JUDGMENT : TASHI RABSTAN, J. 1. This Criminal Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.05.2010 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge (under NDPS Act) in File No. 01/Special Challan, whereby, the respondents-accused came to be acquitted of the charges under Section 9-A/25 of NDPS Act by giving them the benefit of doubt. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, gone through the file and also perused the judgment under appeal as well as the file of trial Court. 3. The only ground taken by the appellant in the memo of appeal is that the learned trial Court has mis-appreciated the law and evidence on record, and has not appreciated the statement of prosecution witnesses in their totality. 4. PW-Mohd Sayeed, a shopkeeper has specifically deposed that neither accused persons were arrested nor any recovery was effected by the police in his presence. 5. PW-Mukhtar Ahmed, driver of the vehicle has specifically deposed that the goods, which were brought by him, were not giving any foul smell. He further deposed that he did not see those packets in the Court nor police got identified the same. He further deposed that the accused persons were not arrested in his presence by the police nor recovery was effected in his presence. 6. PW-Zakir Hussain, Constable has specifically deposed that on 26.06.2008 when he along with other police personnel were on patrolling duty and when reached near Haji Market, they saw two persons present in court in suspicious conditions possessing gallons which were seized, however, the seizure memo of gallons do not bear his signatures. 7. PW-Mohd. Alam has specifically deposed that his signatures were obtained by the police on some papers on spot and on some papers in the police station, but the contents of the papers were not read over to him neither he read the same. He further deposed that he did not see the accused persons on spot nor in the police station. Further, he had no knowledge as to how much gallons were there and what was contained in the same. 8. PW-Sandeep Sharma had deposed that the goods/articles were seized at 5 PM, whereas other witnesses had deposed that the time was 7:15 PM. 9. PW-Sanjay Kumar, Constable had deposed that the police recorded his statement after two months of occurrence. Further, he had no knowledge as to how much gallons were there and what was contained in the same. 8. PW-Sandeep Sharma had deposed that the goods/articles were seized at 5 PM, whereas other witnesses had deposed that the time was 7:15 PM. 9. PW-Sanjay Kumar, Constable had deposed that the police recorded his statement after two months of occurrence. He further deposed that he signed in English on the seizure memo, whereas the seizure memo shown to him do not have his signatures in English. He also deposed that the seizure memo shown to him at the time of deposition is not the same. 10. Thus, a perusal of the impugned judgment as well as record of trial court reveals that the statements of independent witnesses do not support the version of police theory nor corroborate with the statements of rest of the prosecution witnesses. All other witnesses are police personnel and their statements seem to be very contradictory regarding the seizure and possession of the contraband from the accused persons. Further, the statements of material witnesses have not been recorded to prove the guilt of accused persons. The acquittal of respondents-accused seems to be well merited. 11. It would be appropriate to reproduce hereunder the relevant portion of judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 650 : “........In absence of any manifest illegality, perversity and miscarriage of justice, the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the concurrent finding of acquittal of the accused merely because on re-appreciation of evidence it found the testimony of the PWs to be reliable whereas the trial court had taken an opposite view.” 12. We are also of the view that the trial court on the basis of meticulous appreciation of evidence on record has acquitted the respondents of the offences alleged against them; therefore, the same do not call for any interference. 13. For the stated reasons and facts and the position of law coupled with the reasoning recorded by the learned trial Court, we do not find any solid and weighty reason to take a view other than the one taken by the learned trial Court; rather the trial Court in these circumstances had no option but to acquit the accused for want of adequacy of evidence. Accordingly, Criminal Acquittal Appeal fails and the impugned judgment dated 12.05.2010 recording acquittal of respondents is upheld. 14. Send down the record of trial Court along with a copy of this judgment.