises allegedly owned and possessed, by co-accused Gagan Kumar, is, embodied in Ext. PW14/B. As unfolded by echoing(s) occurring, in the examination-in-chief, of, PW19, a suspicion, about the existence, in the premises concerned, respectively, of “Dandassa” and of “Charas”, became aroused, from theirs’ during the course of patrolling the area concerned, in vehicle bearing No. HP- 34-0049, and, whereto which, they, as unfolded in Ext. PW5/A, rather proceeded, hence noticing, on the left side of the road, one Auto Rickshaw, bearing No. HP 34A- 7092, covered with a tarpoline, (a) and, wherefrom 2-3 persons were found to be unloading gunny bags, (b) and, besides another vehicle bearing No. HP-66-3653 was also parked and whose parking lights were switched on. The reason, for, the afore suspicion, becoming aroused in the minds, of, police officials, became strengthened, from head of the patrolling party, one Tek Chand, PW-19, despite introducing himself to the occupant of the car, the latter, however, failing to reveal his name, rather his fleeing towards the Auto, and, his raising cries “BHAG JAO”. However, the afore person was apprehended alongwith other persons at the spot, and the gunny bags strived to be unloaded from the vehicle concerned, and, hence falling onto the ground, were checked and “Dandassa” was found enclosed therein, besides inside the Auto, also 11 bags, containing Dandassa were found, weight whereof was found to be 338 kg. The afore bag was taken into possession, vide memo Ext. PW18/A, alongwith the Auto Rickshaw, as well as its keys. During the course of interrogation, made by the Investigating Officer, upon accused Gagan Kumar, he made a disclosure statement, borne in Ext. PW18/B, in pursuance whereto recovery, as becomes articulated in Ext. PW13/A, became effectuated, from the premises concerned. The Investigating Officer also prepared NCB form, wheretowhich Ext. PW12/D, becomes designated. A perusal of Ext. PW12/D unfolds in harmony, with Ext. PW13/A, that the Investigating Officer concerned, embossing on, the, sample cloth parcel, enclosing therewithin Charas, Ext. P-7, four seals each of English alphabet “T”, (i) and, his on the cloth parcel, containing, the, bulk of Charas, hence embossing thereon(s) 10 seals of English alphabet “T”. PW12/D, becomes designated. A perusal of Ext. PW12/D unfolds in harmony, with Ext. PW13/A, that the Investigating Officer concerned, embossing on, the, sample cloth parcel, enclosing therewithin Charas, Ext. P-7, four seals each of English alphabet “T”, (i) and, his on the cloth parcel, containing, the, bulk of Charas, hence embossing thereon(s) 10 seals of English alphabet “T”. Moreover, the SHO of the police station concerned, as disclosed by PW13, upon receiving the apposite cloth parcel(s), at the police station concerned, embossed on each parcel, four seal impressions, of, English alphabet “P”. 6. A perusal of column No. 16 of Ext. PW9/C, underscores that the afore made seizure became deposited, in the Mallkhana concerned. Moreover, column No. 16, contains descriptions, with respect to, deposit in the Mallkhana, of, gunny bags, containing “Dandassa”. The narration(s), appertaining to the numbers, of initially made, seal impression(s), upon the apposite cloth parcel(s), and, besides also vis-à-vis, the numbers, of, re-seal seal impressions, made thereon(s), and, also the respective English alphabet(s), carried on each, of, the afore, rather unfolding, qua theirs’ carrying, the, completest interse compatibilities, with the apposite narrations, as made, qua therewith, in Ext. PW13/A, and, in NCB form, embodied in Ext. PW12/A. Even upto the receipt, of, the apposite cloth parcel at the FSL concerned, as unfolded by Ext. PW8/A, exhibit whereof is the report, of, the FSL concerned, all the afore interse compatibilities, remained intact. In Ext. PW8/A, an opinion, is made by the author thereof qua the contents of the apposite cloth parcel, containing Charas. 7. Even though, the afore interse congruities, appertaining to the number(s) of the initially made seal impression(s), by the Investigating Officer, on, the apposite cloth parcel(s), and also, the English alphabet(s) embossed thereon, besides, appertaining to the numbers, of, re-seal seal impressions, made thereon, and, besides the English alphabets made thereon(s), do, visibly exist, upto the stage, of, the apposite cloth parcel(s), being received at the FSL concerned. However, the afore unbroken chains, vis-à-vis, the afore, would not, perse mobilize any inference qua hence the verdict, of, conviction, and, consequent therewith sentence(s), imposed upon, the appellant herein, rather warranting, its becoming upset by this Court. However, the afore unbroken chains, vis-à-vis, the afore, would not, perse mobilize any inference qua hence the verdict, of, conviction, and, consequent therewith sentence(s), imposed upon, the appellant herein, rather warranting, its becoming upset by this Court. Necessarily, the afore interse congruity(ies), or interse analoguity(ies), became enjoined to remain intact, or to remain un-broken, even in contemporaneity, vis-à-vis, the production, in Court, of, the apposite cloth parcel(s), (i) whereon(s) an affirmative opinion, qua contents thereof being Charas, become returned by the FSL concerned, in its report, borne. In the afore endeavour, a reading, of, the testimony, of, PW-13, as comprised in her crossexamination, as conducted, upon her, by the learned Public Prosecutor, upon hers turning hostile is important, and, the, emanating therefrom elicitations, as, become carried therein(s), become hereinafter extracted, and, therefrom, the, hereinafter extracted underscorings: “(At this stage parcel P1 produced. The parcel is containing three clear seals of FSL, which are in tact. Another two seals on the same line are broken one and not legible. These seals are in circle-A. The parcel is also containing four seal impressions. None is legible. Out of these fourteen seal impressions, five impressions are totally broken. Remaining are partially broken. Permission sought to open the parcel. Allowed) (At this stage parcel Ex. P-4 produced. It contains four seals of M, which are in tact. Permission sought to open. Allowed)” Or, an inference becomes sparked therefrom, (a) qua since in contemporaneity, vis-à-vis, the apposite cloth parcel(s), containing Charas, becoming shown to the PW concerned, the learned defence counsel, omitting to make resistance, against the making(s) of Exhibit marks thereon, (b) nor his protesting against the production in Court, of, the apposite cloth parcels, given theirs not appertaining to the recoveries thereof, as, made through Ext. PW13/A, (c) thereupon, even if, there is/are revelations(s) qua some of the English alphabet(s), occurring on the seals concerned, being not legible or some of the seals being partially broken, (d) thereupon, theirs’ not enabling the learned counsel, for the appellant, to argue with much vigor, that hence the afore chain, commencing, from the recoveries, of, the case property, made through memo, Ext. PW13/A, from the site concerned, upto its/their production, becoming broken. PW13/A, from the site concerned, upto its/their production, becoming broken. The afore severance or dis-connectivity, may apart from, becoming spurred from an established remonstrance(s), being hence made, in contemporaneity, vis-à-vis, the production in Court, of, cloth parcel(s), hence by the learned defence counsel, (e) would also, become sparked, upon weights thereof, not tallying with the apposite weights, as become pronounced in the report of the FSL, borne in Ext. PW8/A, (f) or as become reflected in the apposite seizure memo, yet no endeavor hence suggestive, vis-à-vis, the afore lack, of, interse congruity(ies), became attempted, (g) thereupon, it becomes concluded that in contemporaniety, vis-à-vis, the production, of, cloth parcel(s), in Court, theirs; appertaining to seizure thereof, as become made through memo, embodied in Ext. PW13/A, and also qua thereon(s), rather the report of the FSL, borne in Ext. PW8/A, becoming rendered. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has, however, placed reliance, upon, the testimony, embodied in, the, cross-examination, of, PW- 12, wherein echong(s), occur qua the afore witness, not making entries, on all occasions , of, movements, of, the case property, from the Mallkhana concerned, hence in the Mallkhana register, (a) and, also he seeks capitalization, from the admission, of, PW-12, as, occurs therein, qua column-7 of the Mallkhana Register, not carrying the signatures, of, the depositor and receiver, of, the case property. However, the afore made submission falters, as it would carry immense probative vigor, only upon the learned defense counsel, in contemporaniety, vis-a-a-vis, production, of, the apposite cloth parcel(s), in Court, his making the afore alluded remonstrance(s), and, protest(s), against, the, making(s), of, the apposite exhibit marks thereon, (b) obviously, the afore failures or omissions, can not, render the mere factum, of, non- making(s), or, omissions, of the Incharge, of, the Mallkhana concerned, to, in the Mallkhana Register, on all occasions, of movements, of, the cloth parcel(s) therefrom, hence make entries therein, to rather bring any fatalities, upon, the charge drawn against the accused Gagan Kumar. Moreover, even if column No. 7, of, the Mallkhana register, does not, carry signatures, of, the depositor thereof, (c) thereupon(s), unless, the, scribing(s) made thereon(s), became proved, to be made both un-authorisedly or fictitiously, hence would not render the afore omission(s), of, making(s), of, signatures, in, Column No. 7, of, the Mallkhana Register, to, enfeeble the charge drawn against the accused, whereas, want, of, afore endeavour, negates the effects, if any, thereof. 9. Emphatically also, since, the, making of Road certificate, embodied in Ext. PW12/C, remains uncontested, thereupon, when it carries descriptions, appertaining to the case property, in the completest synchronization, with the ones, as become embodied in Ext. PW13/A ,and, in the NCB form, as becomes embodied in Ext. PW12/D, besides, when it carries descriptions, carrying synchronization hence with the apposite ones, as became carried in the FSL report, borne in Ext. PW8/A, (a) thereupon, dehors, lack or omissions, of the Incharge, of, the Mallkhana concerned, to, on all occasions, of, movement(s), of, the case property, hence make entries therein, does, rather boosts an inference, that PW-12, in an untampered condition, carried the case property, from the Mallkhana concerned and deposited it with the FSL concerned, and, also that the latter, after making, a, report thereon, returned it, in an untampered condition, to the Mallkhana concerned. Since, no evidence, of, tampering(s), of, the case property, rather emanates, and, when even in contemporaniety, vis-à-vis, the production, of, the case property in Court, the afore alluded apposite interse analoguity(ies), make their surfacing, thereupon, when all the apposite links, become completely established, and, as commencing from the date of seizure, of, the case property, upto its production in Court, (a) whereupon(s) the Incharge of the Mallkhana concerned, became not entailed with any legal objection, to, on all occasions, of, the movements, from, the Mallkhana concerned, of, the case property, to make entries therein, it being merely an omitted ministerial act, whereons, no credible exculpatory edifice can become erected. 10. 10. Be that as it may, even otherwise, since during the course of cross-examination, of, PW-16, the latter acquiesces to suggestion(s) meted to him, vis-à-vis, the apposite building appertaining, to, two storeys, and, that the contraband, becoming recovered from the lower storey thereof, and wheretowhich, also an affirmative answer emanates from him, and also with the occurrence, of, the afore emanation(s), being subsequent to the production, of, case property, in Court (i) and wheretowhose production, and, making(s), of exhibit marks thereon, rather being, without any remonstrances, by the learned defense counsel, (ii) thereupon hence, the, defence is to be inferred, to acquiesce to the making(s), of, recoveries from the apposite store, rather through the recovery memo, borne in Ext. PW13/A. 11. However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended with much vigor, before this Court, that since the apposite store, as becomes unfolded by Ext. DW3/A, was rented out to DW-3, (i) thereupon the latter, rather than Gagan Kumar, was in conscious, and, exclusive possession thereof, and hence she argues, that recoveries therefrom, of, the case property, through memo drawn, in Ext. PW13/A, becoming falsified. However, no reliance can be placed, upon Ext. DW3/A, as it making, rather for the reasons recorded herein, appears to be an afterthought, (ii) and, also appears to be, drawn as a mere camouflage, to, obviously conceal the active de-facto ownership and possession, of, the apposite premises, reasons whereof, are, (a) DW-3, in his cross-examination, making candid acquiescing(s), vis-àvis, the, recitals, in Ext. DW3/A, carrying description(s), not appertaining to the relevant premises, qua wherewith Ext. PW13/A, became drawn, (iii) PW-4, in his examination-in-chief, disclosing that the relevant premises, becoming jointly owned by Gagan Kumar, and, Shashi Khanna, and, the afore echoing, occurring in the examination-in-chief, of, PW-4, not becoming efficaciously repulsed, either through any suggestion, becoming put to PW-4, nor any answer, for negating the effect, of, the afore echoing, occurring in his examinationin- chief, rather emanating from PW-4. (iv) PW-4, in his cross-examination, admitting to an affirmative suggestion, vis-à-vis, the mother of accused Gagan Kumar, operating business from the building, wherein she resides, (v) income tax returns, remaining unproduced by DW-3, rather wherefrom unfoldment(s), may emerge, vis-a-vis, his carrying business, from the relevant premises, for hence succoring the statement, of, DW-3, and, of, the defenses’ espousal qua the relevant premises, becoming rented, to one Diwakar Singh. (vi) Accused Gagan Kumar, failing to contest his statement, made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and, as becomes embodied in Ext. PW18/B, and, also, with his failing to contest his signatures, as became, borne in recovery memo, embodied in Ext. PW13/A, thereupon it becomes concluded qua rather the recoveries being made, at the instance of accused Gagan Kumar, from the premises, hence possessed by him. 12. Even though, the defense contends, that the locks carried on the shutters, of, the premises concerned, became broken, at the instance, of, the police, however, even the afore espousal, becomes infirm (a) from the uncontested voicings becoming borne in Ext. PW13/F, wherein there are revelations, that a lock bearing mark MIG-25, becoming hung on the knob of the shutters, and, wherefrom, a further sequel, becomes sparked, especially when the Ward Panch, who stepped into the witness box, as PW-13, being neither put any suggestion, carrying echoing(s), vis-à-vis, the lock, of, the shutters, being broken, nor obviously, hers meteing any compatible answer therewith, (b) whereupons, firm efficacy and probative vigor becomes respectively assignable both, to, Ext. DW3/A, and, to Ext. PW13/A. Significantly, hence, the recovery, as, made therefrom, becomes unflinchingly concluded, to become made, in pursuance to, a, validly made disclosure statement, borne in Ext. PW18/B, besides cogently, proves qua the recovery(ies) being made, from the relevant premises, hence consciously and exclusively possessed, by accused Gagan Kumar. 13. The learned counsel appearing, for the appellant, has also made vehement contention before this Court, that since the recovery, from, the relevant premises was made, in the interregnum, interse sunset and sunrise, thereupon, the mandate, of, Section 42, of, the ND & PS Act, provisions whereof, stand extracted hereinafter: “42. 13. The learned counsel appearing, for the appellant, has also made vehement contention before this Court, that since the recovery, from, the relevant premises was made, in the interregnum, interse sunset and sunrise, thereupon, the mandate, of, Section 42, of, the ND & PS Act, provisions whereof, stand extracted hereinafter: “42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization-(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-mimlitary 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 person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controller 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 property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of 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 license 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 subinspector: Provided further that] if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorization 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) Whether 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.]” became aroused, hence evidently, the Investigating Officer concerned was statutorily barred to, in the afore interregnum, validly enter the premises concerned, unless (a) he thereat held with him validly issued search warrant(s), or even for want thereof, he became enjoined to record the reason(s), for his yet making an entry, or ingressing into the relevant premises, (i) whereupon alone the afore condition precedent, encumbered upon the Investigating Officer, to, in the interregnum, since the sunset and sunrise, make a valid ingression into the relevant premises, would become rendered un-necessary, rather for, compliance being meted threto. However, when the afore statutory compliances remain unestablished, to, become meted adherence, (ii) thereupon, the seizure, as made through Ext. PW18/C, and, through Ext. PW13/A, become completely vitiated. However, the afore made contention, cannot be accepted by this Court, as the deepest perusal, of the provisions, embodied in Section 42 of the ND & PS Act, do not, curtail the operations thereons, of, Section 27, of, the Indian Evidence Act. The apt corollary thereof, is that since in the course, of, the interrogation, being made upon accused Gagan Kumar, he made, before the Investigating Officer concerned, a validly proven disclosure statement, hence under Section 27, of, the Indian Evidence Act, disclosure statement whereof, becomes embodied in Ext. PW18/B, and, further when, in pursuance whereof, recovery(ies), as become embodied in Ext. PW18/A, became effectuated, (ii) thereupon when the recoveries were obviously made at the instance, of, accused Gagan Kumar, hence rendered, un-necessary, the makings, of, the afore statutory compliances, rather by the I.O. concerned, prior to his ingressing into the relevant premises. The prime reason for making the afore inference, becomes drawn, from the factum that, the, leading into the premises, of, the Investigating Officer, by the accused, and wherefrom the apposite recoveries became effectuated, rather perse, tantamounting, to an established valid recovery, of, an incriminatory fact, hence in pursuance, to a validly made disclosure statement, by the accused concerned, (ii) and, hence its constituting an authorization, under law, to the Investigating Officer, to enter the relevant premises concerned, dehors, the afore statutory condition precedent rather remaining un-complied with, by him. Sequitur thereof is that memo(s) drawn under Section 27, of the Indian Evidence Act, when become(s) efficaciously proven, besides when in pursuance thereof, a valid incriminatory fact, rather became recovered, hence, the, therethrough rather made afore recoveries, operating as an exception, to the operation(s) thereons, of, the afore statutory condition(s) precedent, as becomes, contemplated in Section 42, of, the ND & PS Act, and, appertaining to the apposite valid ingressings into the relevant premises. (iii) Moreso, when the play,of, the mandate of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, vis-àvis, the therethrough(s) searches hence made by the I.O. concerned, become neither explicitly ousted, nor are statutorily prohibited, for being acted, upon, by the Investigating Officer concerned. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant, has also argued, that since one Kekti Devi, has resiled, from her previous statement, recorded in writing, hence therefrom the charge rather staggering. However, the afore submission become rudderless, in the face of her admitting her signatures, on the apposite memos, thereupon, the effects, of, hers’ orally reneging from her previous statement becomes benumbed, given hence thereupon(s), the, estopping operations thereon, of, the mandate of Section(s) 91, and, 92, of, the Indian Evidence Act, becoming aroused. 15. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued, that since no report, of the chemical examiner has been adduced into evidence, and, nor obviously it becomes unfolded that the incriminatory Dandassa was in fact, Dandassa, (i) thereupon the charge appertaining therewith, rather foundering. However, the afore submission, cannot be accepted, as the defense has not put any suggestion, qua therewith, to any of the prosecution witness, nor with the accused, upon his meteing answers, to questions, put to him, during the course of his statement becoming drawn under Section 313 Cr. P.C., making denial(s) qua dandassa, as became recovered, through the appositely drawn memo(s), rather not being dandassa, thereupon, wants, of, making, of any apposite report qua therewith by the FSL concerned, rather, does not render the charge to capsize. 16. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The Judgment impugned before this Court is maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back forthwith.