JUDGMENT : 1. The appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 28.03.2014, passed by the court of learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, whereby the respondent-accused was acquitted of the charges framed against him under Sections 8/20 NDPS Act. 2. The case of the appellant-complainant before the trial court was that the reliable information was received from a source by PW-Dheeraj Nagpal (complainant) that Chaman Lal-accused in the complaint, wearing blue track trousers and gray pullovers is to supply a consignment of two to three kilograms of charas to some unknown person on 10.12.2008 at around 1600/1700 hours at Narwal/Rajiv Nagar Chowk near auto stand. This information was provided by the complainant to the Zonal Director, Narcotics Control Bureau Unit, Jammu and consequently the naka was laid by the Narcotics Bureau led by the complainant. The case put up by the complainant was that on 10.12.2008 at about 4.40 PM an auto bearing registration No. JK02AE-0691 driven by the accused was intercepted and 2.100 KG of substance which was dark brown covered with maize leaves was recovered under the driver seat of the auto. Two so called independent witnesses were also stated to have been associated during the operation conducted by the Narcotics Bureau. The substance was seized, sealed and sent to CRCL, New Delhi for analysis and found to be charas on the analysis. After completion of the investigation, the complaint came to be filed in the court of law. As the accused denied the charges framed against him under Sections 8/20 NDPS Act, the complainant was directed to produce evidence in support of its case. The statements of the witnesses produced by the complainant shall be referred to by the court at this stage of the discussion. 3. PW-1 Dheeraj Nagpal, complainant, has deposed about the information received regarding the consignment to be carried by the accused, Chaman Lal, of 2/3 Kgs of charas for supplying at Narwal and the information having been forwarded to Zonal Director marked as ExPW-DN. It is further deposed that Ajay Kumar and Kashmir Nath were called as independent witnesses in the case. The naka was laid at Narwal and at about 4.40 PM the auto bearing No. JK02AE-0691 which was being driven by the accused was stopped. Nothing was recovered from the person of the accused. It is further deposed that Ajay Kumar and Kashmir Nath were called as independent witnesses in the case. The naka was laid at Narwal and at about 4.40 PM the auto bearing No. JK02AE-0691 which was being driven by the accused was stopped. Nothing was recovered from the person of the accused. The auto was searched and under the seat of the driver, pink colour polythene bag was recovered and on its opening some contraband was found wrapped in maze leaves. The witness has then deposed of the weight of the contraband as 2.100 KG and the recovery memo prepared of the same including of auto is marked as ExPW-NR1. The witness has also stated of the notice given to the accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and recording of his statement exhibited as Ext-P3. As per the witness, one part of the sample marked as A-1 was forwarded to CRCL, New Delhi for analysis. In cross-examination the witness has deposed that the witnesses were not known to him and then states that PW-Ajay Kumar met him at Jewel and the said witness used to occasionally visit the office. The FSL report confirms the presence of TSC contents to the extent of 6.3%. The proceedings culminated by 10 PM and the accused was arrested. There is no precedence in the Bureau to prepare the site plan of the place of occurrence. PW-Ajay Kumar was not employed in the Bureau is also stated by the witness. 4. PW-2 Nathu Ram Sharma who was superintendent in the department in the year 2008 has deposed more or less in tune with the statement of the complainant during examination-in-chief. In cross- examination the witness has deposed that the application given by Nagpal had the registration number of the auto and also of the carrier which was forwarded by Nagpal but the application on the file does not mention of auto or its number and only states of auto stand. As per the witness, PW-Kashmir Nath was brought from auto stand of Rajiv Chowk. The witness has also stated that PW-Ajay Kumar was working temporarily in his office and used to occasionally visit the office. The samples received in the office were not got re-sealed from the Magistrate. The charas seized and the seal used remained under his custody. 5. As per the witness, PW-Kashmir Nath was brought from auto stand of Rajiv Chowk. The witness has also stated that PW-Ajay Kumar was working temporarily in his office and used to occasionally visit the office. The samples received in the office were not got re-sealed from the Magistrate. The charas seized and the seal used remained under his custody. 5. PW-3 Sanjeev Chandel also deposes of intercepting auto bearing No. JK02AE-0691 at Narwal Chowk and recovery of polythene bag containing some substance wrapped in maze leaves. The witness has recorded the statements of the accused and witnesses as per the directions of Dheeraj Nagpal and they are exhibited as P3, P3/1 and P3/2 respectively. In cross-examination the witness has stated that large number of people had gathered on the spot. Ajay Kumar and Kashmir Nath were not known to him before occurrence. The bars were weighed in his presence after the maze leaves were removed from them. He was not witness to the sealing of the charas nor is known to him if the auto was seized. The witness was not shown the seized contraband in the court. 6. PW-4 M.M.S Bhandari also member of the naka team deposes of interception of the auto and recovery of charas from the driver seat of the auto. He claims to have met PW-Ajay Kumar for the first time on the day of occurrence. The documents were prepared in the office after the accused was caught on spot. When the information was received he knew of the involvement of the auto. 7. PW-5 Ajay Kumar has stated in his deposition that he was working in the kitchen in the year 2008 when the accused was caught by the NCB. The witness was declared hostile as he claimed that he did not visit the spot and nothing was recovered in his presence. The witness denies being witness to the recovery-cum-seizure memo though identifies his signatures on the same. The witness denies that his statement was recorded. As per the witness, he worked as a office attendant with the Bureau during those days. The witness shows his ignorance of the contents of the documents on which his signatures were obtained. 8. PW-6 Kashmir Nath has also been declared hostile and nothing positive came out from the witness when cross-examined. 9. As per the witness, he worked as a office attendant with the Bureau during those days. The witness shows his ignorance of the contents of the documents on which his signatures were obtained. 8. PW-6 Kashmir Nath has also been declared hostile and nothing positive came out from the witness when cross-examined. 9. PW-8 Abhay Raj Singh also speaks of the recovery of the charas from the auto driven by the accused. He has delivered the sample of the seized article at CRCL and obtained receipt of the same, marked as AS. No other witness was produced by the complainant in support of his case. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances that appeared in the prosecution evidence when examined under Section 342 Cr.P.C. The accused did not produce any evidence in defense. 10. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned ASGI has argued that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence produced by the prosecution and ignored vital aspects of the same while acquitting the respondent-accused. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the trial court has not erred in acquitting the accused. The evidence produced by the appellant before the trial court was shaky one and did not inspire confidence in the court. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond shadow of doubt against the accused. The judgment of the trial court requires no interference in the appeal. 11. The reliable information received by the complainant, PW-Dheeraj Nagpal on 10.12.2008 about the accused driving the auto and carrying the charas to the tune of 2/3 kg, as reflected in the complaint, was addressed to the Zonal Director of NCB and thereafter the team was constituted to lay trap of the accused. Significantly, the source information which was forwarded to the Zonal Director, NCB Unit, Jammu in writing refers to the name of the accused and the supply of consignment of 2/3 kg of charas to some unknown person on 10.12.2008 itself at about 1600/1700 hours at Narwal/Rajiv Nagar Chowk, Near auto stand and the same is exhibited as ExPW-DN. The complaint filed by the complainant mentions of auto bearing No. JK02AE-0691 in which the accused was supposed to come to the scheduled place where the charas was to be delivered. The complaint filed by the complainant mentions of auto bearing No. JK02AE-0691 in which the accused was supposed to come to the scheduled place where the charas was to be delivered. The information does not mention of the auto or the auto registration number in which the accused was supposed to travel and deliver the consignment at Rajiv Chowk on 10.12.2008 at about 4/5 PM. The very fact that the information which was forwarded to the Zonal Director does not contain or mention the particulars of the auto itself creates doubt of the manner in which the occurrence is stated to have taken place. If there is no mention in the information of the registration number of the auto in which the accused was expected to reach Rajiv Chowk then how come the Naka party led by the complainant could identify the person who was supposed to deliver the charas to some unknown person. It is not that the accused was apprehended because of his attire of which the mention is made in the information ExPW-DN or that the complainant knew the carrier of contraband prior to the occurrence. It is also important to note that the witnesses have not mentioned in their respective statements that the accused was intercepted on the spot due to the identification of the clothes as mentioned in the information docket. It is also relevant to mention herein the statement of PW-2 Nathu Ram Sharma who was posted as Superintendent with the NCB during the occurrence period has stated that the information given by the PW-Dheeraj Nagpal had a mention of the registration number of the auto and the description of the person who was to supply the contraband but the information ExPW-DN which is on record is devoid of the mentioning of the auto and also the registration number of the auto which is supposed to have been searched and seized by the naka party of NCB. As stated above, the aspect of non-mentioning of the auto or its registration number in the information docket ExPW-DN assumes significance and has relevance in the present scenario. The absence of vital particulars in the information ExPW-DN creates dent in the prosecution case. 12. As stated above, the aspect of non-mentioning of the auto or its registration number in the information docket ExPW-DN assumes significance and has relevance in the present scenario. The absence of vital particulars in the information ExPW-DN creates dent in the prosecution case. 12. The complainant has indeed deposed of the manner in which the occurrence has taken place with special reference to the recovery of the charas from the driver seat of the auto driven by the accused on the day of occurrence. Notably the so called independent witnesses, PW-Ajay Kumar and PW-Kashmir Nath have turned hostile towards the prosecution case as they feign their ignorance of the occurrence as tried to be projected by the prosecution in the trial. There is no gainsaying that the statements of the independent witnesses lend more credence to the prosecution case if their statements support the prosecution case. It is not that the hostility of the so called independent witnesses of the prosecution in all circumstances can be said to be fatal for the prosecution case if the other eye witnesses to the occurrence who may be from the department otherwise support unblemishedly the prosecution case. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case as to the weightage which is required to be given to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who belong to the department and are supposed to advance the prosecution case though in the absence of support from independent witnesses before the trial court. The present case is the one where the hostility of the independent witnesses PWs-Ajay Kumar and Kashmir Nath towards prosecution case creates doubt in the mind of the court about the complicity of the accused in the case. At the cost of repetition, the statement of PW-2 Nathu Ram Sharma who was Superintendent of the NCB has also contradicted the statement of the complainant and thus the prosecution case itself when he deposes that the information forwarded to the Zonal Director, NCB did not mention of the auto or its registration number, the base of taking further proceedings in the matter by the complainant. 13. The trial court has analyzed another factor in the prosecution case and that is the status of the so called independent witness, namely, PW-5 Ajay Kumar. 13. The trial court has analyzed another factor in the prosecution case and that is the status of the so called independent witness, namely, PW-5 Ajay Kumar. The prosecution on the one hand acknowledges the said witness to be an employee of the NCB and at the same time also brings him as an independent witness before the witness box. Complainant-PW Dheeraj Nagpal denies as well as acknowledges in the same breath PW-Ajay Kumar of being known to him earlier to the occurrence whereas PW-Nathu Ram Superintendent of NCB Bureau acknowledges PW-Ajay Kumar as temporary employee of office. PW-Ajay Kumar has himself deposed that he was working as attendant in the NCB office at the relevant point of time and this part of the statement has not been challenged by the prosecution during cross-examination of the said PW-Ajay Kumar. It appears from the prosecution evidence that PW-Ajay Kumar though temporary employee of the NCB is tried to be projected by the prosecution as an independent witness in order to lend credence to the search and seizure operation allegedly conducted by NCB party. The corollary to the same is that PW-Ajay Kumar so called independent witness cannot be said to be so though it is a different matter that the witness has otherwise failed to support the prosecution case in any manner. The prosecution has tried to showcase the presence of its own employee PW-Ajay Kumar as an independent witness in the case which only speaks sorry state of affairs of the case. 14. The court is of the considered view that the aforesaid discussion on the above stated aspects is sufficient to hold the case of the prosecution as doubtful one and give benefit of doubt to the accused. It is trite proposition of law, the more is the serious nature of the offence the stricter is the proof which is required to be brought on record by the prosecution before the accused is to be held guilty in the case. 15. The evidence that has been brought on record by the prosecution pertaining to search and seizure of the so called contraband (charas) is concerned, the prosecution witnesses except the independent witnesses have more or less supported the prosecution case. 15. The evidence that has been brought on record by the prosecution pertaining to search and seizure of the so called contraband (charas) is concerned, the prosecution witnesses except the independent witnesses have more or less supported the prosecution case. They have deposed that the auto was stopped by the naka party and the contraband was seized from the driver seat of the auto and then sealing of the recovered article. The alleged article seized is charas cannot be disputed in the light of the report of analyst from CRCL, New Delhi which is on record. There is no doubt that merely because the material sent for analysis is found to be Charas the prosecution on that basis alone cannot be said to have proved its case against the accused. It is only when all the circumstances appearing in the prosecution case are credible that the prosecution can be said to have proved its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt. 16. The statement of the accused has been recorded in terms of Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution cannot take any leverage out of the said confession as the confession given by the accused in terms of Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible in evidence. The same has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Naidu, (2021) 4 SCC 1 . The reliance of the prosecution on the basis of so called confessional statement of the accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act also gets knocked out. 17. The judgment of the trial court acquitting the respondent-accused should not be interfered into by the appellate court unless the judgment is palpably erroneous and the trial court is found to have failed to take crucial aspects of the prosecution evidence. Keeping in view the facts that have been brought on record, this court is of the view that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the respondent-accused beyond shadow of doubt. This court does not find any reason to interfere in the judgment of the trial court whereby the respondent-accused has been acquitted of the charges framed against him. 18. The appeal is without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Record of the trial court be sent back.