JUDGMENT : By way of instant appeal, appellant has assailed his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge-II, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, H.P., vide judgment dated 06.06.2016 in Sessions Trial No. 28-R/3 of 2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(for short ‘ND& PS’ Act) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment of six months. 2. The case as set up by the prosecution was that a police party of Police Station Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P. including SI/SHO Virochan Negi, HC Rakesh Kumar, ASI Krishan Lal and Constable Mool Chand, while on patrol had laid a "Nakka" on the "Kirti road".At about 10:15 P.M. appellant approached the spot of "Nakka" from Kirti side. PW-10, SI/SHO Virochan Negi stopped the appellant, who was carrying a red colour bag in his left hand. On suspicion, the bag carried by the appellant was checked. The red colour bag contained another bag of dark brown colour and inside such bag black coloured substance in the shape of balls was found. The black colour substance was discovered to be the "Cannabis". The place where the accused was apprehended was secluded and no independent witness was immediately available. PW-1, H.C. Rakesh Kumar, PW-2, ASI Krishan Lal were associated as witnesses. The "Cannabis" was weighed and found 1 Kg 500 grams. The contraband was placed firstly in the dark brown bag which in turn was placed inside the red colour bag. This bag was further placed in a cloth parcel Ext. PA, which was sealed with six seals having impression “N”. Sample seal was drawn on a separate piece of cloth Ext.PW1/A.NCB form Ext.PW6/B was filled up by PW-10, SI/SHO Virochan Negi. Seal after use was handed over to PW-1, HC Rakesh Kumar. Seizure memo Ext. PW1/B was prepared. The spot proceedings were photographed by PW-2, ASI Krishan Lal. Photographs PW2/A-1 to Ex. PW2/A-6 were later developed. Rukka Ext. PW3/A was prepared and handed over to PW-3, C. Mool Chand for being taken to police station for the purposes of registration of FIR. PW-3, C. Mool Chand took the Rukka to the police station, on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW3/B was recorded. Photographs PW2/A-1 to Ex. PW2/A-6 were later developed. Rukka Ext. PW3/A was prepared and handed over to PW-3, C. Mool Chand for being taken to police station for the purposes of registration of FIR. PW-3, C. Mool Chand took the Rukka to the police station, on the basis of which FIR Ext. PW3/B was recorded. PW-10, SI/SHO Virochan Negi prepared special report Ext. PW4/A, under Section 57 of the Act and sent the same to S.D.P.O. Rampur, where it was received by the concerned police officer and handed over to PW-4, HC Tara Chand to be kept in record. The accused was formally arrested on spot. The case property alongwith accused were brought to police station. The case property was handed over to PW-6, MHC Sita Devi alongwith relevant documents for safe custody in "Malkhana". On 08.02.2016, the recovered contraband was sent for chemical analysis to S.F.S.L. Junga through PW-5, HHC Roshan Lal No. 413. On chemical analysis, such substance was confirmed to be cannabis, vide report Ext. PX. The contraband and report Ext. PX were brought from S.F.S.L. Junga to Police Station Kumarsain on 29.02.2016 by PW-8, HHC Roshan Lal No. 372. After investigation, challan was prepared and presented in the Court. Appellant was charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 20 of the ND&PS, Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. Prosecution examined total ten witnesses. PW-1, HC Rakesh Kumar, PW-2, ASI Krishan Lal, PW-3, C. Mool Chand and PW-10, SI/SHO Virochan Negi were examined as spot witnesses. PW-9, LC Chetna proved the transit of special report Ext. PW-4/A from police station to the office of S.D.P.O. Rampur on 08.02.2016. PW-4, HC Tara Chand proved the receipt of special report. PW-5, HHC Roshan Lal No. 413 proved the transit of contraband from police station Kumarsain to S.F.S.L. Junga on 08.02.2016 and PW-8, HHC Roshal Lal No. 372 proved the transit of contraband from S.F.S.L. Junga to Police Station Kumarsain on 29.02.2016. Both these witnesses also proved the safe custody of contraband till it remained with them. PW-6, MHC Sita Devi and PW-7, HC Liaq Ram proved the safe custody of contraband and other related documents in "Malkhana". Appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Appellant did not lead any defence evidence. 4. Learned Special Judge-II Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr after holding the trial convicted and sentenced the appellant as noticed above. 5. PW-6, MHC Sita Devi and PW-7, HC Liaq Ram proved the safe custody of contraband and other related documents in "Malkhana". Appellant was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Appellant did not lead any defence evidence. 4. Learned Special Judge-II Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr after holding the trial convicted and sentenced the appellant as noticed above. 5. We have heard Mr. Manoj Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and perused the record. 6. At the outset, Mr. Manoj Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the trial was vitiated on account of non compliance of provisions of Section 42 of the Act. According to him, it was a case of prior information and hence failure to comply with the aforesaid provisions of law was fatal to the prosecution case. In support of this argument, reliance has been placed on the cross- examination of PW-1, HC Rakesh Kumar. It will be gainful to reproduce the relevant extract of the cross-examination of PW-1, on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellant as under:- “We had not checked any vehicle. We had also not checked any person. We had not laid any barricade on the road. The head light of the official vehicle was also switched off. We had gone to that place as SHO was saying that he has some information, so, we had laid nakka there. I do not exactly know what was the information to SHO.” 7. The argument raised by the appellant deserves to be rejected for the reasons that from the above noted statement of PW-1, the inference can not be drawn that PW-10, SI/SHO Virochan Negi had prior information as required under Section 42 of the Act. Even according to PW-1, SHO had mentioned about some information and hence "Nakka" was to be laid. He has further clarified that he did not know what was the exact information. Thus, the statement of this witness to the above effect cannot be held sufficient to invoke Section 42 of the Act. More so because none of the other witnesses have stated even a single word regarding any prior information available with either of them. PW-10, SI/SHO Virochan Negi has specifically denied about the receipt of any information with him as required under Section 42 of the Act. 8. More so because none of the other witnesses have stated even a single word regarding any prior information available with either of them. PW-10, SI/SHO Virochan Negi has specifically denied about the receipt of any information with him as required under Section 42 of the Act. 8. Section 42 comes into play only when the officer authorized therein entertains reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person regarding the commission or likely commission of offence under the Act. The expression “reason to believe” in the context of ND&PS Act requires objective satisfaction on the part of the officer concerned and not merely his subjective satisfaction. In the case in hand, there is no material on record to hold that PW-10 had any information regarding likelihood of commission of offence under the Act on the objective analysis of which he could entertain the requisite reason to believe. 9. It has further been contended on behalf of the appellant that the entire recovery and seizure was shrouded in suspicion as the investigating officer had intentionally omitted to associate independent witnesses despite availability. No doubt, the spot witnesses have admitted that no effort was made to associate independent witnesses, but such version on their part is to be evaluated in the backdrop of the circumstances in which the contraband was recovered. As we have already held that it was not a case of prior information. Thus, in a chance recovery, non association of independent witnesses cannot be said to be the sole circumstance to disbelieve the prosecution case. There is no convincing evidence on record to suggest that some person(s) other than the police party were readily available on or near the spot at the time when the appellant was queried by the police party. Once the appellant was with the police with a bag in his hand and was not witnessed at that stage by any independent witnesses, subsequent inclusion of independent witnesses becomes meaningless. 10. It is trite law that mere non association of independent witnesses will not be considered as fatal to the prosecution case. The only caveat is that in case of such omission, the testimony of police witnesses is to be scrutinized with caution and care and if found reliable can form basis of a successful prosecution. In Raveen Kumar Vs. 10. It is trite law that mere non association of independent witnesses will not be considered as fatal to the prosecution case. The only caveat is that in case of such omission, the testimony of police witnesses is to be scrutinized with caution and care and if found reliable can form basis of a successful prosecution. In Raveen Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2020 (12) Scale 138 , it has been held as under:- "19. It would be gainsaid that lack of independent witnesses are not fatal to the prosecution case. 6 However, such omissions cast an added duty on Courts to adopt a greater degree of care while scrutinizing the testimonies of the police officers, which if found reliable can form the basis of a successful conviction." Similarly, in Rizwan Khan Vs. State of Chattisgarh (2020) 9 SCC 627 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- "12. It is settled law that the testimony of the official witnesses cannot be rejected on the ground of non-corroboration by independent witness. As observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such non-examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case." 11. We have carefully scrutinized the statements of police witnesses. As far as, the sequence of events that had taken place on the spot have been unanimously narrated by PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-10 in one voice. All these spot witnesses have stated in unison that they had laid a "Nakka" on Kirti road and at about 10:15 P.M. appellant appeared on the spot with a bag in his hand. On suspicion, the bag was searched and charas weighing 1.5 Kgs was recovered. All these witnesses have been subjected to detailed cross-examination but no material could be elicited benefiting defence. In fact, no material contradiction in the statements of all the spot witnesses could be pointed out on behalf of the appellant. The only test to check the veracity of a witness is his cross examination. We have no hesitation to say that all the above spot witnesses have successfully undergone the test of cross-examination. Thus, we do not find any material on record to disbelieve the version given by these witnesses. 12. The contraband after recovery was duly sealed and seized vide seizure memo Ext. We have no hesitation to say that all the above spot witnesses have successfully undergone the test of cross-examination. Thus, we do not find any material on record to disbelieve the version given by these witnesses. 12. The contraband after recovery was duly sealed and seized vide seizure memo Ext. PW-1/B. There is nothing on record to suggest that the recovery and seized contraband were ever tampered with. The placement of the case property in a "Malkhana" for safe custody without undue delay has been proved. The transit of case property from "Malkhana" to SFSL Junga has also been proved to have been conducted in safe manner. Perusal of the contents of "Rukka" Ext. PW-3/A, FIR Ext. PW-3/B and special report Ext. PW-4/A strengthens the case of prosecution as the required procedure were followed with promptitude and further there was nothing on record to entertain any suspicion regarding the execution or contents etc. of these documents. The laboratory report Ext. PX confirms the recovered substance to be "Cannabis" besides its weight and shape etc. as described in seizure memo Ext. PW-1/B. 13. Another unsuccessful attempt has been made by learned counsel for the appellant to discredit the prosecution case by inviting our attention towards photograph Ext. PW2/A-2. As per him, the kind of weighing scale visible in the photograph is not usually available with the police and this proves that the police have brought this weighing scale from nearby shop and thus the independent witnesses could also be easily associated. We do not find any substance in this argument also as there is no rule that provides that the police station cannot have traditional type of weighing scale as shown in photograph i.e PW-2/A-2. However, the defence could have discharged this burden by leading cogent evidence. No inference can be drawn from assumptions in a criminal trial. 14. In light of above discussion, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.