JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. By way of instant appeal, State of Himachal Pradesh has assailed the judgment dated 20.5.2011, passed by learned Special Judge (Fast Track Court) Solan, in case No. 18 FTC/7 of 2010, whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charge under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (for short the Act). 2. The case as set up by the prosecution against the respondents was that on 16.1.2010, police officials namely SI Rattan Singh, ASI Krishan Chand, HHC Bihari Lal and C. Gargesh Kumar of Police Station CID, Shimla left Shimla for patrol duty at 8.05 A.M. in official vehicle No.HP-07A-032, driven by driver Rajinder Singh. After visiting the places like Nohradhar and Rajgarh etc. in District Sirmour, on way back at about 5.30 P.M. the police party stopped one vehicle (Mahindra Bolero) bearing registration No.HP-01A-1901 for checking near place ‘Nauni’ in District Solan. All the four accused were found occupying the vehicle. SI Rattan Singh carried checking of the vehicle and found one polythene bag lying in between the occupants of front bench of the vehicle and another backpack lying in between the occupants on the rear seat of the vehicle. The polythene bag as well as the backpack found in the vehicle contained charas. The total quantity of charas recovered from both the bags was weighed and found 9 kg 700 grams. 3. Identification memo in respect of recovered substance Ext. PW-1/A was prepared. The recovered charas was placed back in the backpack along with the packet found in between of occupants of front bench of the vehicle. The backpack along with articles therein was placed in a white cloth parcel and sealed with six seals having letter “P” inscribed on it. Facsimile of sample seal was obtained and preserved as Ext. PW-1/B. Seizure memo of the contraband as also the documents of the vehicle Ext. PW-1/C was prepared. Columns 1 to 8 of NCB Form Ext. PW-6/B were filled on spot. ‘Rukka’ Ext. PW- 7/A was prepared and was sent along with other seized articles and NCB Form to Police Station, CID Shimla through PW-5 Constable Gargesh Kumar. FIR Ext. PW- 6/A was registered. Resealing procedure was carried by HPW-6 Inspector Lal Singh. Resealing certificate Ext. PW-6/C was prepared. PW-6/B were filled on spot. ‘Rukka’ Ext. PW- 7/A was prepared and was sent along with other seized articles and NCB Form to Police Station, CID Shimla through PW-5 Constable Gargesh Kumar. FIR Ext. PW- 6/A was registered. Resealing procedure was carried by HPW-6 Inspector Lal Singh. Resealing certificate Ext. PW-6/C was prepared. The contraband along with other seized articles, NCB Form and sample seals were deposited with MHC Prakash Chand (PW-7), who made the relevant entries in Malkhana Register Ext. PW-7/B. 4. On 18.1.2010, PW-9 SI Rattan Singh prepared Special Report Ext. PW-3/A and sent the same to Superintendent of Police (CID) Shimla through PW-4 Constable Govind Singh which was received in the office of Superintendent of Police (CID) Shimla by PW-3 Constable Naginder Kumar and presented before Superintendent of Police (CID) Shimla on the same date. 5. On 18.1.2010, MHC Prakash Chand PW-7 dispatched the contraband along with related material to SFSL, Junga through PW-8 HC Devinder Kumar. After chemical examination, the SFSL Junga prepared its report Ext. PW-9/L and the sample examined was found to be that of Charas (Cannabis). 6. Site map Ext. PW-9/B was prepared. All the respondents were arrested vide arrest memos Ext. PW-9/C to PW-9/F. 7. On completion of investigation report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented. All the respondents were charged for offence under Section 20 of the Act. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined total 9 witnesses besides proving on record various documents. Respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They also examined one witness in defence and proved documents Ext. DW-1/A and DW-1/B i.e. rough site map of the area and a certificate showing distance from D.C. Office Chowk Solan to place known as Dharja. Learned Special Judge acquitted all the respondents of the charges framed against them, hence this appeal. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 9. Mr. Navlesh Verma learned Additional Advocate General contended that the prosecution had been able to prove the charges against the respondents beyond all reasonable doubts and their acquittal by the learned Special Judge was wholly unwarranted and unjustified. It was submitted that the learned Special Judge has gravely Herred in holding that there were contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, whereas none could be pointed out. It was submitted that the learned Special Judge has gravely Herred in holding that there were contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, whereas none could be pointed out. He urged that benefit of non examination of independent witnesses has wrongly been granted to the respondents. Since, it was a case of chance recovery, there was no requirement to examine independent witnesses. Challenge has also been made to the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned Special Judge has given precedence to minor embellishments in the prosecution case which were not material. 10. After going through the statements of prosecution witnesses and the documents placed on record, we are of considered view that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge needs no interference for the reasons detailed hereinafter. 11. It is well settled that the cases attracting stringent procedures and severe punishment require more circumspection and scrupulousness in examination of prose cution evidence in order to check and test its genuineness and veracity. In Hanif Khan @ Annu Khan vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics, 2020 (16) SCC 709, the Hon’ble Supreme has observed as under:- “8. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. The prosecution under the NDPS 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. But that does not absolve the prosecution from establishing a prima facie case only whereafter the burden shifts to the accused. In Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, 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 sfaid provision would clearly show that presumption would operate in the trial of the accused only in the event the circumstances contained ttherein are fully satisfied. An initial burden exists upon the prosecution and only when it stands satisfied, would the legal burden shift. 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 g accused. If the prosecution fails to prove the foundational facts so as to attract the rigours of H 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. It is equally well settled that mere absence or non association of independent witness is not fatal to the prosecution case. However, in such circumstances, it is called upon the courts to assess the versions of available prosecution witnesses more minutely in order to negate the possibility of any fuel play or mischief. 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 scrutinising the htestimonies of the police officers, which if found reliable can form the basis of a successful conviction”. 13. Reverting to the facts of the case, prosecution has examined PW-1 ASI Krishan Chand, PW-2 HHC Bihari Lal, PW-5 Constable Gargesh Kumar and PW-9 SI Rattan Singh as spot witnesses. Admittedly no independent witness was associated by the police. As per prosecution story, the respondents were apprehended at about 5.30 P.M. at some place between ‘Nauni’ and ‘Giripul’ in District Solan. Though, the place where recovery of contraband was allegedly effected is shown to be a secluded place but undeniably the alleged spot of recovery is on Solan-Rajgarh State Highway, which is a busy road with regular traffic plying thereon. Though, the place where recovery of contraband was allegedly effected is shown to be a secluded place but undeniably the alleged spot of recovery is on Solan-Rajgarh State Highway, which is a busy road with regular traffic plying thereon. It also cannot be ignored that the time of alleged recovery was not such when the police could not have been able to secure independent witness. Admittedly, the police party had been on patrol duty to detect cases of violation of Excise Act and NDPS Act, as is evident from GD Entry 7A Ext. PW-9/K. None of the spot witnesses except PW-9 SI Rattan Singh had stated that any effort was made to associate independent witness. PW-9 SI Rattan Singh when confronted in cross-examination had stated that he had made efforts to associate independent Hwitness but there was no residential house nearby. He had made search of independent witness only for 4-5 minutes. As noticed above, such statement of PW-9 has not been supported or corroborated by any other spot witnesses. 14. It has come in evidence that in between ‘Nauni’ and ‘Giripul’, there are other villages having few shops each. Even ‘Nauni’ and ‘Giripul’ were not far off from the place of alleged recovery. Strangely, all the spot witnesses tried to feign ignorance about the localities, villages or towns near the place of incidence. Their conduct gives rise to suspicion, as they had travelled from the same road earlier in the day and it was on their way back that the recovery of contraband was allegedly made. 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 and hence the police was unable to secure independent witnesses. Rather, there is no convincing material to suggest that any effort was made to assoc iate any independent witness. 15. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, non association of independent witness though cannot be said to be fatal but definitely can be considered as a circumstance sufficient to view the prosecution story with some doubt. 16. Additionally, it can be seen that the records as produced in evidence by the prosecution were not truthful. Serious discrepancies in records have remained totally unexplained. Rather, the prosecution witnesses have tried to suppress the truth. Columns No. 1 to 8 of NCB Form Ext. 16. Additionally, it can be seen that the records as produced in evidence by the prosecution were not truthful. Serious discrepancies in records have remained totally unexplained. Rather, the prosecution witnesses have tried to suppress the truth. Columns No. 1 to 8 of NCB Form Ext. PW-6/B were allegedly filled by PW-9, SI Rattan Singh on spot. Visibly, the entry against column No.5 of Ext. PW- 6/B was interpolated after using white fluid and said fact was admitted by PW-9 without rendering any explanation. As per PW-9, facsimile of seal “P” was taken on NCB form, however, perusal of document reveals that apart from three facsimiles of seal “P”, another facsimile of letter “T” is found inscribed on Ext. PW-6/B and again when PW-9 was confronted with such fact, he had not been able to explain the incongruity. 17. ‘Rukka’ Ext. PW-7/A was purportedly prepared by PW-9 on the spot at 7.00 P.M. and thereafter was sent along with seized articles to Police Station at Shimla through PW-5 Constable Gargesh Kumar. It is mentioned in the ‘Rukka’ Ext. PW-7/A that the same was being sent through fax besides by hand through PW-5. In the entire prosecution evidence, no explanation has been submitted whether the fax message was sent or not. In case the ‘Rukka’ was sent through fax, the FIR should have been registered earlier on the basis of such fax message. The above fact can be examined in light of another fact on the record that the FIR was eventually registered at 10.30 P.M. and the respondents had been arrested vide arrest memo Ext. PW-9/C to PW-9/F at 9.15 P.M. which again give rise to doubt as their could not have been formal arrest of all the respondents without registration of the case. 18. As per PW-5, he had reached at Police Station CID, Shimla along with Rukka and seized articles at about 10.30 P.M. on 16.1.2010. Rukka was handed over by him to MHC PW-7, who had registered the FIR. The seized articles were handed over to PW-6 Inspector Lal Singh, who firstly carried the resealing procedure and thereafter handed over the seized articles to PW-7 MHC Prakash Chand for safe deposit in ‘Malkhana’. PW-7 MHC Prakash Chand also stated that the seized articles were deposited with him by Inspector Lal Singh after resealing proceedings. To the same effect has been the version of PW-6 Inspector Lal Singh. PW-7 MHC Prakash Chand also stated that the seized articles were deposited with him by Inspector Lal Singh after resealing proceedings. To the same effect has been the version of PW-6 Inspector Lal Singh. However, the documents placed on record belied their stands. Prosecution placed reliance on a copy of relevant extract of ‘Malkhana’ Register Ext. PW-7/B. PW-7 MHC Prakash Chand while appearing as witness had brought the original Malkhana Register also. On comparison of the contents of PW-7/B with original, it transpired that both were different in material particulars and even interpolations were carried in the original. Learned Special Judge had got prepared a photocopy of the original produced in the Court and allowed its placement on record as Ext. PW-7/B-1. The comparison of both reveals that in PW-7/B, PW-5 Constable Gargesh Kumar was shown to have deposited the articles with MHC whereas the document Ext. PW-7/B-1 reveals that certain words were added later to show that the articles were hand ed over by PW-6 Inspector Lal Singh. In Ext. PW-7/B, the time of deposit was recorded as 11.00 P.M. whereas in PW-7/B-1, time had been changed to 10.30 P.M. Further, Hin column Nos. 5 to 8 on Ext. PW-7/B-1 there were entries and affixation of stamps along with signatures of the police officials whereas no such entries, stamps or signatures were found in the corresponding columns of Ext. PW-7/B. PW-7 MHC Prakash Chand admitted in his cross-examination that there were additions and interpolations in the original Malkhana Register. None of the police officials including PW-7 had rendered any explanation for such material discrepancies in the record. 19. The investigating officer PW-9 stated that he had obtained Ext. PW-7/B from MHC before filing of challan, which fact was also corroborated by MHC PW-7. It being so, the interpolations and changes made in official records that too related with criminal investigation for a serious offence needs to be viewed seriously and with suspicion. 20. The fact that all the spot witnesses have feigned ignorance about the exact spot position and its vicinity also gives rise to suspicion in prosecution story. PW-1 had admitted that the sun had not set at the time when the recovery was effected. In such circumstances, the spot Hwitnesses could not be unaware about surrounding of the area, especially when the place of alleged recovery was on a busy state highway. PW-1 had admitted that the sun had not set at the time when the recovery was effected. In such circumstances, the spot Hwitnesses could not be unaware about surrounding of the area, especially when the place of alleged recovery was on a busy state highway. The State University of Horticulture and Forestry is situated at ‘Nauni’. The area in question is otherwise well connected and inhabited as suggested by documents DW-1/A and DW-1/B. 21. When the sealed parcel containing contraband was opened in the Court, two extra packets/ envelopes were found inside the sealed backpack. These articles nowhere found mention during the entire investigation. Thus, it again remained unexplained as to how the additional articles could found their way into a sealed parcel containing contraband seized by the police. 22. Another fact that cannot be ignored is the unexplained entries against columns No. 8 and 9 in NCB Form Ext. PW-6/B. PW-6 Inspector Lal Singh disowned said entries and had tried to explain that those were made by the MHC whereas PW-7 MHC Prakash Chand nowhere state d that such entries were incorporated by him. In NCB form, Ext. PW-6/B as also in resealing certificate Ext. PW-6/C, the time of deposit of seized articles with MHC Hhas been mentioned as 11.15 P.M. which again contradicts the already discrepant entries in Ext. PW-7/B or PW-7/B-1 wherein the time of deposit was 10.30 PM or as changed to 11 PM. 23. In aforesaid backgrounds, the prosecution cannot be said to have discharged the heavy burden carried by it to prove the charges against the respondents beyond all reasonable doubts. The various facts as noticed above are sufficient to create serious doubt in the prosecution case and thus, the respondents are entitled to every benefit. 24. In result, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Record be sent back forthwith.