JUDGMENT : SATYEN VAIDYA, J. 1. By way of instant appeal, appellant has assailed judgment and sentence dated 28.11.2017 passed by learned Special Judge-II (Additional Sessions Judge), Kullu, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 23 of 2016, whereby appellant has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for short ‘NDPS Act’) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One lac) and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. The facts on which the case of prosecution rested are that on 28.12.2015, a police party headed by HC Jamal Deen (PW-8) left Police Station, Kullu at about 9.57 P.M. for routine patrol duty in official Vehicle No. HP-33A-9986. (PW-8), HC Jamal Deen was accompanied by HHC Shyam Dass (PW-6) C. Mahesh Kumar (PW-7) and C. Sunil Mahant, driver of the official vehicle. At about 10.45 PM, near place ‘Bhutnath Bridge’ the police party noticed a person coming from footpath side carrying a bag in his hand. On noticing the presence of police party, the said person turned back and tried to run away from the spot after throwing the bag carried by him on the ground. The police party apprehended the said person, i.e. the appellant. On inquiry, appellant disclosed his name as Noop Ram. He, however, could not satisfactorily explain his conduct regarding getting rid of bag carried by him. Thus, the police party entertained suspicion against him. (PW-7) C. Mahesh Kumar sent to bring some independent witness, but he failed to procure any such witness. (PW-8) HC Jamal Deen then associated (PW-6) HHC Shyam Dass and (PW-7) C. Mahesh Kumar as witnesses and the bag of the appellant was searched in which another green coloured carry bag was found tied with a knot. On opening of said bag, stick shaped black coloured substance was found wrapped in wrapper, which was discovered to be the contraband i.e. Charas. On weighing, the recovered Charas was found to be 1 Kg. 600 Grams. On opening of said bag, stick shaped black coloured substance was found wrapped in wrapper, which was discovered to be the contraband i.e. Charas. On weighing, the recovered Charas was found to be 1 Kg. 600 Grams. The recovered Charas was again placed in green carry bag along with polythene wrapper and were put inside the carry bag, which further was placed in a cloth parcel and such parcel was sealed by nine seals carrying impression-A. Facsimile of seal impression was preserved on a separate piece of cloth Ext.PW-6/A. NCB form was filled by (PW-8) HC Jamal Deen. Recovery memo Ext.PW-6/B was prepared. “Rukka” Ext.PW-7/A after preparation was sent to Police Station by (PW-8) HC Jamal Deen through (PW-7) C. Mahesh Kumar for registration of FIR. Accordingly, FIR Ext.PW-7/B was registered. Appellant was formally arrested. (PW-8) HC Jamal Deen on his return to Police Station handed over the recovered contraband in sealed packet to SHO/Inspector Anil Kumar (PW-9) who re-sealed the packet with six seals carrying impression-D. Facsimile of seal impression was separately preserved on a piece of cloth. NCB form was completed. The sealed contraband with necessary documents were handed over to MHC for safe deposit in “Malkhana.” On 30.12.2015, special report under Section 57 was sent to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Kullu, who after receipt of such report, directed the same to be placed in official records. On 06.01.2016 contraband was sent to SFSL, Junga for chemical analysis, which was opined to be Charas. The challan was prepared and the appellant was tried. 3. The prosecution examined total nine witnesses. PW-6 HHC Shyam Dass, PW-7 C. Mahesh Kumar and PW-8 HC Jamal Deen were examined as spot witnesses. PW-9 Inspector Anil Kumar was examined to prove the registration of FIR on receipt of “Rukka” Ext PW-7/A at Police Station and also to prove re-sealing process undertaken by the said witness before handing over the contraband for safe custody to MHC. HC Nirat Singh (PW-1) was examined to prove the receipt of special report in the office of Additional Superintendent of Police, Kullu on 30.12.2015 at 11.00 A.M. (PW-2) HC Gajender Pal was examined to prove the receipt, safe custody and transit etc. of the contraband during investigation and trial. (PW-3) C. Karamzor Negi was examined to prove the transit of contraband along with FSL opinion from SFSL, Junga to Police Station. of the contraband during investigation and trial. (PW-3) C. Karamzor Negi was examined to prove the transit of contraband along with FSL opinion from SFSL, Junga to Police Station. (PW-4) C. Yash Pal was examined to prove the transit of contraband from Police Station to SFSL, Junga on 06.01.2016 and its safe custody during the period it remained with him. (PW-5) C. Tek Chand was examined to prove the DDR No. 35 dated 28.12.2015 Ext.PW-5/A and DDR No. 2 dated 29.12.2015 Ext.PW-5/B. 4. The appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He did not choose to lead defence evidence. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case carefully. 6. The impugned judgment has been challenged mainly on the ground that despite availability of independent witnesses, none was examined casting serious doubt on the prosecution story. In addition, it has been stated on behalf of the appellant that there are material contradictions and serious infirmities in the statements of the prosecution witnesses which renders the alleged recovery and seizure of contraband highly suspicious. The conviction of appellant is stated to be without any legal evidence on record. 7. Mr. Kamal Kant, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State, on the other hand, has supported the impugned judgment of conviction recorded against the appellant. It has been stated that the testimonies of police witnesses inspire confidence and hence conviction was justifiable even in absence of independent witnesses. It is also submitted that though the Investigating Officer had made attempt to secure presence of independent witnesses, but could not succeed due to late hours of night. 8. In the first instance, we may deal with appellant’s argument regarding non-association of independent witnesses despite availability and its effect on the outcome of the case. 9. (PW-6) HHC Shyam Dass in his cross-examination admitted that Bus-stand was at a walking distance of one minute from the spot. He also admitted that there were few houses existing in the vicinity of the place where the recovery was effected. He also admitted that the proceedings were conducted on the main road. PW-7 HC Mahesh Kumar in his cross-examination stated that they were on the main Highway and the spot of occurrence was at a distance of 4-5 meters from the Highway. He also admitted that the proceedings were conducted on the main road. PW-7 HC Mahesh Kumar in his cross-examination stated that they were on the main Highway and the spot of occurrence was at a distance of 4-5 meters from the Highway. According to him, the place of occurrence was at a walking distance of 10 minutes from the bus stand. Bhutnath temple was adjacent to the spot. He, however, denied the existence of houses of residents in the vicinity. It was, however, clarified that the houses were situated at a distance of 10-20 meters. It was also stated by this witness that he did not visit any house in search of independent witnesses, he rather went towards Akhara Bazar in search of the witnesses. (PW-8) HC Jamal Deen also admitted existence of Bhutnath temple and sewerage treatment plant near the spot and existence of bus stand near the place of recovery was also not denied. 10. In light of above material on record, it cannot be said that the place from where the recovery was alleged to have been effected was totally secluded. The said place, atleast was not far away from the town. No serious attempt appears to have been made to procure the presence of independent witnesses. (PW-7) HC Mahesh Kumar has made a vague statement that he went towards Akhara Bazar in search of witnesses. He has not been categoric as to which place he visited and under what circumstances he failed to procure the presence of independent witnesses. 11. It is settled that where the stringent procedure in cases attracting severe punishments is involved, the prosecution evidence has to be scanned minutely in order to check and test its genuineness and veracity. In Hanif Khan alias Annu Khan vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics, (2020) 16 SCC 709, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “8. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. The prosecution under the N.D.P.S. Act carries a reverse burden of proof with a culpable mental state of the accused. He is presumed to be guilty consequent to recovery of contraband from him, and it is for the Accused to establish his innocence unlike the normal Rule of criminal jurisprudence that an Accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty. He is presumed to be guilty consequent to recovery of contraband from him, and it is for the Accused to establish his innocence unlike the normal Rule of criminal jurisprudence that an Accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty. But that does not absolve the prosecution from establishing a prima facie case only whereafter the burden shifts to the accused. In Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417 , it was observed as follows: “58. Sections 35 and 54 of the Act, no doubt, raise presumptions with regard to the culpable mental state on the part of the Accused as also place the burden of proof in this behalf on the accused; but a bare perusal of the said provision would clearly show that presumption would operate in the trial of the Accused only in the event the circumstances contained therein are fully satisfied. An initial burden exists upon the prosecution and only when it stands satisfied, would the legal burden shift. Even then, the standard of proof required for the Accused to prove his innocence is not as high as that of the prosecution. Whereas the standard of proof required to prove the guilt of the Accused on the prosecution is “beyond all reasonable doubt” but it is “preponderance of probability” on the accused. If the prosecution fails to prove the foundational facts so as to attract the rigours of Section 35 of the Act, the actus reus which is possession of contraband by the Accused cannot be said to have been established.” 9. Because there is a reverse burden of proof, the prosecution shall be put to a stricter test for compliance with statutory provisions. If at any stage, the Accused is able to create a reasonable doubt, as a part of his defence, to rebut the presumption of his guilt, the benefit will naturally have to go to him.” 12. Simultaneously it is also settled that mere absence of non-association of independent witnesses will not be fatal to the prosecution case. However, in such circumstance it is called upon the Courts to assess the version of available prosecution witnesses on record more minutely in order to negate the possibility of any foul play or mischief. 13. In Raveen Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 12 Scale 138 , it has been held as under: “19. However, in such circumstance it is called upon the Courts to assess the version of available prosecution witnesses on record more minutely in order to negate the possibility of any foul play or mischief. 13. 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. However, such omissions cast an added duty on Courts to adopt a greaterdegree of care while scrutinising the testimonies of the police officers, which if found reliable can form the basis of a successful conviction.” 14. Keeping in view the above legal position, we now proceed to scan the prosecution evidence. The powers of this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 386 Cr.P.C. includes power to look into the evidence for the purpose of re-appreciation. 15. PW-6 HHC Shyam Dass, PW-7 HC Mahesh Kumar and PW-8 HC Jamal Deen are the persons, who were the spot witnesses. PW-6 HHC Shyam Dass and PW-7 HC Mahesh Kumar, as a matter of fact, have been associated as witnesses of recovery in absence of independent witnesses. PW-6 HHC Shyam Dass in his deposition before the Court has stated that on 28.12.2015, he along with PW-7 HC Mahesh Kumar, PW-8 HC Jamal Deen and driver Sunil Mahant were on patrol duty at “Bhutnath bridge” on the left bank of Kullu town. At about 10.45 P.M., they noticed a person coming from footpath side approaching the road. As soon as the appellant noticed the police party, he tried to run away from the spot and threw a carry bag carried by him in his hand. The bag thrown by the appellant had marking “21” on it. The police party overpowered the appellant. Suspicion was entertained against him as the appellant failed to give any satisfactory answer about his conduct in trying to flee away from the spot. C. Mahesh Kumar was deputed to bring independent witnesses, but on account of non-availability, he came back after some time. PW-6 and PW-7 were associated as witnesses and in their presence the bag thrown by the appellant was searched. A green coloured carry bag was found inside the bag which contained Charas. The recovered Charas was weighed and was found 1 kg. 600 grams. PW-6 and PW-7 were associated as witnesses and in their presence the bag thrown by the appellant was searched. A green coloured carry bag was found inside the bag which contained Charas. The recovered Charas was weighed and was found 1 kg. 600 grams. The contraband was again placed in the green coloured carry bag which was kept in the bag carried by the appellant in his hand. This bag was finally placed in a cloth parcel which was sealed with nine seals with impression-A. Sample seal was taken on a separate piece of cloth Ext.PW-6/A which was signed by this witness besides PW-7 Mahesh Kumar and appellant Noop Ram. Sample seal was handed over to him. NCB form, in triplicate, was filled by PW-8 HC Jamal Deen. The recovered contraband along with NCB form, in triplicate, and sample seal were taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW-6/B which was signed by him besides PW-7 Mahesh Kumar and appellant Noop Ram. Spot map was prepared by PW-8 HC Jamal Deen. Memo Ext.PW-6/C regarding identification of contraband was prepared. Arrest memo Ext.PW-6/D was also prepared by the Investigating Officer and signed by him. 16. In cross-examination of PW-6, nothing substantial benefitting the appellant has been elicited, save and except that the place of recovery was not secluded so as to prevent the possibility of availability of any independent witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant by referring to certain portions of cross-examination of witness PW-6 has advanced an argument that those were in contradiction with the statements of other spot witnesses PW-7 and PW-8. These contradictions, however, are only with respect to the exact positioning of the spot of recovery, which in our considered view is not so material to have effect on the final outcome of the case. The fact of the matter remains that all the spot witnesses i.e. PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8 were in unison regarding the spot of recovery to be near the Bhutnath bridge. Perusal of spot map Ext.PW-8/A reveals that the Bhutnath bridge, over river Beas, links road leading from bus stand Kullu to the road on the left bank of river Beas connecting Manali and Bhunter. Keeping in view the spot position as shown in the spot map which has remained un-rebutted, the minor discrepancies as to the place of exact recovery can be ignored. Keeping in view the spot position as shown in the spot map which has remained un-rebutted, the minor discrepancies as to the place of exact recovery can be ignored. The spot position as shown in spot map Ext.PW-8/A has not been disputed on behalf of the appellant by cross-examining PW-8 HC Jamal Deen in respect thereof. None of other witnesses PW-6 and PW-7 have been confronted with this document, therefore, the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant deserves to be rejected. 17. PW-7 and PW-8 have materially corroborated each other. We have not been able to find any material contradictions in their statements nor have the same been pointed to us on behalf of the appellant. 18. The departure of police party including PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8 from Police Station, Kullu on the night of 28.12.2015 was duly proved as Ext.PW-5/A, DDR No. 35, recorded at Police Station, Kullu at 9.57 P.M. was duly proved. The recovery of contraband weighing 1 kg. 600 grams. was also proved by the statements of PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8. No explanation has come forward from appellant as to why he was on the spot of recovery at relevant time and what was the probable cause of his false implication if any. As noticed above, in Hanif Khan (supra), it has been held that in a case under the NDPS Act, reverse burden applies. Once the prosecution discharges its initial burden, it is for the accused to explain, though the standard of proof for both is different. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, whereas the accused has only to probabilize his defence. However, we find that no specific defence except general denial has been taken by the appellant. 19. The necessary procedure as required under the NDPS Act has also been found to be adopted. The recovery memo Ext.PW-6/B was prepared after the recovery. NCB form was partially filled on the spot by the Investigating Officer PW-8 HC Jamal Deen. FIR was registered. The recovered contraband in sealed packet was produced before the SHO, Police Station, Kullu, who after satisfying himself re-sealed the same. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the contraband was tampered with at any stage. NCB form was partially filled on the spot by the Investigating Officer PW-8 HC Jamal Deen. FIR was registered. The recovered contraband in sealed packet was produced before the SHO, Police Station, Kullu, who after satisfying himself re-sealed the same. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the contraband was tampered with at any stage. The seized contraband was opined to be Charas vide opinion rendered by the SFSL, Junga Ext.PW-2/D. Section 57 of the Act is proved to have been complied with. Ext.PW-1/A was the special report sent by PW-8 to Additional Superintendent of Police, Kullu on 30.12.2015. This document was also proved to have been received by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Kullu vide endorsement Ext.PW1/C and extract of relevant register Ext.PW-1/B. 20. On the analysis of the material on record, we don’t find sufficient material to infer that the police has falsely implicated the appellant. The depositions made by the police witnesses especially PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8 are reliable and trustworthy as they corroborate each other on material aspect of the matter. 21. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.