JUDGMENT : The case of the prosecution is that on 24.02.2016, a police party headed by SI/SHO Dharam Sain Negi alongwith Head Constable Ram Lal and Constables Ajay and Suresh left the Police Station, Kotkhai around 6.00 P.M. for regular patrol and traffic work. At about 7.50 P.M., the police party was at Hulli. They found a person carrying a bag in his right hand, coming from Hulli-Ghund-Dasana road. On seeing the police, he turned back and started running. On suspicion, he was apprehended. On inquiry, he stated his name as Budhi Ram S/o late Shri Ram Dass Sharma. That he was a resident of village Kothadi. He was carrying a bag on which was printed the name ‘Mohsen’. The bag was checked. It contained sticks and round shape black substances. The smell was that of charas. Independent witnesses, namely, Shri Rakesh Kumar, salesmen in the country liquor vend at Hulli and Shri Mohamad Akhter of village Ghunda, were joined in the investigation. The carry bag was taken to a nearby shop M/s Kimta General Store, which belonged to one Mohd. Iqbal. The substance was weighed. It was 2.522 kgs. The same was put into the carry bag and parceled in separate cloth with 12 different seals on it. All other formalities were completed. 2. An FIR was lodged against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. Investigation was taken up. Thereafter the case was committed for trial. Charges were framed against the accused. He pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined nine witnesses and the defence examined one witness. The prosecution relied on Ext.PW1/A to Ext. PW7/G. On trial, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years alongwith fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Aggrieved by the same, the accused has filed this appeal. 3. Mr. Manoj Pathak, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order passed by the trial Court is erroneous. That the trial Court failed to consider the discrepancies in the case of the prosecution. That the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the accused has filed this appeal. 3. Mr. Manoj Pathak, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order passed by the trial Court is erroneous. That the trial Court failed to consider the discrepancies in the case of the prosecution. That the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. That the witnesses of the prosecution have turned hostile. That the trial court cannot rely solely on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. That independent witnesses are required to be examined. The seizure has not been proved. That there is a discrepancy with regard to the status of PW-1. The claim of the prosecution is that PW-1 is a driver of the jeep is not supported by any evidence on record. It is further pleaded that in terms of the evidence of DW-1, the accused is innocent of the offence alleged against him. There was an altercation that took place in the beer bar. That the altercation was between the police and the accused. That as a consequence whereof, the police have wreaked vengeance on him and have falsely implicated the accused. That the accused is innocent of the offences alleged against him. Hence, it is pleaded that the appeal be allowed by acquitting the accused. 4. The same is disputed by Ms. Seema Sharma, the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State. She contends that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. That sufficient evidence has been led in to establish the recovery of the contraband from the accused. That the discrepancies sought to be made out by the appellant with regard to the status of PW-1, is belittled by the evidence of PW-6. PW-6 is the constable Dimple Chankrola, who maintained the police diary at the police station. Based on her evidence, Ext.PW6/A and Ext.PW6/B would indicate the presence of PW-1. Therefore, the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. That so far as the evidence of DW-1 (Shyam Lal) is concerned, the same does not lend any credence to the case of the accused. That even if the evidence of DW-1 is to be accepted, that still does not indicate the innocence of the accused. Therefore, the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. That so far as the evidence of DW-1 (Shyam Lal) is concerned, the same does not lend any credence to the case of the accused. That even if the evidence of DW-1 is to be accepted, that still does not indicate the innocence of the accused. Hence, she pleads that the appeal be dismissed by upholding the judgment of sentence and conviction passed by the trial Court. 5. Heard learned counsels and examined the records. 6. PW-1 is the Honorary Head Constable posted at Police Station, Kotkhai. He drives the official vehicle of the police station. He has stated in his evidence that on 24.02.2016, he alongwith SI/SHO Dharam Sain i.e. PW-7, Ram Lal, Constables Suresh Kumar and Ajay Kumar went for a routine patrol duty in the official vehicle. At abount 7.50 P.M., when they were present at Hulli and checking the vehicles, a person was coming from Dasana-Ghoond road towards Hulli. He was carrying a bag in his right hand. On seeing the police officials, he ran away. He was chased and caught. On inquiry, he disclosed his name as Budhi Ram, namely the accused. The carry bag that he was carrying was searched. It contained a black coloured substance in the shape of balls and sticks. The same were seized by the escort. Thereafter alongwith the accused they went to Kimta General Store. Charas was taken out from the bag and weighed. It weighed about 2.522 kgs. The charas was put in a parcel and sealed and affixed with twelve seals. Samples were sent to Forensic. Photographs were taken. An FIR was lodged in Police Station, Kotkhai for the offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The witness was cross-examined by the accused. The appellant counsel seeks to rely on the statement of a suggestion being made to PW-1 that he was not the driver of the said vehicle. The same was denied by the witness. However, except the said suggestion made by the accused, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1. The evidence of PW-1 is consistent. We do not find any worthwhile cross-examination that would affect the case of the prosecution. 7. PW-2, PW-8 and PW-9 have turned hostile. 8. PW-3 was posted as a Reader to Dy.SP/SDPO Shri Rattan Singh Negi at the relevant time. The evidence of PW-1 is consistent. We do not find any worthwhile cross-examination that would affect the case of the prosecution. 7. PW-2, PW-8 and PW-9 have turned hostile. 8. PW-3 was posted as a Reader to Dy.SP/SDPO Shri Rattan Singh Negi at the relevant time. On 25.02.2016, Dy.SP Shri Rattan Singh Negi handed over a special report relating to the case to this witness for making entries in the relevant register. Entry was made by the witness at serial No.13 in the register. Nothing worthwhile is elicited in the cross-examination. 9. PW-4 Shri Tulsi Ram was posted as MHC, Police Station, Kotkhai since the month of July 2015. On 24.02.2016, rukka Ext.PW-4/A was received in the police station through Constable Suresh Kumar No. 706. The witness registered FIR Ext.PW-4/B on its basis. The FIR contains the signatures of the witness. Endorsement Ext.PW-4/C was issued. After registering the FIR, the case was handed over by the witness to Constable Suresh Kumar to be delivered to the SHO. The witness is an official witness. Nothing worthwhile has been brought out from the cross examination to disbelieve the same. 10. PW-5 is constable Shri Naveen Kumar, who was posted in the said police station since the month of September 2014. He has stated that on 25.02.2016, MHC Tulsi Ram handed over a parcel sealed with 12 seals of the impression ‘H’, NCB form, sample seal, copy of the FIR and copy of the seizure memo to him vide RC No.19/16 for being deposited in FSL, Junga. That he deposited the same in the laboratory on the same day. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited in the cross-examination. 11. PW-6 is a Head Constable. She was posted in February 2016 in the said police station. On 24.02.2016, she was working as MHC in the police station. Rapat No.19 was entered by her. The copy is Ext.PW6/A. On the same day, Rapat No.27 was entered by her, which is Ext.PW-6/B. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited in the cross-examination. 12. PW-7 is the Investigating Officer. He is the one who conducted the investigation. He has narrated the manner in which investigation took place right from the seizure to filing of the chargesheet. The copy is Ext.PW6/A. On the same day, Rapat No.27 was entered by her, which is Ext.PW-6/B. Nothing worthwhile has been elicited in the cross-examination. 12. PW-7 is the Investigating Officer. He is the one who conducted the investigation. He has narrated the manner in which investigation took place right from the seizure to filing of the chargesheet. It is suggested in the cross-examination that PW-1 was not visible in the photographs Ext.PW-1/C to Ext.PW-1/H. Except the said suggestion, nothing else has been asked to the witness that would render the evidence to be doubtful. 13. Based on the evidence, the learned trial Court was of the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is based on the doubt on PW-1. He has stated that the case of the prosecution is that PW-1 was the official driver of the police jeep. However, there is no material to indicate the same. He, therefore, places reliance on Ext.PW-1/I, which is the copy of the log-book. We have considered the same. Placing reliance on the same, he indicates that the name of PW-1 is not reflected in the said log-book. That when the witness himself has stated that he was present at the scene of occurrence, the same should be corroborated by appropriate material. That Ext.PW-1/I does not indicate the presence of PW-1. Therefore, his very presence is doubtful. That when the presence of PW-1 is doubtful, then the prosecution has failed to establish its case. 14. The defence has also led in the evidence of DW-1. He has stated in the evidence that there was a beer bar in Hulli. The same was closed on the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the year 2017. It was owned by one S.K. Munna. It was a leased property. That the witness used to work in the beer bar as its Manager from the year 2002 to 2017. He used to deal with cash etc. He knew the accused. The accused would come to the beer bar to consume beer. In February 2016, the accused was sitting in the cabin of the beer bar. Police officials came for checking. He does not remember as to what was said by the accused to the police officials. A quarrel took place between the accused and the police officials. The accused would come to the beer bar to consume beer. In February 2016, the accused was sitting in the cabin of the beer bar. Police officials came for checking. He does not remember as to what was said by the accused to the police officials. A quarrel took place between the accused and the police officials. Two police officials had come to check the beer bar. He knew one of those police officials, who used to drive the official vehicle of the police station. Thereafter the accused was taken by the police officials. There were no cameras which were fitted in the beer bar. 15. The accused seeks to rely on the evidence of DW-1 to indicate that it is only out of vengeance that he has been falsely indicated in this case. That an altercation took place between the accused and the police in the beer bar. It is only because of the same, that the police have wrongly framed him. That the accused is innocent. 16. We have considered the contentions as well as the evidence of DW-1. The evidence of DW-1 is not to such an extent that would support the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The evidence of DW-1 only indicates that a quarrel took place between the accused and the police. What was the quarrel and what was the intensity of the enmity between the accused and the police has not been stated. The enmity or hatred between the appellant and the police should be to such an extent which would push the police into wrongly framing the accused. The incident should have hurt the police to such an extent that they had no other option but to falsely implicate the accused. We do not find that the intensity of the evidence is to such an extent as to lead to such a conclusion. The evidence only indicates that there was an altercation between the accused and the police. It may not be possible for us to conclude that this particular quarrel between the accused and the police has led to the wrong implication of the accused. We do not find that there is any nexus between the contention of a false implication of the accused with the evidence of DW-1. Therefore we are unable to accept the evidence of DW-1 to the extent which is sought to be argued. 17. We do not find that there is any nexus between the contention of a false implication of the accused with the evidence of DW-1. Therefore we are unable to accept the evidence of DW-1 to the extent which is sought to be argued. 17. Ms. Seema Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, relies on the evidence of PW-6 namely the head-constable. The witness has stated that she is the one who has profiled Ext.PW-6/A and Ext.-PW6/B. We have considered the same. Ext.PW-6/A is Rapat dated 24.02.2016 and Ext.PW-6/B also is Rapat dated 24.02.2016. We have considered the same. The same indicates that as on the date the offence was committed, PW-1 and other officials left the police station to do their official duties. The name of PW-1 finds a place in PW6/A, therefore, the same indicates the presence of PW-1. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the presence of PW-1 is doubtful, cannot be accepted. Even assuming that PW-1 may not be the driver, there is no suggestion made to PW-1 that he was not present at the spot of seizure. A specific question had to be asked to him that he was not present when the actual seizure took place. However, we do not find that such a suggestion was put to PW-7. The thrust of the cross-examination appears to be to show that PW-1 was not the driver of the vehicle. Repeated questioning has been made to PW-1 that he is not the driver of the vehicle. Even assuming that he is not the driver of the vehicle that does not affect the case of the prosecution. Even assuming he is not the driver, he was the one who was present when the seizure of the articles took place. The seizure was effected from the accused. At the time of seizure PW-1 was present. The same is evident from Ext.PW-6/A and Ext.PW-6/B. Therefore, only because the logbook does not contain the name of PW-1, it does not by itself indicate his absence. Hence, we are of the view that such a contention cannot be accepted. 18. His further contention is that no independent witnesses have been examined. That even though independent witnesses were available, they were not examined. The witnesses that have been examined have turned hostile namely PW-2 Rakesh Kumar, PW-8 Mohammad Iqbal and PW-9 Mohammad Akhtar. 19. Hence, we are of the view that such a contention cannot be accepted. 18. His further contention is that no independent witnesses have been examined. That even though independent witnesses were available, they were not examined. The witnesses that have been examined have turned hostile namely PW-2 Rakesh Kumar, PW-8 Mohammad Iqbal and PW-9 Mohammad Akhtar. 19. It is not a hard and fast rule that the evidence of the official witnesses is required to be discarded only because they are official witnesses. Ultimately, the statements of the witnesses would have to be given due weightage for what they are worth. The evidence of the witnesses requires to be tested by appropriate cross examination. That in the instant case neither PW-2 nor PW-7 and PW-8 have been subjected to any cross-examination that would render the prosecution case to be doubtful. 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in number of decisions that even the evidence of a sole witness is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused, provided such an evidence is honest, trustworthy and capable of being accepted. It should withstand the cross-examination. On considering the evidence of PW-2, which is corroborated by the evidence to PW-8, we do not find any reason to disbelieve their evidence. We find that the evidence as narrated by PW-2, PW-8 and PW-9 are honest and require to be accepted. 21. We found certain discrepancies in the prosecution case but the discrepancies as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant does not stretch itself to such an extent that would render the entire case of the prosecution to be doubtful. In a matter pertaining to seizure of contraband under the NDPS Act, the most crucial element is the question of seizure. The seizure has to be proved by the State beyond all reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the seizure has been proved through the evidence of PW-1. The evidence is strong and has not been disturbed in the cross-examination. Once the seizure has been proved, the rest of the evidence becomes supportive. The rest of the evidence is only relatable to the investigation in the matter. The recovery having been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt, we are of the considered view that the appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court is just and appropriate. Once the seizure has been proved, the rest of the evidence becomes supportive. The rest of the evidence is only relatable to the investigation in the matter. The recovery having been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt, we are of the considered view that the appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court is just and appropriate. We do not find any perversity in the appreciation of the evidence or the material placed before the learned trial Court. The same is just and appropriate. We do not find that the cross-examination is to such an extent that would persuade us to disbelieve the evidence led in by the prosecution. 22. The prosecution, therefore, having established its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court do not call for any interference. 23. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 20.01.2018, passed by the Special Judge (Forests), Shimla in Sessions Trial RBT No. 10-S/7 of 2016 is affirmed.